46 C O N T E X T 1 3 8 : M A R C H 2 0 1 5 Welcome to new members The following members were voted in at the February 2015 council meeting.Welcome to you all. Full members Owen Barton (NW) Mike Daniells (SW) Sara Davidson (SO) Andrew Fuller (WM) Tim Murphy (LO) Thomas Pearson (LO) Affiliates Melanie Adamson (LO) Fiona Albarracin (NW) Kelly Appleton (YO) Freya Bohea (SW) David Boulton (YO) Jonathan Clarke (LO) Tamsin Cooke (NW) Steve Coyle (YO) Feargal de Buiteléir (SO) Louisa Davidson (WM) Geraldine Delaney (WA) Hettie Dix (SO) Gerry Dolden (EA) Jonathan Downer (LO) Clare Fidler (EA) Nicola Higgins (SE) Ian Holloway (SO) Simon Howard (EA) Ullin Jodah McStea (SW) Dan Jones (WA) Andrew Kenyon (SW) Peter Lloyd (NW) Paul Lucas (SO) Robert Lynch (SW) Paulette McAllister (SE) Kim Miller (YO) Andrew Newman (LO) Alex Oliver (SW) Chris Patrick (WM) Suzanne Pickering (NW) Cath Poucher (SE) Peter Preston (SO) Silvia Rossi (NW) Berta Sanchez Velar (LO) Jo Sanderson (SE) Illán Santos (LO) John Somers (WM) Charlotte Stranks (SE) Frances Swanston (SC) Jenny Timothy (EM) Wendy Tippett (SW) Emily A Tracey (SC) John Tracey-White (LO) HannahWalker (LO) Paul Walters (WA) JeremyWildbore-Hands (LO) FionaWooler (NW) AshleyWynn (SE) research and a linked parliamentary launch failed to deliver the goods we sought, that approach marked the step change in our thinking. Persisting with the ambitions, but with strategies adjusted to circumstances, we are now working on promoting historic tax credits. It is a smaller ambition but, perhaps, in today’s environment, a more realistic one. Such changes do not come without challenges, however, from both inside and outside. It is revealing how often our initiatives respond to specific recognised pressures, even of the most negative sort. It is with some pride, I think, that the IHBC, through its staff, trustees, volunteers, members and the supportive heritage bodies, can say it has resolved some of the biggest challenges in its path. Indeed, it is important to appreciate that approach, as it demonstrates the seriousness with which we take both challengers and challenges. Over previous corporate plans, barriers presumed, and their corresponding resolutions, include: • That the IHBC can not operate interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary standards or controls (we jointly wrote a national occupation standard for conservation, integrated across planning and building control areas; we helped underpin the British Standard, BS 7913, which interjected the cultural focus on ‘significance’ into development priorities, and now we even have our own IHBC-branded copies on sale to members; and we devised an interdisciplinary model, the IHBC’s Conservation Cycle, that allows us not only to test interdisciplinary standards consistently and credibly but, by tying it to traditional areas of practice, also offers a manageable stepped learning and evaluation process now operating under our new associate member category). • That supporting voluntary sector skills might undermine local authority services and, by extension, their capacity. Not only does the sector now appreciate that it needs all the resources it can muster, but we are measuring the benefits of such volunteers, in partnership with the Historic Towns Forum and others, as part of the Oxford University-funded ‘Oxford Project’. • That we can not ‘mainstream’ practice without undermining standards. Ignoring the most important shaping factor on the historic environment, development, can not improve conservation, so it is perhaps not surprising that our TeamStarter learning programme is gaining a wider foothold. It is increasingly supported at the highest levels of Scotland’s heritage policy and practice precisely because it offers a cheap interface for conservation ‘awareness’ in the most unsympathetic development practice. As it also raises both the IHBC’s profile and the practice standards of our members inside mainstream practice, it opens awareness and business opportunities to all our members and their colleagues. • That the IHBC cannot offer independent research as it can only generate outputs supporting its own membership interests.We now have an agreed policy that roots our advocacy – and future standards – in evidence-based research.We will embed that policy in our next corporate plan. As our research objectives focus on conservation outcomes, however much we might hold something dear, if the evidence suggests that it is bad for conservation, we must bow to the evidence and respond accordingly. • That we can not hold online/phone conferences with more than 10 people, an arrangement we need to have in place to progress our IHBC+ plans. That may be true, but we will be trying it out anyway in the coming months. The IHBC’s corporate plan for 2015–20, CP20, under draft at the time of writing, is drawing up its own list of new challenges, informed by membership surveys and feedback.We are building into the plan a monitoring programme. This will ensure that it remains as the tool our members want and need, keeping you at the collective heart of our decision-making processes. You should have seen the drafts by the time you read this, so do feel free to highlight to your representatives and officers all of your concerns, challenges and ambitions. Across all that, though, our great ambition will be to maintain our services and achievements, while also addressing ever more challenges. Although we will seek a more accessible strapline for CP20, in the context of all of these considerations, for our most engaged members that slogan might well be: ‘Do more; lose nothing’. Seán O’Reilly, director@ihbc.org.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=