C O N T E X T 1 3 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 5 35 Of the less successful examples of management plans, some common themes emerge. Various documents are essentially just repackaged character appraisals, with a great deal of descriptive material and little in the way of actual management. Some of the shortest examples sit at the end of character appraisals, which is not a bad idea in itself, but they appear as something of a nominal afterthought. At the other extreme, some management plans are bursting with good ideas, but fail to place them within a planning framework that will realistically facilitate their delivery (too many uses of the word ‘should’, for example). These, if produced by external consultants, run the risk of building expectations,without the necessary continuing in-house resources to ensure that works are completed. After all, conservation area management plans are only the start of the process and a tick-box approach to their production is likely to limit utility. As we had recently completed the last of our ten conservation area character appraisals (without any detailed content on management), it was decided to produce one management plan document for all the conservation areas. As many of the management issues related to all the conservation areas, we were able to include generic content at the start, with place-specific content in bespoke sections later on. As well as making document production more efficient, this has resulted in a plan that can be downloaded as just one PDF, which is clearly advantageous to other time-pressured stakeholders, such as the county council highways department. As I have argued elsewhere,6 local document production would be further speeded up if pro formas were available for local authorities to use. This would help to reduce efforts to reinvent the wheel and would provide a more accessible framework for those developers operating across a multitude of local government boundaries. Clearly a range of pro formas would be required for local authorities operating at different spatial scales, as a document designed for 100 conservation areas is going to be markedly different in format to one designed for 10. There is a wealth of research on public engagement and our experiences added little to the debate. Unsurprisingly, simply booking meeting venues and sending out invitation letters failed to achieve packed venues. Half of the public meetings were well attended, but this was down to additional advertising from local community groups; ably demonstrating that a flyer from a neighbour you know has more impact that a letter from a faceless bureaucrat. Feedback was modest, although a certain amount of material had previously been collected through consultations relating to character appraisals and conservation area designations. Plans for ‘heritage wardens’, operating in a similar way to ‘tree wardens’, died in the face of local residents not wanting to alienate themselves from their neighbours. However, there are residents in half of the conservation areas who effectively provide a similar role, albeit unofficially. In theory, local volunteers could contribute significantly to the wider processes, particularly by helping with monitoring and research. A small number of local volunteers have contributed a great deal, but we have generally found that ‘big society’ is not to be A public talk on work to restore a group of chest tombs
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=