Context 156 - September 2018

4 C O N T E X T 1 5 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 8 This is a fairly radical idea which will no doubt cause raised eyebrows among council officers, but not, I hope, because they automatically distrust the judgment of people working in the private sector. It would lighten their workload by not having to look at a project twice – at pre-application and (if listed building consent is needed) application stages. I am also aware that IHBC members in the private sector may be reluctant to take on this role – whilst remote, there is the possibility that their view will be challenged. I would hope that such challenges would be vanishingly rare. Even if it were to happen, all IHBC members have professional indemnity. So long as they act in good faith, they would not be financially liable for their advice on whether listed building consent were needed, even if it differed from that of the council officer. Even on matters where there may be some grey areas, would a council officer challenge the view of an IHBC member? It would be a colossal waste of time and resources to do this when the result could not, by definition, be clear. My paid time in the conservation world has all but finished. I have been aware of this latent problem for many years without it being effectively addressed. I have been the chair of the membership and ethics committee for a five-year spell and remain an assessor. In this time I have been hugely impressed by the talents of IHBC members. These talents could be brought to bear on a problem which is adversely affecting the historic environment. Paul Butler, consultant to Paul Butler Associates References Country Land and Business Association (2011) Averting Crisis in Heritage : report on reforming a crumbling system Listed Property Owners’ Club (2018 Listed Heritage, issue 119 Ground-level facade and stairs, a reassembled fragment of Robin Hood Gardens on display at the Venice Architecture Biennale Let’s celebrate and adapt social housing Tom Brooks writes: In the main, this year’s Venice Architecture Biennale – curated byYvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara of Ireland-based Grafton Architects – focuses on the abstract qualities of architecture, and avoids discussing the thornier issues of planning and politics. An exception to this is the recurring theme of post-war social housing and its meaning for architects working today, inheriting the 50-year old legacy of the state- sponsored modernism of the 1960s. It is clear that architects across the globe, and especially in Europe, are grappling with the same issues: poor environmental standards (vividly illustrated by steam pouring from a model of a housing block in the Latvian exhibition); upkeep and maintenance backlogs; and, often most fundamentally, image problems. The question of whether to demolish or retrofit post-war housing estates is well illustrated by two exhibitions, from London and Paris respectively. Of most familiarity to readers will no doubt be the section of the Robin Hood Gardens estate that was controversially retrieved by the Victoria & Albert Museum during the demolition for the Blackwall Reach development. Although the rescue operation seems admirable in principle, the reality of seeing the isolated chunks of concrete, held together