C O N T E X T 1 7 2 : J U N E 2 0 2 2 49 The Great Fire of London: catalyst for change Notes from the chair Law and order In my former life as a local government conservation and design officer, I would occasionally present a lunchtime talk for senior managers from other council departments. Part of a series of similar presentations to encourage communication between different directorates, these would include relevant professionals, including traffic engineers, building control officers and valuers. For me, this was in part a public relations exercise, and in part an opportunity to show other departments the contribution that my team was making to maintaining the special character and vibrancy of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It was also my chance to get them to appreciate that caring for the borough’s heritage was not only the responsibility of the planning department, but that they also had a part to play. To provoke some debate, I would suggest that the appearance of residential London was as much to do with the application of building regulations as to architectural taste, 18th-century pattern books or the development of the great estates. I am sure that many readers will be aware of the origins of the London Building Acts. Following the Great Fire of 1666, a whole raft of regulation was brought into place, starting with the Rebuilding of London Act 1666 (passed in February 1667). This included, as perhaps an unconscious early example of urban design, relating the height of buildings to the width of streets and setting out plans for standard house types. Of course, as well as structural stability, the underlying reasoning behind these regulations was to prevent or curb the spread of fire, with measures including the use of non-combustible facing materials. The Building Act 1707, which included both the City of London and City of Westminster, prohibited the use of timber eaves cornices, bringing to an end this characteristic of Queen Anne architecture and leading to a variety of roof forms behind front parapet walls. This act also introduced the requirement for party walls between houses to extend at least 18 inches above the roofs. Later acts required box sash windows to be inset behind brick reveals, and so on. We can see that these and subsequent acts had a substantial impact on the appearance of the London terraced house over the next 200 years.While there may have been obvious changes in architectural style over this period, the provisions of the London Building Acts provided a degree of continuity in appearance. That may be a rather tortuous route to get to the theme of this issue of Context, which demonstrates not only the importance of building regulations in the past and today, but also why we should pay attention to legislative changes and the role of design codes. This regulatory theme is certainly prescient, as at the time of writing we are eagerly awaiting the government’s levelling-up legislation, which will include planning and heritage. The IHBC’s Area of Competence No 5 requires a knowledge of the legislative and policy framework for the conservation of the historic environment. It has always struck me that while for many, law and regulations are not the most exciting aspects of conservation, knowledge of them is essential for all of us to do our jobs well. Whether in the public, private or third sectors, we all need to be able to work within the law. If one reads the regular reports in the planning press, it is clear that many decisions by local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate are subject to legal challenges, not to mention ombudsman complaints. Returning to my opening paragraph, it is an important part of all our jobs to inform others of the value of the work that we do and to be recognised as competent professionals.We should be promoting conservation as much to building owners, clients, residents and their associations and politicians as we do to work colleagues. To do this and to be credible ambassadors for conservation, we should not only be on top of technical and cultural matters, but also be knowledgeable about law, regulation and policy. A big ask, but one that we should all aim for. David McDonald, chair@ihbc.org.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=