CONTEXT 180 : JUNE 2024 61 Director’s cut On ‘the extent to which the body is pre-eminent in its field and in what respects’ This continues my previous column’s take on key questions the Privy Council Office (PCO) asks of bodies looking at a charter petition, as outlined in our #IHBCPetitionforCharter hub. Like that column, examining how chartering the IHBC is in the public interest, this one deals with our claim to ‘pre-eminence’, a matter no less substantial in our charter discussions than ‘public interest’. Of course as a professional body – and a learned body and advocate for conservation – we must make every effort to specify our field of expertise, our ‘preeminence’. Otherwise how could we regulate it, or even advocate on its behalf? Accredited members will, likely, proudly presume preeminence, but what underpins that thinking? Indeed, the single most important benefit from our charter explorations may well be the more formal specification, demonstration and documentation of our area, and areas, of expertise. Naturally our members do not usually interrogate our preeminence because – outside the charter context – it can best be demonstrated through practice. Some might even consider the question distracting, arguing that we just need to focus on doing our work even better. But the petition explorations mean we must scope the matter and collate the evidence. This column offers, without prejudice, a preliminary exploration of part of what that case might look like. If the IHBC is to claim ‘preeminence’, our expertise likely centres first on our titular practice of ‘conservation’. Yet it cannot be that simple, as our name also specifies ‘building’ conservation. We know that members would not accept that constraint on their practice but also that, pragmatically, they do accept it. Such pragmatism is also displayed by RTPI members, who do not exclude ‘city’ or ‘rural’ planning from their remit just because their professional body’s title targets ‘town’ planning. In any case, ‘conservation’ can be our focus here, having the resonance members and networks accept and respect. Specifying ‘conservation’ is not easy, though. A good start is to remember that the term ‘conservation’ has many interpretations, and even more claimants to ownership. First, we have the familiar sub-set interests across the heritage sector that apply the term in ways that do not readily distinguish between the conservation in which IHBC members primarily engage – all aspects of that practice tied to the heritage planning and development process, especially as regulated under allied legislation – and those other conservations that reach across artefacts, intangibles, crafts, skills, and numerous other practices and benefits. Similarly, even within the planning system, those parts of our conservation activities that entail rescue, repair, investigation, regeneration, enhancement and improvement all boast multiple interpretations and applications. Protection is used in some areas, preservation in more, ‘architecture’ in some and history in others, and so on. And that is before even a light-touch check reveals that a good number of relevant professional bodies liberally claim conservation within their chartering objects, for reasons that could stretch the understanding of others beyond breaking point. Looking more widely, that diverse sense of ownership of conservation as a term is even more complicated. Most obvious is that the popular presumption about conservation’s context is not cultural, but natural. That, though, as a practice centred on managing biological processes, could reasonably be pitched as the polar opposite to our focus: mitigating and/or enhancing the products and impacts of human activities, using (mostly) inanimate, even lifeless materials. This may be why the American synonym for our practice is ‘preservation’, with all the confusion that it entails. Clearly, any exclusive ownership of the term ‘conservation’ is untenable, even unreasonable. So, in making any case for chartering, the IHBC would need to make clear that our conservation practice entails a meaningful and distinct discipline in its own right, as a viable conservation ‘sub-set’ with appropriate and credible skills, standards, applications and recognition. We would be a poor professional body if that challenge came as a surprise. Supported by our members and networks, we have long adopted a headline application of conservation practice unique to, and underpinned by, our accreditation, one well captured across our legacy of corporate plans and linked regulatory processes, advocacy and public services. Back in 2007 – and even before that, when we were developing our thinking – IHBC members agreed our first ‘modern’ Corporate Plan, which identified the distinctive
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=