CONTEXT 187 : MARCH 2026 5 6 CONTEXT 186 : DECEMBER 2025 Periodically The Historic Environment In another wide-ranging, 170-page issue of The Historic Environment: policy and practice (Vol 16, No 2, 2025), of particular interest is a paper by Xiaohan Lu of the Mackintosh School of Architecture, Glasgow School of Art. Lu focuses on group value in the adaptive reuse of historic buildings, using case studies from the Merchant City, Glasgow. He highlights an issue regarding some properties in the Merchant City not qualifying for listed status in the past but then being protected shortly after they had been restored. This somewhat controversial phenomenon is seen as reflecting tensions inherent in legislation on the one hand with appropriate and sympathetic rehabilitation on the other. The paper defines existing heritage policy applied to some specific cases in order to identify what the associated key concept of group value actually involves, while also noting the limitations of the current listing system. There seems to have been little recent analysis or review where the concept of harmonious or homogeneous context has been applied to townscape, other than to accept it unquestioningly. The paper provides both a theoretical and practical understanding of the opportunities that recognition of group value creates in the adaption of historic buildings. Lu identifies the emergence of the concept of group value from the passing of the Civic Amenities Act 1967, with its shift of focus from individual buildings to a broad-based area approach, looking more widely at the merits inherent in the character and appearance of townscapes. While it became common practice in the last third of the 20th century to define precise sequences of buildings contributing to group value in statutory list descriptions, this is no longer exercised, in order to define the contribution new listings play as part of an existing larger townscape group. As the Glasgow Merchant City is invoked, the relevant regulation in Scotland stems from the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997, but only with an indirect legislative exposition of the concept. The recent city block-based adaptations and conversions of buildings in Glasgow, together with sensitive infilling, have received a positive response for their contribution to regeneration, enhanced quality of the public and semi-public realm and the demonstration of economically viable uses for former commercial buildings. The notable contributions to area regeneration have thus raised the perceptions of special architectural or historical interest and its recognition for statutory protection. Lu identifies a widening debate stemming from conflict within the context of innercity regeneration. This is where the redefinition of historic urban spaces can extend the concept of historic area management beyond the principle that preservation is merely maintenance of historic fabric when it may encompass much needed revitalisation. The paper may reinvigorate discussion about mediating change in historic areas, and about whether historic building and area management are about preservation or conservation. When it is the latter, that appears to have become widely accepted for many years, despite not necessarily being reflected in the criteria for statutory protection. Journals with an international remit seem currently to be dominated by papers from China and Turkey, and The Historic Environment seems to be no exception. Merve Akyaziki and Sirma Turgut of the city planning department of Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, present their systematic review of the effectiveness of international cultural heritage law, highlighting the uncertainties and complexities of heritage impact assessment (a term unrelated to that used in UK heritage management) under the 1972 Unesco World Heritage Convention. They explore broader challenges, looking at the subject areas of published papers, their research methods, the number of papers published and their country of origin. The authors conclude that while the integration of Historic Environment Policy and Practice The current professional literature on heritage crime (unauthored works, architectural theft, nighthawking and criminal damage) is disappointingly scant. Although a book Heritage Crime: progress, prospects and prevention was published by Palgrave McMillan in 2014, and Heritage Crime: a guide for sentencers was last issued by Historic England in 2019 (every local authority heritage professional and every magistrates’ clerk should always have it to hand), little else has been published in recent years. The latest bumper edition of Historic Environment Policy and Practice (Vol 16, No 3, 2025), devoted to the subject of heritage crime, is therefore welcome and should be sought out. The opening paper by Mark Harrison, head of heritage crime and policing advice, and Paul Jeffery, heritage crime advisor, both at Historic England, sets out how policy and practice have developed in England in the recent era. A 2011 collaboration between Historic England, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Crown Prosecution Service recognised the need for a more structured approach to crime and the historical environment. This led to a more sustainable approach to the prevention and investigation of crime and antisocial behaviour. The authors point out that crime often overlaps with other areas of criminality. An important aspect of prevention is community engagement, with partnership initiatives between local communities, heritage professionals and the police. A dialogue between conservation officers and local amenity societies might also encourage early warnings if promptly acted on. A complementary paper by serving police officers Superintendent Tom Holmes and PC Julian Fry detail the initiative taken in Devon and Cornwall to deal with a range of heritage crimes, to better understand the scale of the problem and formulate an external engagement strategy. The use of technology such as drones and LIDAR has enabled the police to provide tailored heritage crime prevention advice, including the development of ‘target hardening’, a term used by law enforcement agencies to describe how the security of buildings or heritage sites can be enhanced by deterrence, early warning or delay mechanisms. Because criminals can be highly mobile, and stolen heritage assets may be easily portable, heritage crime policing does not stop at police force boundaries. Public engagement is still a critical element in addressing heritage crime. Andy Bliss, an archaeologist and former chief constable of Hertfordshire, reviews the Heritage Watch scheme on behalf of the police and Historic England. He points out that such schemes are leading to a reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour, but that the wider societal impact must be recognised in future policy development. Perhaps local authority heritage professionals might take advantage of Heritage Watch schemes to provide early warning of the at-risk status of vacant historic buildings, or raise alarm when discarded historic fabric suddenly appears in a skip. Unauthorised alteration and demolition is also heritage crime. This issue of Historic Environment Policy and Practice addresses neither the substantial matter of undetected or unprevented Section 9 offences under the 1990 Act, nor the work of IHBC over the last 30 years regarding such criminality. During this time the institute has compiled a substantial body of evidence (including cases of architectural metals theft, arson and so on) in the form of its online database, which gratifyingly is increasingly being cited in court cases. C20 In recent columns I have referred to the 20th Century Society’s proactivity in identifying buildings and modern landscapes that might become eligible for listing under the 30-year rule (its ‘coming of age’ list). In the latest issue of its magazine C20 (No 2, 2025), director Catherine Croft notes that a freedom of information request published by the Architect’s Journal
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=