In thisContext... This issue of CONTEXTcontains reports of the two days' proceedings at the joint seminar 'Working Together for Conservation' held by ACO and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission at Norwich on April 12th and 13th. We think it is important that the talks and discussions should be recorded as fully as possible, both to inform those who did not attend, and to remind those who did of the importance of some of the issues raised. Mike Pearce, Chairman of ACO, has written a brief account of the conference with an analysis of the significance of what was said - and what wasn't said! This is followed by the full conference summary which has been prepared by Mrs Phillips of HBMCfrom the notes taken by the HBMC members. The Commission have contributed to the cost of inclusion of this report in the Newsletter. The report of the AGMon Saturday has been written by Tony Jenkins, the Hon. Secretary; and a precis of Gordon Michell's address ~o the AGMwhich follows was edited by the Editor from his own notes. It was agreed at the conferenee that the points raised in the seminar groups which were not full answered by the panel could be discussed at a follow-up meeting at the HBMC. This took place in early June and a report follows the conference summary. Talking business= ACO meets HBMC The conference at Norwich in April was attended by just over 200 people, of whom over 30 were from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission - both top brass and front-line troops. The remaining majority were conservation officers from all over the country. The main business on Friday was arranged by the Commission; a fuller account of the day is contained in their report in this issue. Conservation Officers were given a good aacount of the work of the Commission, and Page 3 were able to meet many of the people they had first met over the phone, but they were, perhaps, disapp9inted thatmore of their practical questions and appeals for help appeared to pass unanswered. Peter Rumble and Mrs Phillips, recognising this, have allowed us a further opportunity for discussion - a note of the relevant meet~ ... ing follows. However, we clearly suffer at the moment, perhaps inevitably, from differences in perception of our res-pective roles. We, in the local authorities, see the Commission as a central and national focus, providing support and leadership - not just for the conservation of buildings monuments, sites, and landscapes; but for action against apathy on the part of individuals, public bodies or local authorities. The Commission sees itself constrained by funds and manpower to dealing with case work and limited grants for "outstanding" buildings. The rest is seen as a local problem for the local authority. That historic attitude has the effect of tying up staff time in areas where the local authority is quite competent, and could be relied on to ask for help when needed, at the expense of areas which have little time or staff for conservation work. It also limits a great proportion of the grant funds of the Commission to Grade I or some Grade II* buildings -less than 10% of the buildings, and not those generally under threat. We would rather they put their influence, advice and, if necessary, grant funds where the damage is really happening -amongst the Grade II buildings in modest Conservation Areas, eroded by illegal or careless alteration or demolition; especially in local authority areas with a long record of above average numbers of demolition applications and no conservation officer. This is not to deny that buildings and monuments of national importance should continue to receive the Commission's attention; of course they should, but today they are less threatened than they were 30 years ago when the Historic Buildings Council was created. Much has been done, but circumstances have changed and some fundamental policies conceived after 1953 are in need of adjustment. Mike Pearce
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=