Conservation and Planning

Changing Values in Policy and Practice

Edward Hobson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN: 9780415278195
• eBook ISBN: 9781134470501
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

Conserving historic buildings continues to excite and inflame opinion. The means of protecting such buildings and areas are well established but frequently suffer a lack of wider understanding.

Conservation and Planning takes a detailed look at the way these processes have evolved and their use today by policy makers and local decision makers.This book presents original research into how national and local decision-makers construct and implement conservation of the built environment. The findings in this book challenge many of the assumptions supporting conservation.

PART I: The context of conservation

‘To be is to have been.’

(Lowenthal 1985: xxv)

1: Contributions and contradictions

Introduction

The form of towns and cities represents the physical legacy of preceding generations’ aspirations, uses and limitations. As each successive wave of society has interpreted and contributed to this collective inheritance, attitudes towards such historic buildings have not been characterised by any consistency. Over time the treatment of historic relics has encompassed a curious mix of reverence and sanctity, abrogation and destruction.

It is significant to remember that conservation merely represents one way of dealing with historic structures. It is largely a culturally determined attitude of our time that old buildings should be protected. While conservation is a framework of policies and controls, more fundamentally it is also a reflection of deeper cultural attitudes to the past.

Although a conservation urge has exercised the ‘civilised’ conscience over thousands of years, in most western countries the state's involvement is little more than a century old. Even during that short time, attitudes towards the past have changed beyond recognition, reflecting broader cultural shifts. For instance, two hundred years ago outmoded timber-frame buildings were refaced with stone or render to keep abreast of fashionable Georgian architecture. While the motivation was aesthetic it was also a purposeful display of the building owner's finances and ability to match the dynamism of the growing town or city. In contrast, performing such an act on a historic building today would be decried as wanton vandalism by perhaps those similar property-owning sections of society. A display of wealth now would be the financial ability to step outside the pace of change and, ironically, protect the old – that ‘original’ eighteenth-century period property.

Just as attitudes towards the past are not static, nor is the physical environment in which conservation operates. While the layering of historical residue in the urban fabric contributes to the intensity and appeal of towns and cities, the built environment is in a perpetual state of flux. A cycle of obsolescence and decay dictates when buildings have outlived their economic life and replacing old structures with vibrant contemporary buildings is vital. The sight of cranes marching across a city skyline, far from intruding on a historical scene, is an inexorable symbol of progress and success.

For conservation to intervene in this process of renewal, it must do so on a firm foundation. However, conservation is not a single entity, nor does it comprise just one approach: arguably there is still no one definitive purpose or conservation ethic (Worskett 1982; Larkham 1996). The cumulative range of policy justifications for conservation is incredibly diverse, reflecting the growth of practice. Antiquarian concerns with preserving the fabric of isolated artefacts for their didactic interest is certainly far removed from land regeneration pressures to reinvent the role and uses of ageing buildings.

These justifications do allow conservation to perform a variety of roles but they inevitably create a wealth of contradictory positions. It is this confusion at the heart of conservation which has led to criticisms of its burgeoning scope and potential restrictions.

This book examines these contradictions by exploring the perceived values and justifications underlying conservation planning in the UK from the strategic level down to the detail of real buildings. It takes a novel approach in highlighting the relationship between the ideals supporting policy and what is actually built (or not) in the name of conservation.

Part I examines the development of conservation planning in the UK, and by exploring essential themes provides a framework for understanding the various tensions in conservation practice. By way of introduction, this opening chapter outlines the mechanics of conservation planning and the challenges it faces – specifically, in the criticisms levelled at conservation practice over the years, and generally, in the context of the urban renaissance agenda. Chapter 2 reviews the establishment of conservation planning from its early origins rooted in antiquarianism through to the present day, taking in statutory landmarks as seminal periods in this process. This review reveals a wealth of embedded values as professional practice has periodically responded to various threats and opportunities. In moving closer into the planning mainstream, conservation was influenced by planning's prevalent paradigms, but despite this relative proximity, conservation controls were often peripheral to the planning machinery. Chapter 3 pulls together a diversity of strands to develop a unique thematic framework covering the scope and focus of conservation planning, the interpretation of what is considered worth protecting and the influence of pragmatic external issues. This framework provides a robust tool for interpreting the case study material and analysing the emerging themes.

In Part II, the values and issues raised in the preceding chapters are tested by investigating both national and local levels of conservation activity. Chapter 4 presents a qualitative survey of national organisations – those influential bodies contributing to the national operation and direction of conservation policy. The purpose is to address underlying perceptions of what conservation should be doing – its normative standards. In comparison, chapters 5 and 6 address the micro scale of conservation practice using two different local planning authorities as case studies. A metropolitan council in the north of England and a market town in the Midlands present contrasting contexts for the operation of conservation policy. Following an account of the context, organisation and culture of the authorities’ conservation activity, eight completed building schemes are examined in detail. These case studies are intended not only to test the correspondence of principle against practice but also to identify and canvas wider opinions from local parties outside the local planning authorities.

In Part III, the themes from these national and local levels are extracted and analysed, and the wider implications of the findings discussed. Chapter 7 compares and contrasts findings in relation to thematic framework developed in chapter 3. The findings challenge many accepted beliefs about the position of conservation within planning and the reasons why it is supported. The conclusions are brought together in chapter 8 by considering the overall picture in relation to broader issues affecting land-use planning, the interpretation of conservation value and the external influence of economic and political agendas. In summary, implications and pointers for future conservation research and practice are highlighted before the final conclusions are presented.

A continually shifting landscape

The conservation movement creates what it wants to conserve.

(Ashworth 1991: 25)

It has been emphasised that the benefits of conservation are ‘self-evident’; indeed, current popular opinion would agree that conserving a historic building is preferable to demolishing it. This has not always been the case; the underlying justifications for conservation have developed in response to direct threats and paradigm shifts in attitudes towards the past. Each successive wave contributes to and influences the existing approach and values, resulting in their gradual coalescence. This residual diversity of values which support conservation can be easily conflated in broad policy statements but offer a range of different approaches in actual decision-making. Such flexibility may be requisite, but in assuming that conservation's contribution is not only self-evident but also operates in the ‘public interest’, these claims mask the fundamental questions: why conserve, conserve what, and for whose benefit?

Evidently, values will have percolated differentially across the breadth of the conservation system, between national and local levels, and these different levels must be studied in detail. This pursuit is intended to highlight the contemporary relevance of conservation and its contribution to the planning system. But why examine the values underpinning conservation now? There have always been challenges and often vocal criticisms of conservation activity within the statutory planning system.

More recently there has been a notable shift in the wider political context affecting land use development. In the UK, the past five years has seen a greater challenge to conservation's mantle than ever before. Conservation, with its attendant focus on the arts, history and architecture, is no longer the torch-bearer for building aesthetes. Perhaps it never was, but following periods of insensitive urban development in the 1960s and 1970s, the swing towards conservation-oriented planning did offer an alternative to such large-scale, non-contextual design. Conservation planning promoted attempts to prioritise and control aesthetic standards of new development and emphasise once more the quality of locality as a design principle. During this time, conservation certainly had a role to play in planning, but it can no longer claim an exclusive responsibility, or championing role, for these functions today.

The various government and professional initiatives falling under the banner of ‘urban renaissance’ have rejuvenated the urban design agenda after years of neglect in the 1980s and early 1990s. Urban design has emerged as a potent force influencing new development and regeneration and has perhaps stolen a march on conservation and English Heritage (EH) in directing the debates about urban living, about the quality of ‘character’, about defining and creating places. Urban design appears popular with the current (Blair) government; conservation per se does not.

The question for conservation now is how do its policies, professionals and bodies define conservation? How does it respond to the challenge? Can it contribute greater value within planning or is it facing marginalisation if its star is fading?

There have been significant moves to address these questions at a strategic level. English Heritage is assimilating the language of urban regeneration in its policy documents and emphasising the economic contribution of the heritage to wider socio-economic priorities. But although EH is the lead body for the historic environment, there is only so much influence it can wield over the many operational layers and key players across the country who effect the implementation of conservation policy on the ground.

Consider the statutory planning system: while UK planning and conservation policy has become more centralised, the inherent flexibility of British civil administration ensures that conservation remains as varied as those individuals interpreting it. Contrasts in value perception arise not only through the intrinsic diversity of conservation policy justifications, but also through a system whereby different pressures and agendas impinge on local and/or national decision-making. This is not unique to conservation or planning, but it illustrates that there is an inevitable tension between central control and local autonomy in all modern states’ system of governance. Ensuring consistency and coherence is difficult, not least in identifying at which end of the regulatory spectrum any one issue is best placed.

Attempting to embrace new value orientations will be particularly difficult if the starting point for this change is far from clear. Conservation is supported by diverse philosophical strands which do not necessarily complement one another. Few studies have ever attempted to look at the values underpinning conservation planning policy and practice, to assess their efficacy and to challenge their relevance. There is simply a lack of knowledge.

In addressing this gap, the research presented in this book throws up lessons for policy-makers, practitioners and academics in understanding the cultural, institutional and perceptual barriers to making conservation planning work. Like any other area of government policy, the planning framework is subject to constant revision: investigating the impact of policy is like trying to measure a moving target. The empirical and analytical work for this book was largely conducted prior to the major sea change in attitudes heralded by the Urban Task Force (UTF) and the subsequent impact of Delivering an Urban Renaissance (DETR 2000b). However, the policy framework for conservation remains unchanged over this period, which is in itself reflective of the twin-track agendas for urban design and conservation. Indeed, changing policy affects attitudes on a much longer timescale. It is even arguable that government policy has little impact on individuals’ own beliefs, which makes this study all the more poignant for the valuable insight gained into the perceptions and cultures of those engaged in conservation planning.

Conservation planning

The processes, principles and practice of ‘conservation’ occur among a diversity of professional disciplines, from fine art to ecology. In terms of definition and application, the various spheres in which conservation operates occlude, rather than highlight, a common approach.

While each country with a legacy of historic buildings has devised its own individual approach to conservation, each system faces similar pressures and constraints, and the lessons from this study are equally applicable to different contexts. In the UK, conserving the historic environment is performed through statutory land-use planning: generally, through sensitive land-use policies and, specifically, through separate consents relating to listed buildings and conservation areas. In addition to protecting what exists above ground, the planning system carries responsibility for protecting relics below ground. Generally, features of archaeological interest are dealt with according to a separate policy (PPG16; DoE 1990) and legislative framework (the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979). Though the distinction between the two systems is far from clear, historical inertia has meant that many important listed buildings are also protected as ancient monuments. However, the consequent definitions of ‘special interest’ and regulation of controls over archaeological relics are quite distinct from those for listed buildings and conservation areas (Jewkes 1993; Pickard 1996). This study focuses principally on conservation as applied and interpreted through the planning system, listed building and conservation-area controls.

The policy framework of built environment conservation

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15) (DoE/DNH 1994), sets out the current framework for conservation planning. Published in 1994, it is perhaps now ready for review in the light of changing political priorities around it but its principles remain steadfast. At the outset, the document outlines the justifications for the state's involvement in conservation. Though broad and varied, these justifications receive only a brief exposition:

It is fundamental to the Government's policies for environmental stewardship that there should be effective protection for all aspects of the historic environment. The physical survivals of our past are to be valued and protected for their own sake, as a central part of our cultural heritage and our sense of national identity. They are an irreplaceable record which contributes, through formal education and in many other ways, to our understanding of both the present and the past. Their presence adds to the quality of our lives, enhancing the familiar and cherished local scene and sustaining the sense of local distinctiveness which is so important an aspect of the character and appearance of towns, villages and countryside. The historic environment is also of immense importance for leisure and recreation.

(DoE/DNH 1994: para. 1.1)

Highlighting these justifications, the document sees conservation as:

• contributing to environmental sustainability;
• helping to maintain relics’ physical presence and visual appearance;
• having a didactic role in education and understanding the past;
• contributing to the cultural significance of places’ identity and distinctiveness;
• helping to provide orientation and familiarity in the environment; and
• having leisure and recreation uses.

Though a wide range of justifications is appropriate, their variety raises the question of whether they are all of equal importance or whether there are certain imbalances, exclusions or even direct conflicts in their realisation.

PPG15 then moves to explain the relationship between conservation and planning:

We must ensure that the means are available to identify what is special in the historic environment; to define through the development plan system its capacity for change; and, when proposals for new development come forward, to assess their impact on the historic environment and give it full weight alongside other considerations.

(DoE/DNH 1994: para 1.3)

While PPG15 is by no means an old document, it was written at a time when the government was keen to deliver, or – more cynically – to be seen to implement, a planning system which could carry the principle of sustainability (Brindley et al. 1996). Following the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, PPG1 (DoE 1987b; revised DETR 1997) emphasises the development plan as the principal planning policy instrument to lead all local authorities’ development decision-making. To accompany this ‘plan-led’ system, Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs), published by central government, are intended to provide coherence across all local planning authorities in the way they form and implement the policies contained in their respective development plans.

In replacing the conservation policy contained in Circular 8/87 (DoE 1987a), PPG15 responded to this change by stating that conservation ought to be fully represented at all levels of the development plan (paras 2.1–2.26). This may be a realisation of conservation's rightful place at the heart of planning (CBA 1966; Dobby 1975). However, conflict and tension are equally evident between conservation and development interests (Cantell 1975; Mynors 1984). Listed building consent and conservation area consent are the principal control mechanisms with which to protect the historic environment, but specific policies for their implementation or elaboration are specif...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Conservation and Planning
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Illustrations
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Part I: The context of conservation
• Part II: Conservation values in practice
• Part III: Challenges to conservation
• Postscript
• References