Papers by Stella A Jackson
Heritage, Conservation and Communities, 2017
The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) is unrivalled in its knowledge of the ... more The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) is unrivalled in its knowledge of the physical threats facing historic buildings and the techniques for minimising decay and damage. It also has a proven track record of successfully recruiting and motivating volunteers and of providing effective education to professionals, craftspeople, and the general public. In 2006 the SPAB developed the acclaimed Faith in Maintenance (FiM) project, the success of which was recognised by a highly prestigious Europa Nostra Award in 2010 in the Education, Training and Awareness category. Education and training were the key elements of the FiM project, resulting in ‘traditional’, expert-led engagement via knowledge transfer. However, evaluation of the FiM project suggested that additional or alternative forms of engagement were required, and this has resulted in the new Maintenance Co-operatives Project. This three year project brings together groups of people who care for places of worship and encourages them to work together to tackle the problems of maintenance and repair. This constitutes a clear step towards participative practice and public engagement in heritage conservation and resonates well with the new ICOMOS principles for Capacity Building. In relation to Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation however, do Maintenance Co-operatives push local volunteers up to Citizen Power level at the top of the ladder or do they remain somewhere in the middle at a more tokenistic level?
Redundancy and Renewal: Maintaining and Using Historic Churches, 2016
The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 2014
When the UK Coalition Government came to power in May 2010, its members brought with them a local... more When the UK Coalition Government came to power in May 2010, its members brought with them a localism agenda, based upon what they called the ‘Big Society’. This agenda was focused on community engagement and devolvement of power, and has seen a number of legislative and policy changes in the UK, with the 2012 Localism Act devolving powers to local government, and providing means for local communities to become involved in decision making, inspire volunteerism, and support social enterprise. This paper draws upon debates which have arisen within the archaeological sector relating to the broad influence of the localism agenda on its work, with individual contributors taking various positions regarding theoretical analysis of the Big Society in relation to the social goals of archaeology. The contributors ask, respectively: what is it that we do which can be thought of as the Big Society, and what is its meaning against the context of the socially focused archaeology work already done by the sector? What limitations must we be aware of, and how can we make the most of the opportunities? Critical consideration is then given to why archaeologists should be interested in political agendas such as this.
Sustainability in the context of cultural heritage is about finding ways in which it can continue... more Sustainability in the context of cultural heritage is about finding ways in which it can continue into the present. In fact, many of the applications received for sites to be statutorily designated in England are done so in an attempt to keep the site open and in use, thus providing a meaningful and sustainable contribution to the present. Definitions of cultural heritage, however, often relate only to iconic and special places, and in particular to the materiality of these sites. The social significance of heritage is not, therefore, recognized in the legislation, despite a strong participatory rhetoric from the current government focused on community engagement. This paper discusses these issues in relation to two theatres which have recently been assessed for listing in North West England, and asks whether the new Localism Bill for England could help to provide a sustainable future for buildings such as these.
Conference Presentations by Stella A Jackson
The legal protection of heritage assets in England began with the Scheduling of Ancient Monuments... more The legal protection of heritage assets in England began with the Scheduling of Ancient Monuments in 1882; and developed to include the listing of buildings of historical or architectural interest as part of comprehensive planning following the Second World War. These are expert-led protection systems with a focus on nationally significant heritage assets. For many communities, however, it is more often the mundane and everyday heritage of their local streetscapes that they value, but which they are often unable to protect.
Following elections in May 2010, however, a new Coalition Government came into power in the UK with a manifesto focused on what they called the ‘Big Society’. This was in essence a localism agenda aimed at decentralisation and austerity measures to reduce government spending. The key outputs of this are the 2011 Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of 2012. The Localism Act in particular aims to refocus power and authority, with a number of measures aimed at empowering local communities to enable them to take a much more active role in local decision-making, particularly in relation to planning and development.
The re-alignment of power which results from this ‘Big Society’ ideology offers a number of opportunities for residents to have more of a role in the sustainable development of their towns and villages and by extension, therefore, more authority over the heritage assets within them. Can the vision of a ‘Big Society’ with its focus on localism and community decision-making thus inspire us to discover new ways to protect locally valued heritage assets? This paper will explore these ideas using research and case studies from England, but hopes inspire those from across Europe to think differently about local heritage protection.
In 2013, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings launched a new, three year, HLF-fund... more In 2013, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings launched a new, three year, HLF-funded Maintenance Co-operatives Project. This ground-breaking initiative aims to build capacity and promote best practice, by bringing together and supporting groups of volunteers who help to look after their local places of worship.
This presentation will focus on one of the groups which has been set up just over the border in Lincolnshire, to the East of Boston. The Holland Coastal Group is made up of 6 open churches, and one closed, Churches Conservation Trust Church. The closed church, All Saints Benington, is currently undergoing a major repair and re-ordering project, managed by the Benington Community Trust, to turn it into a community hub.
The open churches in the group were happy to work with All Saints, which will be a useful base for training and events. The group were keen to point out that having All Saints in the Co-op would ensure that it continues to be maintained in the same way as those who were still part of the Diocese of Lincoln, and thus subject to faculty controls. They also felt that it would benefit from access to advice from the DAC, which it otherwise wouldn’t have.
As this presentation will show, however, by working co-operatively with those nearby, closed churches can not only be well-maintained and cared for, but can continue to play a key role in their local community.
The legal protection of ‘heritage assets’ in England began with the Scheduling of Ancient Monumen... more The legal protection of ‘heritage assets’ in England began with the Scheduling of Ancient Monuments in 1882; and developed to include the listing of buildings of historical or architectural interest as part of comprehensive planning following the second World War. These nationally-focused designation systems have always been based on the premise that the assets included in their lists must be protected so that they can be left, as a legacy, for those who come after us.
This legacy of what should be protected, however, is borne out of the essentialist ideas of early conservators such as William Morris and John Ruskin. It is, therefore, a legacy of traditional, mid-18th century values, with a focus on heritage assets which communities do not necessarily feel connected to, or even class as their heritage.
For many communities, it is more often the mundane and everyday heritage of their local streetscapes that they value, and which they wish their children to inherit. This a heritage which, due to the legacy of those who developed our protection polices over 100 years ago, is not recognised as ‘special’ enough for national designation systems to protect.
Can the 2010 Coalition government’s vision of a Big Society, however, with its focus on localism and community decision-making, inspire us to discover new ways to protect what matters to us? This paper will explore these ideas using research and case studies from England, but hopes inspire those from across Europe to think differently about local heritage protection.
Although specific heritage legislation and policy has a clear impact on heritage protection and a... more Although specific heritage legislation and policy has a clear impact on heritage protection and archaeological work in the UK, throughout history policy has also been affected by the dominant political agendas and philosophies of the time. Following elections in May 2010, the new Coalition Government came into power in the UK, with a manifesto focused on the ‘Big Society’. This is in essence a localism agenda, aimed at decentralization and the devolvement of power from central to local government. One of the main aims of the Big Society, is to enable local communities to become more self-sufficient and less reliant on state provision, as well as encouraging them to take local action. Thus, there are a number of measures within the 2011 Localism Bill aimed at empowering local communities to take a much more active role in local decision-making, particularly in relation to planning and development. But what has been the impact of the Big Society agenda on British archaeology, or alternatively, what effect has British archaeology had on the Big Society? How does archaeology fit in to the localism agenda, and what can we do to ensure that it continues to have an impact in the future?
This session includes papers which outline the impact of ‘Big Society’ policies, using case studies to showcase the positive contributions that archaeology and heritage can make to, for example, local planning and neighbourhood development forums, community projects and events, capacity-building projects and local decision-making. Papers which critically review the impact of the Big Society may also be presented, although it is intended that the session will focus on examples of good practice.
Historic places of worship are not just beautiful historic artefacts, they can also provide a hom... more Historic places of worship are not just beautiful historic artefacts, they can also provide a home-base from which to support the local community. Most churches and faith groups, therefore, would argue that the Big Society is something that they have been a part of for hundreds of years. However, the re-labelling of social inclusion as the ‘Big Society’ by the current government, with an emphasis on localism and community engagement, has led many to reconsider what it means to be part of a community, and more importantly, how they fit in to government’s model of this. In doing so, historic places of worship have found that the Big Society agenda has opened up a range of new partnerships and funding opportunities, which in turn, have helped to provide a sustainable future for many thousands of buildings across the UK. This paper will consider these issues using a number of case studies in which community hubs have been created in historic religious buildings; and will suggest that the Big Society has had a significant and positive impact on the conservation and sustainability of historic places of worship.
Until 1987, when the then Department of National Heritage announced the adoption of the 30 year r... more Until 1987, when the then Department of National Heritage announced the adoption of the 30 year rule, the cut-off date for listing had been 1939 (Ross, 1991), with the majority designated sites and monuments being the more ‘traditional’ castles, country houses, abbeys and monasteries. However, following the listing of Sir Alfred Richardson’s Bracken House (the Financial Times building) in August 1988, and the creation of a post-war steering group in 1992 and a subsequent listing survey 1995, a significant number of ‘modern’ buildings have been added to the list. Thus, there is now much wider range of assets on the national heritage list, and an understanding that post-war sites can and should be considered as national heritage assets.
It was always hoped that by the end of the listing survey, the designation of buildings of this date would gradually become less contentious, and with the exception of a small number of high-profile cases, over 500 post-war sites have been added to the list, suggesting that some ‘normalisation’ has been achieved (Cherry & Chitty, 2009). However, there is often still some resistance to the idea that post-war buildings should be designated. In fact, despite a recommendation to list such structures, the Minister for Heritage and Tourism, who is the minister responsible for making the final decision, will often disagree with English Heritage’s recommendation, deciding that the asset should not be designated. This was the case with Redcar Library in the North East of England, which was turned down by the Minister and has since been demolished, much to the dismay of both local residents, and groups such as the Twentieth Century Society.
This paper will discuss this site in relation to the issues outlined above, and puts forward the following questions for discussion:
- Do aesthetics play a part in decision making?
- Modern buildings are often considered to be ‘ugly’ by members of the public, should they still be listed? (Suddards, 1997)
- Is conservation devalued by its association with assets which often do not hold public affection? (Ross, 1991)
- Is the reluctance to list simply due to a lack of understanding?
- What part do politics play? Are the decisions made due to a fear of public outrage?
- Do we continue to recommend post-war sites for designation, or should we try to ‘second-guess’ the minister and assume that these sites will be turned down?
- Where do we go from here?
References:
Cherry, M. & Chitty, G. (2009) Heritage Protection Reform Implementation - Strategic Designation: Review of Past and Present Thematic Programme, available at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/p-t/NHPP-draft-review-thematic-app (Accessed 23.05.2012)
Ross, M. (1991) Planning and the Heritage: Policy and Procedures, London: E. & F.N. Spon
Suddards, R.W. (1997) ‘Listed Buildings’, in Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. Archaeological Heritage Management in the UK: An Introduction, Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd
While specific heritage legislation has a direct impact in the way in which we ascribe value to a... more While specific heritage legislation has a direct impact in the way in which we ascribe value to and manage the historic environment; the norms and values of the time, based subconsciously on the political philosophy of the ruling party, also affects the ways in which we view heritage and the ways in which we manage it. Currently government ideology is based around the idea of the Big Society, with an emphasis on local, community empowerment. This therefore bolsters an already increasing desire of citizens to be actively engaged in conservation, and to be able to ‘save’ what matters most to them.
Sustainability in the context of cultural heritage is about finding ways in which it can continue... more Sustainability in the context of cultural heritage is about finding ways in which it can continue to contribute to the present. In fact, many of the applications received for sites to be added to the National Heritage List for England by members of the public are done so in an attempt to keep the site open and in use, thus providing a meaningful and sustainable contribution to the present. Definitions of cultural heritage, however, often relate only to iconic and special places, and in particular to the materiality of these places, with the criteria for listing in England intimately entwined with the value systems of early nineteenth century conservators such as John Ruskin and William Morris.
While the material aspects of heritage, therefore, are largely dealt with through statutory protection, their social significance is not similarly recognised in the legislation, despite a strong participatory rhetoric from the current and previous governments in relation to community engagement. Indeed, we are now beginning to recognise that heritage is as much about people in the present as it is about the structures and ‘monuments’ of the past, with communities often arguing vociferously for ‘local’ sites to be ‘saved’; not just for their architectural or historical interest, but also because of the social significance of the site to that particular community.
This paper discusses these issues in relation to two theatres which have recently been assessed for listing in North West England, and asks whether the proposals set out in the UK Coalition Government’s draft Localism Bill for lists of ‘assets of community value’, could help to provide a sustainable future for buildings such as these.
In England, our choice of sites for national designation is highly influenced by the essentialist... more In England, our choice of sites for national designation is highly influenced by the essentialist ideals of early conservators, with ‘traditional’ forms of heritage such as castles and country houses featuring highly in both numbers and grade on the National Heritage List. However, although not deemed to be special enough to be offered statutory protection, the places that people feel most attached to, are often the mundane and everyday places that make up the local street scene. Although seemingly insignificant to us, these are local heritage landmarks which provide people with tangible statements of tradition and permanence, something to ‘come home to’ in our modern, fast-paced and globalised lives.
The new community empowerment tools of the 2011 Localism Act would offer a number of opportunities for communities to have their value of these sites recognised. This is either through involvement in the decision-making process as part of a neighbourhood development forum, or by the nomination of sites for inclusion on lists of ‘assets of community value’. However, the localism agenda has an essentialised view of ‘local’, focussed mainly on village life. How will it work in an urban context, therefore, where the ‘traditional’ community or neighbourhood is less well-defined?
An environment is a complex site of meaning in which a range of identities, values and relationsh... more An environment is a complex site of meaning in which a range of identities, values and relationships are negotiated; binding groups together, but also causing marginalisation and resistance. The historic environment is no exception to this, often being the subject of tension and contestation in relation to the desire of local communities to ‘save’ features of their cultural landscapes. Thus, there is significant tension between the legal protection of sites considered to be of ‘national’ importance, and the desires of local communities to protect sites which, while significant to them, may not meet the criteria for statutory designation. In most cases, therefore, it tends to be the act of non-designation, rather than the addition of a site to the National Heritage List, which leads to conflict.
This results from the materially-focused definition of heritage used by most heritage practitioners. In contrast to this, it is now increasingly recognised within cultural heritage studies that the significance of a site is often multivocal. However, those sites which are valued by the local community for reasons other than their aesthetic interest, are not seen as proportionally significant at the national level by those in authority. In addition, the contestation that arises from this, is often viewed as a simple dichotomy between the objective analysis of ‘experts’, and the subjective views of local communities.
This paper will discuss these issues in relation to the former Odeon cinema in Bradford, an iconic structure in the city which was opened in 1930, but has stood empty since 2000. This building has been the subject of numerous designation requests, all of which have been turned down, although the contestation is not simply over its non-designation as a heritage asset, it relates to its value to the community, and its contribution to local distinctiveness.
The introduction and use of post-processual theory in cultural heritage studies has led to an und... more The introduction and use of post-processual theory in cultural heritage studies has led to an understanding that heritage is a cultural construct, it’s significance being ascribed to it in the present rather than being an intrinsic quality. We also now recognise that individuals, groups and communities ascribe significance to heritage sites for a variety of different, and often competing, reasons. However, despite a shift in heritage policy and guidance in England towards what would appear to be a more phenomneological approach, as is evidenced in documents such as Conservation Principles, PPS5, and the associated good practice guide and government statement; the underlying philosophical basis for conservation and protection remains firmly tied to the materiality of heritage, and ‘traditional’ ideas of inherent value. Even Conservation Principles, which makes reference to all the ‘big ideas’ in recent archaeological theory, continues to favour a materialistic, objective, assessment of heritage, prioritising the evaluation of historic fabric and the definition of its significance by experts at English Heritage over ‘communication’ with people and communities. This paper, therefore, will discuss this apparent reluctance in practice to acknowledge the multivocality of significance, arguing that it results from the desire of heritage professionals to retain their ‘expert’ status in the field of heritage protection.
An overview of some of the ideas that are coming out of my research about the types of significan... more An overview of some of the ideas that are coming out of my research about the types of significance that people ascribe to heritage sites, focussing in particular on how the ideas set out in the government’s localism agenda could help to ‘save’ sites of local community value.
Uploads
Papers by Stella A Jackson
Conference Presentations by Stella A Jackson
Following elections in May 2010, however, a new Coalition Government came into power in the UK with a manifesto focused on what they called the ‘Big Society’. This was in essence a localism agenda aimed at decentralisation and austerity measures to reduce government spending. The key outputs of this are the 2011 Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of 2012. The Localism Act in particular aims to refocus power and authority, with a number of measures aimed at empowering local communities to enable them to take a much more active role in local decision-making, particularly in relation to planning and development.
The re-alignment of power which results from this ‘Big Society’ ideology offers a number of opportunities for residents to have more of a role in the sustainable development of their towns and villages and by extension, therefore, more authority over the heritage assets within them. Can the vision of a ‘Big Society’ with its focus on localism and community decision-making thus inspire us to discover new ways to protect locally valued heritage assets? This paper will explore these ideas using research and case studies from England, but hopes inspire those from across Europe to think differently about local heritage protection.
This presentation will focus on one of the groups which has been set up just over the border in Lincolnshire, to the East of Boston. The Holland Coastal Group is made up of 6 open churches, and one closed, Churches Conservation Trust Church. The closed church, All Saints Benington, is currently undergoing a major repair and re-ordering project, managed by the Benington Community Trust, to turn it into a community hub.
The open churches in the group were happy to work with All Saints, which will be a useful base for training and events. The group were keen to point out that having All Saints in the Co-op would ensure that it continues to be maintained in the same way as those who were still part of the Diocese of Lincoln, and thus subject to faculty controls. They also felt that it would benefit from access to advice from the DAC, which it otherwise wouldn’t have.
As this presentation will show, however, by working co-operatively with those nearby, closed churches can not only be well-maintained and cared for, but can continue to play a key role in their local community.
This legacy of what should be protected, however, is borne out of the essentialist ideas of early conservators such as William Morris and John Ruskin. It is, therefore, a legacy of traditional, mid-18th century values, with a focus on heritage assets which communities do not necessarily feel connected to, or even class as their heritage.
For many communities, it is more often the mundane and everyday heritage of their local streetscapes that they value, and which they wish their children to inherit. This a heritage which, due to the legacy of those who developed our protection polices over 100 years ago, is not recognised as ‘special’ enough for national designation systems to protect.
Can the 2010 Coalition government’s vision of a Big Society, however, with its focus on localism and community decision-making, inspire us to discover new ways to protect what matters to us? This paper will explore these ideas using research and case studies from England, but hopes inspire those from across Europe to think differently about local heritage protection.
This session includes papers which outline the impact of ‘Big Society’ policies, using case studies to showcase the positive contributions that archaeology and heritage can make to, for example, local planning and neighbourhood development forums, community projects and events, capacity-building projects and local decision-making. Papers which critically review the impact of the Big Society may also be presented, although it is intended that the session will focus on examples of good practice.
It was always hoped that by the end of the listing survey, the designation of buildings of this date would gradually become less contentious, and with the exception of a small number of high-profile cases, over 500 post-war sites have been added to the list, suggesting that some ‘normalisation’ has been achieved (Cherry & Chitty, 2009). However, there is often still some resistance to the idea that post-war buildings should be designated. In fact, despite a recommendation to list such structures, the Minister for Heritage and Tourism, who is the minister responsible for making the final decision, will often disagree with English Heritage’s recommendation, deciding that the asset should not be designated. This was the case with Redcar Library in the North East of England, which was turned down by the Minister and has since been demolished, much to the dismay of both local residents, and groups such as the Twentieth Century Society.
This paper will discuss this site in relation to the issues outlined above, and puts forward the following questions for discussion:
- Do aesthetics play a part in decision making?
- Modern buildings are often considered to be ‘ugly’ by members of the public, should they still be listed? (Suddards, 1997)
- Is conservation devalued by its association with assets which often do not hold public affection? (Ross, 1991)
- Is the reluctance to list simply due to a lack of understanding?
- What part do politics play? Are the decisions made due to a fear of public outrage?
- Do we continue to recommend post-war sites for designation, or should we try to ‘second-guess’ the minister and assume that these sites will be turned down?
- Where do we go from here?
References:
Cherry, M. & Chitty, G. (2009) Heritage Protection Reform Implementation - Strategic Designation: Review of Past and Present Thematic Programme, available at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/p-t/NHPP-draft-review-thematic-app (Accessed 23.05.2012)
Ross, M. (1991) Planning and the Heritage: Policy and Procedures, London: E. & F.N. Spon
Suddards, R.W. (1997) ‘Listed Buildings’, in Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. Archaeological Heritage Management in the UK: An Introduction, Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd
While the material aspects of heritage, therefore, are largely dealt with through statutory protection, their social significance is not similarly recognised in the legislation, despite a strong participatory rhetoric from the current and previous governments in relation to community engagement. Indeed, we are now beginning to recognise that heritage is as much about people in the present as it is about the structures and ‘monuments’ of the past, with communities often arguing vociferously for ‘local’ sites to be ‘saved’; not just for their architectural or historical interest, but also because of the social significance of the site to that particular community.
This paper discusses these issues in relation to two theatres which have recently been assessed for listing in North West England, and asks whether the proposals set out in the UK Coalition Government’s draft Localism Bill for lists of ‘assets of community value’, could help to provide a sustainable future for buildings such as these.
The new community empowerment tools of the 2011 Localism Act would offer a number of opportunities for communities to have their value of these sites recognised. This is either through involvement in the decision-making process as part of a neighbourhood development forum, or by the nomination of sites for inclusion on lists of ‘assets of community value’. However, the localism agenda has an essentialised view of ‘local’, focussed mainly on village life. How will it work in an urban context, therefore, where the ‘traditional’ community or neighbourhood is less well-defined?
This results from the materially-focused definition of heritage used by most heritage practitioners. In contrast to this, it is now increasingly recognised within cultural heritage studies that the significance of a site is often multivocal. However, those sites which are valued by the local community for reasons other than their aesthetic interest, are not seen as proportionally significant at the national level by those in authority. In addition, the contestation that arises from this, is often viewed as a simple dichotomy between the objective analysis of ‘experts’, and the subjective views of local communities.
This paper will discuss these issues in relation to the former Odeon cinema in Bradford, an iconic structure in the city which was opened in 1930, but has stood empty since 2000. This building has been the subject of numerous designation requests, all of which have been turned down, although the contestation is not simply over its non-designation as a heritage asset, it relates to its value to the community, and its contribution to local distinctiveness.
Following elections in May 2010, however, a new Coalition Government came into power in the UK with a manifesto focused on what they called the ‘Big Society’. This was in essence a localism agenda aimed at decentralisation and austerity measures to reduce government spending. The key outputs of this are the 2011 Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of 2012. The Localism Act in particular aims to refocus power and authority, with a number of measures aimed at empowering local communities to enable them to take a much more active role in local decision-making, particularly in relation to planning and development.
The re-alignment of power which results from this ‘Big Society’ ideology offers a number of opportunities for residents to have more of a role in the sustainable development of their towns and villages and by extension, therefore, more authority over the heritage assets within them. Can the vision of a ‘Big Society’ with its focus on localism and community decision-making thus inspire us to discover new ways to protect locally valued heritage assets? This paper will explore these ideas using research and case studies from England, but hopes inspire those from across Europe to think differently about local heritage protection.
This presentation will focus on one of the groups which has been set up just over the border in Lincolnshire, to the East of Boston. The Holland Coastal Group is made up of 6 open churches, and one closed, Churches Conservation Trust Church. The closed church, All Saints Benington, is currently undergoing a major repair and re-ordering project, managed by the Benington Community Trust, to turn it into a community hub.
The open churches in the group were happy to work with All Saints, which will be a useful base for training and events. The group were keen to point out that having All Saints in the Co-op would ensure that it continues to be maintained in the same way as those who were still part of the Diocese of Lincoln, and thus subject to faculty controls. They also felt that it would benefit from access to advice from the DAC, which it otherwise wouldn’t have.
As this presentation will show, however, by working co-operatively with those nearby, closed churches can not only be well-maintained and cared for, but can continue to play a key role in their local community.
This legacy of what should be protected, however, is borne out of the essentialist ideas of early conservators such as William Morris and John Ruskin. It is, therefore, a legacy of traditional, mid-18th century values, with a focus on heritage assets which communities do not necessarily feel connected to, or even class as their heritage.
For many communities, it is more often the mundane and everyday heritage of their local streetscapes that they value, and which they wish their children to inherit. This a heritage which, due to the legacy of those who developed our protection polices over 100 years ago, is not recognised as ‘special’ enough for national designation systems to protect.
Can the 2010 Coalition government’s vision of a Big Society, however, with its focus on localism and community decision-making, inspire us to discover new ways to protect what matters to us? This paper will explore these ideas using research and case studies from England, but hopes inspire those from across Europe to think differently about local heritage protection.
This session includes papers which outline the impact of ‘Big Society’ policies, using case studies to showcase the positive contributions that archaeology and heritage can make to, for example, local planning and neighbourhood development forums, community projects and events, capacity-building projects and local decision-making. Papers which critically review the impact of the Big Society may also be presented, although it is intended that the session will focus on examples of good practice.
It was always hoped that by the end of the listing survey, the designation of buildings of this date would gradually become less contentious, and with the exception of a small number of high-profile cases, over 500 post-war sites have been added to the list, suggesting that some ‘normalisation’ has been achieved (Cherry & Chitty, 2009). However, there is often still some resistance to the idea that post-war buildings should be designated. In fact, despite a recommendation to list such structures, the Minister for Heritage and Tourism, who is the minister responsible for making the final decision, will often disagree with English Heritage’s recommendation, deciding that the asset should not be designated. This was the case with Redcar Library in the North East of England, which was turned down by the Minister and has since been demolished, much to the dismay of both local residents, and groups such as the Twentieth Century Society.
This paper will discuss this site in relation to the issues outlined above, and puts forward the following questions for discussion:
- Do aesthetics play a part in decision making?
- Modern buildings are often considered to be ‘ugly’ by members of the public, should they still be listed? (Suddards, 1997)
- Is conservation devalued by its association with assets which often do not hold public affection? (Ross, 1991)
- Is the reluctance to list simply due to a lack of understanding?
- What part do politics play? Are the decisions made due to a fear of public outrage?
- Do we continue to recommend post-war sites for designation, or should we try to ‘second-guess’ the minister and assume that these sites will be turned down?
- Where do we go from here?
References:
Cherry, M. & Chitty, G. (2009) Heritage Protection Reform Implementation - Strategic Designation: Review of Past and Present Thematic Programme, available at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/p-t/NHPP-draft-review-thematic-app (Accessed 23.05.2012)
Ross, M. (1991) Planning and the Heritage: Policy and Procedures, London: E. & F.N. Spon
Suddards, R.W. (1997) ‘Listed Buildings’, in Hunter, J. & Ralston, I. Archaeological Heritage Management in the UK: An Introduction, Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd
While the material aspects of heritage, therefore, are largely dealt with through statutory protection, their social significance is not similarly recognised in the legislation, despite a strong participatory rhetoric from the current and previous governments in relation to community engagement. Indeed, we are now beginning to recognise that heritage is as much about people in the present as it is about the structures and ‘monuments’ of the past, with communities often arguing vociferously for ‘local’ sites to be ‘saved’; not just for their architectural or historical interest, but also because of the social significance of the site to that particular community.
This paper discusses these issues in relation to two theatres which have recently been assessed for listing in North West England, and asks whether the proposals set out in the UK Coalition Government’s draft Localism Bill for lists of ‘assets of community value’, could help to provide a sustainable future for buildings such as these.
The new community empowerment tools of the 2011 Localism Act would offer a number of opportunities for communities to have their value of these sites recognised. This is either through involvement in the decision-making process as part of a neighbourhood development forum, or by the nomination of sites for inclusion on lists of ‘assets of community value’. However, the localism agenda has an essentialised view of ‘local’, focussed mainly on village life. How will it work in an urban context, therefore, where the ‘traditional’ community or neighbourhood is less well-defined?
This results from the materially-focused definition of heritage used by most heritage practitioners. In contrast to this, it is now increasingly recognised within cultural heritage studies that the significance of a site is often multivocal. However, those sites which are valued by the local community for reasons other than their aesthetic interest, are not seen as proportionally significant at the national level by those in authority. In addition, the contestation that arises from this, is often viewed as a simple dichotomy between the objective analysis of ‘experts’, and the subjective views of local communities.
This paper will discuss these issues in relation to the former Odeon cinema in Bradford, an iconic structure in the city which was opened in 1930, but has stood empty since 2000. This building has been the subject of numerous designation requests, all of which have been turned down, although the contestation is not simply over its non-designation as a heritage asset, it relates to its value to the community, and its contribution to local distinctiveness.
However, the majority of applications for designation which English Heritage receives are made because the asset has significance for the local community, for example the village school. Unfortunately, when assessed under the current criteria, many of these applications are turned down because the site is not thought to have enough special interest. There are therefore significant tensions between national perspectives and local values.
One of the priorities of the recently launched National Heritage Protection Plan is to support local authorities in the celebration and protection of heritage assets of local significance. Should significance thus be re-defined in the national selection guides and criteria to include a wider range of sites of varying levels of significance? Or, can we use the ‘big society’ programme of the current government to ensure that what communities ascribe value to is taken more seriously through local lists and community empowerment?