8 CONTEXT 183 : MARCH 2025 ‘DOYOU remember Annex C of PPG15? Although it was cancelled about 15 years ago, to me it still captures and distils much of the way we think about listed building management. Its messages have been shredded and largely repackaged in other (voluminous and disaggregated) guidance documents but I think some of the simplicity and directness has been lost as a result. Annex C still contains the core language used to debate change affecting historic buildings. ‘I am not, of course, suggesting it can or should be resuscitated in its original form. It would need some updating if it ever again saw the light of day. My regret is that we do not have a succinct 5,300 word go-to equivalent in 2025. ‘Perhaps I will be told that things are more complex now than they were in 1994, and that we need ever more guidance to swim through. Really? Much of what I see in heritage impact assessments and consultation responses can be traced back to Annex C. Those of you who once used it in anger might like to cast a nostalgic eye over it. Those of you who know it only as a folk memory might like to ponder on how many of its homespun exhortations still stand, more than three decades after it was issued.’ Jonathan Edis writing on LinkedIn ‘DRAFTED by Ian Jardin with a little help on technical conservation issues from me while we were at English Heritage. [Annex C was] not comprehensive but as much as government departments would then allow. ‘Later, when I commissioned Paul Drury and Anna McPherson to draft the English Heritage Conservation Principles, Policy and Guidance, we envisioned that the policies and guidance components would take up the mantle of Annex C and generate an illustrated version because many users need exemplars to understand abstract concepts. We considered the format of ICOMOS Australia’s later editions of the Burra Charter as a graphic model. ‘Sadly, EH, then Historic England, never generated the policies and guidance elements, so the principles remain open to misunderstanding and poor interpretation.’ John Fidler replying on LinkedIn to Jonathan Edis ‘SHOULD the “conservation officer” job title change to “heritage planning/development/regeneration officer” to reflect the positive role they play in supporting the planning process and helping sustainable development to happen?’ Robert Lloyd-Sweet on LinkedIn ‘IN AN IDEAL world I think you would have both. The breadth of issues conservation officers have to deal with is such that it sways from slimline double-glazing solutions to setting impacts of a 60-storey tower, and on to urban design strategy for site allocation, and often all at once. However, the skills (technical and personal) to best support those processes do not always overlap. ‘Local authorities generally cover some areas well, and others less so. Most now have resource for up to one full-time-equivalent conservation officer, so the heritage skills they are well resourced in depend on the educational track taken by their appointed officer, and the selection of candidates who applied to the post in the first place. ‘That creates issues with recruitment. Would I apply for a singular conservation officer post, for instance, knowing that I am well placed in the placemaking/planning/ regeneration side of things, but less so on technical conservation measures? Probably not.’ Jack Hanson replying on LinkedIn to Robert Lloyd-Sweet ‘DEFINED by its sculptural concrete exoskeleton, this is an excellent surviving example of a post-war art school that has remained in its original use and survives in very good condition, both externally and internally. ‘It clearly has abundant potential to be sympathetically upgraded or reconfigured to suit whatever plans the university may develop in the years to come. On the other hand, demolition would simply be wasteful, irresponsible and anti-growth.’ Oli Marshall of the Twentieth Century Society quoted in the Wolverhampton Express and Star on the campaign to list Wolverhampton University’s School of Art.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI0Mzk=