Ascribing Significance In The Big Society, Pp Show
•Download as PPSX, PDF•
0 likes•195 views
Paper presented at the 2011 IfA Conference in Reading
![Overview ,[object Object]]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Ascribing Significance In The Big Society, Pp Show
Similar to Ascribing Significance In The Big Society, Pp Show (9)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Ascribing Significance In The Big Society, Pp Show
- 1. Ascribing Significance in the ‘Big Society’ Stella Jackson (saj504@york.ac.uk)
- 3. ‘Traditional’ Heritage and Local Landmarks
- 6. Big Society and localism
- 8. Social cohesion, belonging and identity
- 10. Local Landmarks ‘Whenever I have been away from our beloved Steel City, the towers signal that I am home.’
- 14. 48% submitted by members of the public
- 17. The Fox Public House
- 18. Camden Cottages
- 20. Tension
- 22. Volunteerism & social responsibility
- 23. Transfer power to local government
- 26. Concerns
- 27. Conclusions
- 28. Thank you! Stella Jacksonsaj504@york.ac.uk
Editor's Notes
- The MORI poll commissioned by EH for Power of Place ten years ago found that most people place a high value on the historic environment, with 98% of those surveyed saying that heritage is important in teaching us about the past, and 77% did not think that too much was being preserved. As many would now agree though, heritage significance is ascribed and is not intrinsic to the asset in question. This paper therefore, will look at the multivocality of heritage significance, in particular the somewhat inherent tension between local significance and the national designation system.
- So, I’m going to start with: a quick bit of theory; followed by the results of some research that I have carried out on applications for National designation; and then I’ll discuss the possibilities of whether the Big Society and the associated Localism Bill can help to ease the tension, and provide a voice for local communities. I should probably point out here that as well as being a research student, I also work in the designation team at English Heritage, which is where a lot of the data that I’m going to present has come from. The views expressed are my own though, and not those of EH, and when I say ‘we’ I mean the heritage community rather than specifically EH.
- As I have already said, many would now agree that heritage significance is ascribed, and this is often for a specific purpose. In newly emerging nation states, such as those in the former Yugoslavia for example, a heritage was created both as a way of legitimizing the existence of the new state and the new government; as well as to provide citizens with a body of traditions which in turn create a sense of belonging and citizenship. In the UK, heritage is also used as tool for social cohesion and citizenship, which was one of the main policies of the Labour Government, and has arguably influenced the Coalition Government’s ‘big society’ programme. Heritage, therefore, is not a haphazard survival of historic buildings and monuments, with hidden value waiting to be unlocked, it is the outcome of a conscious and intentional choice to create, maintain and preserve selected places for a specific purpose (Ashworth, 2002; Ashworth & Phelps, 2002; Russell, 2010). Value and significance is not, therefore inherent (Lipe, 1984). However, the term ‘intrinsic’ special interest is often used when assessing sites for designation. The implication of this is that a definitive list of sites can be created (Harrison, 2010), hence the designation system that we have today.
- In the UK, our choice of sites for national designation is highly influenced by the essentialist conception of early conservators such as Ruskin and Morris, with the early C19 being a seedbed for viewing ‘monuments’ as especially precious. ‘Traditional’ forms of heritage, therefore, such as castles and country houses feature highly in both numbers and grade on the National Heritage List. Although the addition of a specific building to the list is often the focus of heated debate, for example the Plymouth Civic Centre, the statutory designation of those aspects of the historic environment which are deemed to be of national significance is largely unquestioned. Other ways of protecting assets is often not considered, leading to the general assumption that the only way to protect what we value, is to have it designated. It is also argued that sites are designated ‘in the public interest’, and it is assumed that in general, we all agree. So, the idea of national significance is now so common that it is often forgotten that there may be other kinds of significance, which are just as important.
- In the EH MORI poll, 73% of people disagreed with the statement that ‘only great architecture and buildings count as heritage.’ (EH, 2000). People now find much more significance in local heritage landmarks, which provide them with tangible statements of tradition and permanence, something to ‘come home to’ in our modern, fast-paced and globalised lives. For example, when the Sheffield Gazette reported that the Tinsley towers had been earmarked for demolition, a large number of the 500 or so comments submitted on the newspaper’s website stated that the towers ‘welcomed’ them home, and should be kept. Often unlisted assets will be of far higher significance to some communities than those which are listed (Chitty et al, 2010). As you might expect, though, local significance does not tend to be considered as important, and is consequently devalued or ignored (Smith & Waterton, 2009).
- In July 2010 English Heritage launched a new online application form for applying for sites to be assessed for designation. I have analysed the first 250 applications for new designations submitted via the new form, and I will now present some of the results of this. They do not represent the full range of applications received though, as many are still sent in as hardy copy requests, and only those for new designations have been analysed.
- Just over 90% of the applications were for listing, the remaining 10% being for scheduling and registration as a PAG. 48% were submitted by members of the public, 14% by local societies or groups, and 16% by LPAs, including HERs. Just over half the applications (55.2%) were submitted because the site was threatened, with 17% of them facing demolition. People often try to use designation to stop unwanted developments, or as a last resort after planning has already been passed, often stating that the only way to stop it is to get the building listed.
- 44% of the total applications submitted refer to the local significance of the site, with applicants saying that the sites are, for example:A unique property within the local communityA landmark in the town centreAnd, much loved by the local community
- As I’ve already mentioned, 55% of sites applied for are those which are threatened with planning or demolition. So, as you might expect, the highest number of applications (24%) were for domestic buildings, with commercial buildings (pubs, shops, offices etc) the next highest at 12%. However, within those that refer to local significance, the types of buildings that are applied for are a little different, with commercial being significantly higher, along with culture & Entertainment (which includes libraries), and industrial buildings. This is because these buildings are focal points or landmarks in the local area, which are well-known and used regularly by members of the community.
- For example, one of the applications made was for a public house which overlooks the village green. Given it’s location, it had become a focal point for local meetings and celebrations, with the local Morris dancing ring traditionally holding dances there, even though it is now closed. Unfortunately, the building was not listed.
- Similarly, an application to assess a pair of cottages overlooking a village green in Norfolk was made due to the threat of a planning application. The applicant stated in their request that the cottages are an ‘iconic structure’, making a significant contribution to the village’s vernacular history. Again, this site was not listed.
- Unfortunately, when assessed under the national criteria, many of these applications are turned down because the site does not have national significance. Overall, 59% of the applications were turned down, with only 14% resulting in a new listing, although 28% are still under consideration. However, when looking only at those that refer to the local significance of the site, the % rejected goes up to 74%, although the number listed is exactly the same.
- In recent years, there has been an increasing number of community heritage and outreach projects, resulting in an engaged and enthusiastic public, who care about their local heritage and wish to see it protected. With the ease of applying for listing, and the apparent lack of other methods of protection, members of the public therefore apply for statutory designation for their cherished local sites. However, as noted previously, the majority of applications do not result in a listing outcome. There are therefore significant tensions between national perspectives and local values, especially with iconic local landmarks that communities find particularly emotive. The Bradford Odeon, for example, has received numerous designation requests over the last few years, one of which included a petition of 3,500 signatures. The most recent assessment in 2008 resulted in a Certificate of Immunity from listing. However, EH has recently received 2 further requests to list the building. It is sometimes suggested that local communities over-rate their local heritage, believing it to be more significant than it than it actually is. However, this is because, as heritage professionals, we tend to view significance only from a national perspective. The multivocality of heritage though, means that these sites are not less significant, they are significant in a different way for a range of different reasons, and discounting these as less important is one of the major sources of tension - so what can we do?
- Current government policy, as I’m sure we’re all aware, is strongly focused on localism, focussing on decentralisation and community empowerment. Should significance thus be re-defined in the national selection guides and criteria to include a wider range of sites of varying types of significance? The term ‘national importance’ is not actually mentioned in the listing legislation, only in guidance, the key term instead being ‘special’. Understanding local value and significance, though, may be quite difficult for a national heritage organisation, although until 1970 buildings which were of local significance were added to the list at Grade III, and in Scotland, locally significant buildings are still added to their list at Grade C. Or, can we use the ‘big society’ programme to ensure that what communities ascribe value to is taken more seriously through local lists and community engagement?
- The Localism Bill, which is currently going through parliament, gives the legislative background to the Big Society idea, and includes a policy which will require local authorities to maintain a list of assets of community value, with sites nominated for inclusion by the local community. Plans will also allow community groups to buy assets of local value in order to ‘save’ them. This suggests, therefore, that local heritage sites can be added to these new local lists and will be protected from development. Further recognition and protection of local significance may also be possible through Neighbourhood Development Orders, which would give local neighbourhood groups and parish councils the powers to approve local planning decisions.
- However, just over 50% of PA’s already have a ‘local list’. They have little influence on the protection and management of local heritage assets though, despite often being supplementary planning guidance. The non-statutory nature of local lists, therefore, means that people naturally fall to national designation to try and protect locally significant sites, especially when they are threatened with development (Chitty et al 2010). Conservation Areas, however, do carry some statutory control, although this is also limited. Of the applications I have looked at, 39% of them were for buildings already within conservation areas. For example, an application was made to list this police station by the LA conservation officer. The building is already in a conservation area, on the local list, and in a special character area, but the officer was concerned about alteration and extension. Other concerns:In early drafts of the Bill, Schedule 12 removed the need for planning consent for listed buildings when there is a Neighbourhood Development Order, so contentious sites such as Park Hill flats in Sheffield could potentially be torn down.The Bill has an essentialised and idealised view of ‘local’, focussing mainly on village life. The concept of ‘community’ that is used in the Big Society literature follows the normative ideal of something which is ‘‘good’, ‘safe’ and ‘comfortable’’ (Smith & Waterton, 2009). However, communities take many forms, and are not always ‘local’, something which does not seem to be considered. Will it actually work in a urban context for example where the traditional community or neighbourhood is less well-defined.Depends on the will of the people to go out and make it happen.
- Local community groups no longer simply support conservation, they now seek to have their own sense of heritage acknowledged and legitimised (Smith & Waterton, 2009, p.36). However, the national designation criteria exclude large numbers of locally significant buildings. In the past these have been seen as less significant and not important, resulting in a somewhat inherent tension between local value and national designation. However, we are now realising that local value is important, and that these sites are simply differently significant, not less so. The national lists cannot easily deal with the need to recognise the local significance of these sites. However, despite a number of concerns, the localism bill does suggest a way of taking local heritage seriously and giving people a voice, so long as it has sufficient statutory weight.