Introduction

This chapter considers two parallel strands of cultural heritage management: the emergence of the practice of Cultural Heritage Management (CHM) and the development of conservation charters, conventions and principles which attempt to provide professional, national and international standards for good heritage management practice. Both strands have seen an evolution in ideas and approaches, moving from the privileging of the technical specialist, the patrician ‘authority’, a shift from a limited range of elite values and top-down approaches to multi-vocal, facilitating, multi-value and bottom-up approaches. This evolution will be set against the background of changing political policy in England, as different governments have attempted to address issues of sustainability, social inclusion and diversity. These emerging ideas, policies and practices are discussed to see how they can be used to address our developing understanding of the cultural environment in England and the manner in which it is managed. The final part of the chapter provides a short review and analysis of several of the many conventions, charters and principles which illustrate changes in practice and represent a particular trajectory from ‘expert’ to inclusive approaches. Chapter 6 then considers how these strands have or have not been converted into practice.

Chapter 1 began with the case study of Hellifield Peel. Since the completion of that conservation project several others have taken place, or are in progress, such as at Astley Castle, Warwickshire, a project awarded the RIBA Stirling Prize for Architecture in 2013. On close examination it is possible to state that, for a great many years, there has been a creative or adaptive response to ruins. We have seen in Chapter 2 (pp. 30–1) that some historic ruins were adaptively reused, became ruins again, or were retained as dwellings. Some, such as Martello Towers, easily lent themselves to reuse. But in general terms those stories are not immediately apparent and do not always make their way into the public or academic arena. For some professionals, ‘restoration’ and ‘reconstruction’ are still problematic terms (and practices) which lead to an assumption that this element of conservation practice is best reserved for the conservation specialist rather than the public. Similarly there is a sense that ‘restoration’, as a word and set of practices, does not actually capture the nature of the changes that can happen at a place – as was seen in Chapter 6 with the example of Hellifield (p. 190). Perhaps it is necessary to think about using a new word.

Introduction

The suggestion in Chapter 1 was that the trajectory of ancient monument conservation in the United Kingdom could be characterised as three distinct periods: a period when monuments changed from being picturesque and romantic features to objects of scientific enquiry; a period when they were ‘frozen’; and the current period, when change and conservation are seen as compatible. Following discussion in Chapter 2 of the evolution of conservation principles and the creation of a professional, full-time corps of specialists at the Office of Works, this chapter will consider and discuss the circumstances surrounding the introduction of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act of 1913 (AMCAA 1913) and examine the ways in which this legislation and resulting practice solidified those evolving principles into a particular vision of the historic environment and ancient monument work.

Introduction

This chapter illustrates how British administrators and preservationists behaved in a multicultural environment, away from the constraints of domestic politics and social conditions. It will also illustrate how a particular approach to preservation practice was translated from Britain to another country, echoing similar imperial practice by French, German and Italian preservation rivals. This case study will indicate that conservation practice is flexible (or at least not rigid) and that contemporary issues in Cultural Heritage Management, particularly the issues of multiculturalism, under-represented heritages, ‘use’ of the historic environment and the role of the heritage manager have been explored in other contexts and are worthy of further research. These issues are discussed in this chapter and pursued in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.

What can the burial of a number of modern concrete slabs at Fountains Abbey World Heritage Site tell us about the manner in which cultural heritage management practice operates in England?

Fountains Abbey is a ruined medieval monastic site near Ripon in North Yorkshire, England. The abbey complex is also part of a much larger designed landscape of the mid- and late 18th century. The designed landscape was initially created beyond the abbey grounds by John Aislabie, although the abbey ruins were later incorporated into the gardens by his son William, who extended the designed landscape. In the 19th century a Gothic Revival church was added to the large deer park which formed one part of the extensive garden. This designed landscape is referred to both as a ‘Water Garden’ and a ‘Pleasure Garden’. The entirety of the estate, abbey, water garden and deer park is known as Studley Royal and Fountains Abbey and was designated as a World Heritage Site in 1986. The ruined abbey complex is designated a nationally important archaeological site, while the garden contains numerous nationally important buildings and the designed landscape as a whole is a nationally important Historic Park and Garden.

Designation means that a place has been recognised by heritage experts as attaining a level of national or international importance against a set of agreed criteria and is deserving of particular consideration through the various planning and regulatory systems that exist nationally and internationally. Designation can exist at international level (as with World Heritage) but it also exists at national and local levels; most nations have their own list of those places considered to be ‘nationally important’ and which are designated as such. National importance is usually defined against criteria that recognise specific values or qualities, primarily: historical, architectural, aesthetic. The implication of this can be that certain qualities are privileged over others: the older something is the more important it is thought to be, whilst attribution (whether the place was conceived and designed by a famous person and is related to other comparable places) and aesthetics (the place as art history, its beauty and relationship to ‘high culture’) make major contributions to that sense of importance.

On 28 February 2007 the British television station Channel 4 broadcast an episode of Grand Designs. Grand Designs is a series of programmes produced by Talkback Thames for Channel 4 and presented by the architectural historian and writer Kevin McCloud. Usually an hour in length, the programme follows members of the public who volunteer their own construction projects to be filmed and presented in a fly-on-the-wall style, charting the vicissitudes of the design and construction process. Most of the projects tend to be ‘new-build’ schemes, although the adaptation of a small number of Listed Buildings (buildings designated as ‘nationally important’) has been covered. The 90-minute episode of Grand Designs aired on 28 February 2007 was the first in a new series but was considered to be something of a ‘special’ because of the unusual nature of the project: the conservation and restoration of a ruined medieval structure to a domestic dwelling. The building is known as Hellifield Peel and is both a Listed Building and a Scheduled Monument (a place considered to be nationally important by virtue of its archaeological value and protected under the provisions of the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act).

Hellifield is a village located immediately outside the south-western boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park, in Craven District, North Yorkshire. Situated on the A65 almost midway between the towns of Skipton (eight miles to the south-east) and Settle (five miles to the north-west), Hellifield has a population of about 1100. The early industry of Hellifield was largely restricted to hand cotton-weaving and agriculture, but in the 19th century the advent of the railways had a massive impact on the village, turning a small hamlet into a major passenger and freight interchange on the Lancashire and Yorkshire and Settle to Carlisle railway lines. This transport significance was also translated into buildings, with many new streets and houses constructed by the railway companies for railway employees. Following the cuts to and closures of railway services, stations and connections in the 1960s, Hellifield suffered from the inevitable economic downturn, but still retains a strong agricultural and livestock base and is now reinventing itself as one of several ‘gateways’ into the Yorkshire Dales.

Introduction

This chapter provides an outline and analysis of the origins and development of conservation principles and practice in the United Kingdom, beginning with early work on ancient monuments in the 18th century, the formation of archaeological and architectural societies, the subsequent development of preservation initiatives in the mid-19th century and the introduction of ancient monument legislation. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the origin of the principles behind the conservation of ancient monuments. The chapter concludes with the creation of the Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings branch of the Office of Works.

The period outlined in this chapter marks a dramatic change in the appearance, use and status of those structures that became ‘ancient monuments’, as they changed from being picturesque and romantic ruins to objects of scientific enquiry and educational improvement. This change in appearance and status indicates that the values attached to ancient monuments are not static. The role of politics was to be crucial, as public views changed from acceptance of the pre-eminence of private ownership to the desirability of a conservation ethic for reasons of international status to the introduction of legislation and a concomitant extension of the state into private property matters.

Introduction

In this chapter I will present a number of case studies to illustrate the problems and possibilities of blending theory and practice. The examples are drawn from past projects: the first follows a community consultation concerning a Roman fort; the second provides a slightly different perspective on recent work at Castleford, West Yorkshire, and illustrates the role of the individual in heritage management, particularly in relation to ideas about class. The final example is that of an entirely fortuitous meeting (and its consequences) during a site meeting about monument repair. The three examples may further clarify the concept of social value, which will be coupled with a proposed model for cultural heritage management practice.

As an introduction to the case studies it is worth identifying what the practical limitations to conservation interventions might be when applied to ancient monuments and the way in which fabric, evidence and avoidance of conjecture predominate. Most practitioners would agree that there is a set of high level principles:

– whatever is done has to be reversible, of its time and visible;

– do not use untried techniques or materials;

– do not change the site narrative;

– only replace material where failure to do so would result in greater structural loss.