objectivity.

In dealing with modern buildings we

need to move away from the rigidity and

secretiveness of the existing system, and

to be more flexible and open. It is also of

fundamental importance to allow a

building to evolve. Very often today

commercial buildings, for example, are

completed to a very rigid specification

and brief imposed by the client, only to

find shortly after completion that the

building has teething problems. In

addition, the increasing pace of

technological change affecting

organisations; for example, changes in

computer technology and office layout

and practices create the need for earlier

adaptation than was previously the case.

Readers will be familiar with the

concept of a Section 106 Agreement (a

legal contract between an LPA/owner/

developer, to protect those matters which

cannot adequately be protected or

provided for under planning conditions).

A Section 106 Agreement often provides

for such matters as historic landscapes

which could be adversely affected by

proposed development and to which it is

considered appropriate to provide

ongoing protection.

It is contended that this concept

could be developed into a ‘Conservation

Management Agreement’ (CMA) for the

protection of outstanding examples of

modern architecture, although this would

not be tied to an individual planning

permission, nor could it ever supersede

the need for planning permission, but it

would be tied to an individual building.

It is suggested that a CMA would

only apply to buildings recognised as

being of potential architectural and

historic importance, I use the word

potential to emphasis the need to allow

for a period of time to elapse to allow for

objectivity and perspective on such

decisions, but which are of 30 years of age

or less. (I have proposed 30 years in line

with the current 30 year rolling

programme.) It would be upon buildings

of this period that the current rigid listing

process impacts the hardest, thus severely

inhibiting what must be viewed as the

buildings natural evolutionary period.

Thirty years would provide a sufficient

period for contemplation to ensure

adequate objectivity and release from

prejudice of current fads and fashions.

The introduction of such a

mechanism would go a long way to over

coming the secrecy of the current system.

The owner/occupier would be

approached and made aware of the

perceived importance of his building. The

choice of a CMA or a statutory listing

could be offered; the need to retain the

back-up measure of statutory listing needs

to remain because throughout it must be

the protection and preservation of the

building which remains of paramount

importance.

It is proposed that a CMA should

include:

• a full recorded documentation of the

building including copies of original brief

and working drawings, amendments

made during the course of construction,

subsequent amendments/modifications

made, and photographic record of the

building as at date of agreement;

• an appraisal of the key

features/characteristics of the building

and identification of the parameters for

substantial alterations;

• local planning authorities to be kept

fully informed of all alterations made to

the building and records updated

accordingly;

• CMA would not obviate the need for

planning permission, but it would, of

course, remove the need for listed

building consent as the building would

not be listed;

• the CMA would run for 30 years with

reviews every 10 years.

The advantages of a CMA would be:

• it avoids the rigidity of the existing

system and explicitly recognises the need

for the buildings to be allowed to evolve,

particularly in their early years;

• it encourages openness in the debate

surrounding the protection and

preservation of the built environment;

• an increase in the involvement of the

process with the owner/occupier would

increase awareness and understanding,

and encourage a more sympathetic

approach to proposed alterations and

works generally;

• full documentation on the building

would be available to allow for informed

decisions to be made upon review as to

whether statutory listing should be

invoked. This of itself would also provide

a valuable historic record of the building;

• it would allow for a period of natural

evolution at some artificial break point, ie

the date of listing, by being less restrictive

and more open would encourage greater

public support of conservation and its

aspirations.

It is recognised that such a ‘voluntary’

arrangement may not be appropriate in all

circumstances and thus the advocacy of a

‘carrot and stick’ approach, an

owner/occupier should be offered the

option of CMA or a statutory listing: any

breach of a CMA to prompt immediate

review with the possibility of statutory

listing. It is acknowledged that a CMA

could not override the need to obtain

planning permission in the normal way,

but it is recommended that the existence

of a CMA should be a material

consideration in any decision on a

planning application. By way of additional

protection, with the exception of a single

residential unit, planning permission

would be required for demolition, so the

building would remain protected from

total loss. In addition, in dire

circumstances the local authority would

retain its powers to issue a Building

Preservation Notice if it were considered

that the building was in severe risk.

Yvonne S Lee BSc(Hons) DipBldgCons ARICS has

recently moved from the private sector to become

Conservation Officer for Dacorum Borough Council.

Her views are enti rely personal and should not be taken

to reflect the opinion of the Borough Council

CONTEXT 44

17