Dr Thurley's concern for Conservation Areas seems rather hypocritical to me. In Bath, English Heritage have supported the developer in preference to preserving the fabric or setting of listed buildings on a number of occasions, notably the Newark Works
http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/newark.htm and the Holburne Museum
http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/holburne.htm
On both occasions, the advice from English Heritage was along the lines that the things that English Heritage would normally be concered about would come secondary to the aspirations of the planning applicants. So it is OK to demolish 90% of a listed building if it allows the applicant to provide sifficient flood compensation to build a glass and steel monstrosity, and it is OK to stick a glass and ceramic extension on a Grade I listed Georgian building in a Grade II listed Park in a Conservation Area in a World Heritage Site if it gives the occupants a bit more room to display things. On both occasions, Bath Heritage Watchdog formally complained to Dr Thurley, and was fobbed off with an explanation that English Heritage advise on the “necessary process” of change, which is totally outside the remit of English Heritage.
Even quoting the legislation under which English Heritage was founded made no difference:
The National Heritage Act 1983 created English Heritage and tasked it to:
(a) secure the preservation of ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England,
(b) promote the preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas situated in England, and
(c) promote the public's enjoyment of, and advance their knowledge of, ancient monuments and historic buildings situated in England and their preservation.
There is nothing there about the necessary process of change, is there?
So for Simon Thurley to now start worrying about conservation areas is hypocritical to say the least. I won't believe English Heritage is serious about conservation until he resigns.
Posted: 02 Apr 2009, 13:35