29th January 2009, 05:48 PM
Quote:quote:If you like the idea of a development (because it takes 30 minutes off your commute) the heritage impact will be percieved to be much less important than if you stand vehemently opposed to it.
I am not sure that this dichotomy is quite so clear cut. It is certainly possible to think of many reasons to support developments of various kinds. Not just because they shorten journey times, but because they provide housing, new transport, manufacturing jobs, 'green energy' or create new leisure facilities. It is still possible to support the idea of a particular development and at the same time recognise the significance of the heritage impact.
On the other hand one could vehemently oppose it for non-heritage reasons and not give two hoots about the heritage. (Think of Twyford Down or the Newbury Bypass - both controversial projects which were opposed on natural environment grounds but not on what we now call 'historic environment' grounds - despite the presence of various archaeological features like hill forts and so-on).
By the way I think that the scope of debate has changed part-way through. Forgive me if I appear to be splitting hairs, but...
The initial question was (my emphasis):
Quote:quote:Should we dump the notion of preservation in-situ and embrace new developments as an opportunity to investigate in a controlled way something that otherwise might disappear
To which I replied "yes", pointing out that this would require us to upgrade our response in terms of preservation by record. In other words if we are going to make controlled investigations of threatened heritage we need to make sure that the records of those investigations are appropriately thorough and well-archived.
A response to this was:
Quote:quoteoesn't a strategy of preservation in situ/record assert an intrinsic value for heritage independent of the fluctuating concerns of politics and economics? If this is a holding line, in the current climate do we really want to give this up?
I didn't mean to advocate giving up a "strategy for preservation in situ/record". Rather, I advocated a preference for "the notion of preservation by record" over "the notion of preservation in situ". (With the proviso which you have also quoted.) There seems to me to be a fundamental difference between those two ideas.
ANY system of historic environment protection will by its very existence assert an intrinsic value for heritage. This will be the case whether it is a system based on preservation in situ, by record, or - ideally - a combination of both. At one level the details of the system are neither here nor there, because the broader value to society will be determined not by historic environment professionals but by society at large.
Regardless of the 'current climate', we still need to be sure that our historic environment strategies are fit for purpose. The present system is flaky in many ways, as recognised by the HPR process, and should be updated.