C O N T E X T 8 4 : M A Y 2 0 0 4 27 given on the content, it should normally include a full set of black and white prints, colour slides, negatives, a photographic register and a copy of the report. In some instances the field notes and reproductions of the measured survey on drafting film were required, but the use of microfiche, computer discs and CD-ROM remained comparatively rare. Once complete, the site archive was usually deposited in the County Record Office, although the local museum and SMR were occasionally mentioned. The research focus of the recording brief The possibility of future publication was raised in 23 (35 per cent) recording briefs, but in most instances the historic buildings analyst simply needed to provide a 100-word summary for the county-based, annual round-up, and the title of the report, author, date and location of the archive. However, there will be cases when a detailed article would be appropriate, especially if the survey sheds new light on an important site or particular class of building. Although 59 of the 65 briefs (90 per cent) involved total demolition, proposed new uses and/or works to Grade I/II* listed buildings, the possibility of detailed publication was recognised in only four examples. Where appropriate, this requirement should be identified in the recording brief so that the historic buildings analyst can include a contingency sum within the overall project costs, but only one authority provided suitable guidance. To some extent this can be explained by the research strategy within the brief, which rarely moved beyond a low-level, site-specific narrative. A common objective was ‘to establish the character, history, date, form and archaeological development of the building and its setting’ or ‘to secure the recording of any architectural evidence and historic fabric/features revealed by the development programme’. Such an approach may be appropriate when the proposal affects only a small part of the fabric, but for those schemes involving major works it is unlikely to be sufficient. In some cases the brief expected the historic buildings analyst to consult general sources on particular categories of building and/or industrial processes, so that the results could be placed within their wider vernacular, typological or technological context. In the absence of such a strategy, the recording level may be inadequate. This becomes vitally important where the primary evidence is likely to be damaged or destroyed. Conclusions and recommendations Apostal and telephone questionnaire to 56 conservation advisors generated 43 responses, giving a return rate of 77 per cent. Analysis of the 65 recording briefs received enabled an assessment to be made of their form and content, the use of different recording levels and the presentation of the results. Having identified key headings and paragraphs from the sample, it should be possible to produce a standard brief, which simply needs to be tailored to suit the individual requirements of each project. When deciding on the length and level of detail within the document, the conservation advisors should always exercise their own professional judgement, based on the potential importance of the building and the possible implications of the scheme for the surviving fabric. As with the earlier work by Oxford Brookes University7, the survey found a variety of different practices amongst local authorities in assessing and recording historic buildings within the planning/listed building process. The research seemed to suggest that archaeologists were giving much of the advice, and that the conservation officer was largely absent from the decision-making process. This assumption is supported by the emphasis on PPG16 for the recording of non-listed industrial structures, following the granting of planning permission and the use of building recording as part of a wider programme of archaeological excavation. A number of the local authority conservation officers who responded to the survey identified the quality of the listed building application rather than the need for further information as an area of major concern. The two are inevitably linked, but the standard of applications would certainly be improved if local authorities made greater use of guidance notes, model forms, checklists and justification statements. Where the possible implications of the development proposal are still unclear, the local authority should be prepared to defer any decision pending the submission by the applicant of an impact assessment. Identifying this requirement during pre-application discussions could result in greater transparency, a quicker decision and a better overall scheme. As with archaeological evaluations, impact assessments will probably account for only a small number of cases each year. Conditions for the recording of features that may be lost or destroyed
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=