C O N T E X T 1 1 3 : M A R C H 2 0 1 0 5 Remembering Vanessa Brand Key roles in local and central government In remembering Vanessa Brand, who died in December, two words in particular have recurred from reminiscences of many of her former colleagues in building conservation: a strong identification with her as their personal mentor. She cared greatly for the people she worked with, encouraging and enthusing them, and infusing them with energy. She had great warmth and charm, and an incisive and enquiring mind. This led her in recent years to roles as head of policy at DCMS, and most recently on secondment as secretary to the board of the Olympic Delivery Authority. She still maintained, through her many heritage colleagues and continuing membership of IHBC, a close contact with their current concerns. Brand worked for the illustrious Greater London Council Historic Buildings Division – the only part to survive that council’s abolition – and remained when it became the London division of English Heritage. She was always extremely hard-working and conscientious. One former colleague recalls that it eventually emerged that she spent most Saturday mornings catching up on GLC casework in the office (although how she got the key to the office nobody knew). She took over the central English Heritage buildings-at-risk officer role from John Fidler in 1985. It is for this that the conservation sector is greatly in her debt because of the vigour and effectiveness with which the initiative was conducted. Kirklees was quickly encouraged to undertake a pilot BAR survey, and the computer methodology for BAR registers was tested at Ipswich. Although at the time IT equipment was very basic, especially in local authorities, these surveys and the supporting software were soon being rolled out to numerous authorities with Brand’s encouragement. One of her largely unsung achievements was persuading English Heritage to part-fund the publication of the Association of Conservation Officers seminal report on listed buildings repairs notices in 1991, and ensuring that every chief planning officer in England received a copy. This helped cement the ACO’s reputation and it became the only non-government source document in PPG15. Its content, thanks to Vanessa’s wise advice, has remained current and a valuable legacy after nearly two decades in use. Bob Kindred ‘The news media still puts heritage in a box as if it were a beautiful house or painting, and doesn’t see it in its broader sense of culture, industrial history and landscape.’ Dame Jenny Abramsky, chair of the Heritage Lottery Fund, speaking at the Heritage Question Time. ‘If the Planning subcommittee had been properly advised and directed to the proper considerations for these applications, I believe that it would not have approved the applications.’ Local government ombudsman Anne Seex on Kirklees Council’s approval of a plan to demolish a listedVictorian schoolroom and build new houses on the site. The sub-committee was not told of the law requiring it to have special regard to preserving the listed schoolroom; of national planning guidance that there should be a general presumption in favour of preserving listed buildings; of the specific tests that it should have applied before giving permission for the schoolroom to be demolished; or of comments from the council’s own conservation specialists. Of the 32 photographs that were shown to the sub-committee to illustrate the dilapidated condition of the schoolroom, 24 were of a completely different building. The ombudsman recommended that the council should remedy the injustice by seeking to negotiate for the permissions to be relinquished in favour of a new scheme, for which it would meet reasonable design costs and planning application fees. ‘In the 60s, everything was built cheaper, faster and nastier. If you are going to try to fix buildings, then really you won’t have too many problems with anything built earlier than the 50s or after the 80s. ‘Although you can do some things to buildings from the 60s and 70s, like replacing the roofs, there are probably some places that need to come down entirely. The buildings that pose the most difficulties are semi-industrialised, highly inefficient, badly insulated and so ugly that they are not worth refurbishing. ‘The problem is weighing up whether it is more energy-efficient to knock something down and start from scratch, or refurbish it. We don’t have the methodologies for weighing that up in all cases.’ Paul Morrell, chief construction adviser at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, speaking to the Times.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=