C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 49 Residents in both areas wanted more information on conservation area planning controls, the council’s consultation processes and the conservation areas themselves. Some of this information is available on the council’s website, but unless users know the appropriate terminology, it can be hard to find information there. The statement of community involvement6 discusses consultation of the local development framework and of planning applications but in rather inaccessible language. The council’s departments and decisions were also perceived as being inaccessible. Some people perceived the conservation areas to be ineffective because of inconsistent application of controls, but probably also because of their lack of knowledge of the need for permission and a lack of monitoring of local change. There was a need for funding to help with maintenance, especially in lower income areas. Although original features will add to the value of a property7, some people may be priced out of a conservation area, with resultant gentrification and, potentially, a change in character. Residents had a broad perception of conservation and of conservation areas, beyond the controls over buildings. They expected that the area should start to look better after designation, particularly in the appearance of streets and other parts of the public realm, and that council maintenance should extend to trees and hedges along all roads. The tendency of local planning authorities to consult rather than involve local people was borne out by this research, and it was reinforced by the imposition of BVPI 219 and its consequent need to have character appraisals completed in a short time period8. Lindsey has highlighted the shortage of human resources in many authorities for the production of character appraisals, and the lack of training in working with the public and in generating community involvement9. Character appraisals have been carried out by council staff, consultants and volunteers, all people removed from the conservation area. Outreach work could help to engage disaffected residents, help them to identify with the area’s special nature, and encourage them to become actively involved with keeping the area special. Building relationships takes time and often depends on one or a small number of individuals. If one of those people moves away, the organisation needs to rebuild a position of trust. Another issue which came out of this research was a concern with climate change. Residents were trying to reduce their carbon footprint by improving the insulation of their properties and installing renewable sources of energy. However, controls in conservation areas mean that new windows and doors should normally be made out of traditional materials and in appropriate designs. These cost more than uPVC and may make the installation of power generation equipment difficult. People want a ‘nice place to live’ and clearly expect a conservation area to fulfil this description10. Conversely, if those who are living there at the time feel alienated from the special nature of the area, they will be less inclined to look after it in an appropriate way. If people can be encouraged to identify with the conservation area they live and work in, they are more likely to want to become involved and help preserve the area’s character. However, there is a history of top-down management of conservation areas by local planning authorities. This is reinforced by the lack of involvement of local communities in the preparation of appraisals, and by current guidance which concentrates on what should be included and fails to detail how it should be reported. The plethora of articles on the subject in the professional literature has failed to improve public involvement and knowledge of planning controls. Although there is a great deal of support for conservation, many people feel excluded from it. Although SMBC goes considerably further to consult local people than it is required to, it could do more to help people feel involved in their local conservation areas. A recent English Heritage survey identified one in seven conservation areas as being at risk from neglect, decay and inappropriate change11. One cause of the steady erosion of local character has been the inappropriate replacement of doors and windows in residential properties. Where incomes are low, people have less money to spend on appropriate designs and materials. While it is good to see councils withdrawing permitted development rights, funding for local conservation work is needed. Otherwise a consequence of Article 4 directions could be gentrification. JennyWetton works for Kathryn Sather and Associates, heritage conservation consultants. Her research was carried out for her masters in architectural conservation at the University of Central Lancashire. References 6 Larkham, PJ, Residents’ Perceptions of Conservation: case studies in theWest Midlands,Working Paper Series 74, Birmingham, University of Central England, 1999 7 Stockport MBC, Local Development Framework: statement of community involvement, 2006 [online] 8 English Heritage, Heritage at Risk: estate agents’ survey results [online] 9 Pendlebury, J and Townshend, T, ‘The Conservation of Historic Areas and Public Participation’, Journal of Architectural Conservation 2 (July), 1999 10 Lindsey, HS, Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans: the effects of BVPI 219, MSc Dissertation, UCLAN, 2007 11 Mattinson, D, ‘The Value of Heritage: what does the public think?’ in Capturing theValue of Heritage: proceedings of the London conference, London, English Heritage, 2006 12 English Heritage, Heritage at Risk: national survey results [online] Left:The Station Road/ Winnington Road Conservation Area in Marple Right:The Lock-keeper’s Cottage on the Peak Forest Canal
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=