22 C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 PATRICK MILLER So why is this place so bloody important? A well-conceived statement of significance can focus the mind of the assessor, smooth the path towards listing, and help enormously in managing a significant place and object. One of the strengths of the Australian approach to heritage conservation has been the notion that the significance of a place or object should be able to be put into words in a statement of cultural heritage significance. Perhaps this stems from the fact that in a country where the built fabric is comparatively recent, heritage significance is not always obvious. There is also contrariness in our Australian character that on the one hand is deeply suspicious of authority, but on the other hand very law-abiding. If you try to tell us to do something ‘because I say so’, you will have a battle on your hands. But there is a greater chance of, if not cooperation, then grudging compliance, if the case is fairly and succinctly put. In his 1982 seminal work for the National Trust of Australia (NSW), The Conservation Plan, James Semple Kerr outlined the process by which one can plan for the physical conservation of significant places. In it he stressed that documentary and physical analysis should lead to a statement of significance. Only then can you move on to policy and implementation. Since 1982, no serious conservation management plan prepared in Australia has departed from this framework although, to be fair, many have not measured up to its expectations. In Australia, heritage protection is a matter for all levels of government: federal, state and local. In the state of Victoria we have had three major successive pieces of legislation: the Historic Buildings Preservation Act 1974, the Historic Buildings Act 1981 and the Heritage Act 1995. In the last of these the principle of a statement of significance has been turned into law. The Act requires that a ‘brief statement of cultural heritage significance’ be given to owners of places that are being recommended for inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Register. While there has been a slight tendency to see this statement as inflexible and binding for all time, a recent judicial decision confirmed that the statement of cultural heritage significance is a guide to understanding a place or object, not the final word. While Australian federal and state heritage registers record the most important places, the majority of sites receive their heritage protection from local government planning schemes. The use of statements of significance for places of local significance has lagged behind, perhaps understandably. But increasingly, often driven by planning appeals, there has been a move to introduce the practice at all levels. What makes a good statement of significance? There have been many different approaches over the years, and experience has shown us that some are better than others. Perhaps it would be better to start by illustrating some of the pitfalls that lead to bad or misleading statements of significance first. Length Many statements are too long.The problem usually lies with a genuine attempt to be as thorough as possible. It is easy to become trapped into thinking that a particular facet of the place or object will not be taken into account in management decisions if you do not mention it. But the more you try to be comprehensive, the more likely you are to fail. A statement that appears to be completely comprehensive (a practical impossibility) will inevitably be shown to have missed things. The level of detail available for other parts of the place will tend to indicate that the absence of the element in question meant it has no significance. The eventual development approval wrangle will be confused rather than enlightened by the statement of significance. It is always much better to make statements of significance brief and succinct by relying on more broadly applicable language. But while following this advice, it is also easy to overcompensate, creating statements so broad as to be meaningless or so widely applicable that the connection between the place or object in question and the stated significance is not solidly made. Implied significance Too often a statement of significance is merely a catalogue of the place’s or object’s attributes. Because statements are most usually created by heritage professionals, there is a tendency to allow the mere statement of fact – that a place or object is, say, an 1880s boom-style terrace, featuring elaborate cast-iron lacework and stucco decoration – to imply that the significance is self-evident. Even at the risk of sounding repetitive, statements should be peppered with phrases like ‘significant for its’ or ‘important because of’. Important to whom? Everything is important to someone. It needs to be important to a reasonably wide community if our justification for heritage protection lies in the significance of the place or object. Too often practitioners who fall into the above traps also fail to ask themselves: ‘just who is this (or ought it be) important to?’ Once again there seems to be an implication that if the heritage professional thinks it is important, then anyone else should. The use of criteria and/or categories Many heritage jurisdictions apply criteria and/or
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=