Where does social ecological modelling fit in ices?
A Matter Of Degree
1. A Matter of Degree: Significance, Spatial Planning, and the Historic Environment Kae Neustadt, BA, MA Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage School of Conservation Sciences Bournemouth University
22. DRAFT Public Value Use Public Value Use Public Value Use Spiritual Public Value Use Time Depth Public Value Use Time Depth Public Value Use Time Depth Social Public Value Unlikely to be applicable Public Value Unlikely to be applicable Public Value Use Commemorative/ Symbolic Communal Fabric Time Depth (perceived) Setting/context Public Value Fabric Time Depth Setting/context Comparability Public Value Fabric Time Depth Setting/Context Comparability Public Value Organic development Fabric Comparability Public Value Fabric Comparability Public Value Fabric Comparability Public Value Designed Aesthetic Fabric Setting/context Relative Importance Comparability Fabric Relative Importance Comparability Fabric Relative Importance Comparability Illustrative Fabric Time depth Associated materials Setting/ context Relative importance Comparability Fabric Documentary evidence Associated materials Setting/ Context Public Value Documentary evidence Fabric Associated materials Setting/ Context Public Value Use Associative Historical Fabric Time depth Associated materials Relative importance Comparability Fabric Time depth Setting/Context Public value Fabric Time depth Documentary evidence Public value Evidential Archaeological Site Scheduled Ancient Monument Listed Building Heritage Value
What are the questions I’ll be addressing today? All of the questions relate to the theme of how the historic environment is treated within the planning and development control systems in the UK. Key among issues surrounding this theme is the concern over what is significant: what is worth preserving and why, and what is less sensitive to change? How can we ensure that proposed change respects those aspects of the historic environment that are most important, without being stuck in a place that prohibits any change.
First quote from Kate Clark, Deputy Director for Policy and Research, Heritage Lottery Fund, at conference “capturing the public value of heritage”. Second quote is from White Paper “Heritage Protection for the 21 st Century”
Picture is from Belgium, I don’t know of what.
RSS: must require an implementation plan, but not a process. Implementation plan includes delivery mechanisms, targets, and key indicators, not necessarily a process for implementing the strategy. Information from Cullingworth & Nadin 2004
“ The concerns of the majority who opposed the abolition of structure and local plans have largely been borne out. The outcome is on the face of it a very complex revision of the tools of local development planning” (Cullingworth & Nadin 2004:118) Problem inherent in the need for development control to refer to the development plan when making decisions: if plan does not reference historic environment, how can development control measures weigh proposals for change to the historic environment against the development plan.
Number 3 from Booth 1996, in Cullingworth and Nadin.
Inherent value appears to be the assumption in most local government plans for treatment of the historic landscape (Worthing, Shropshire, etc). This is often based off Landscape Character Assessments done for Countryside planning purposes, which also assume an inherent value in the historic landscape. However, HLC is based on landscape historical and archaeological notions that reject the idea of inherent value. How does this translate into applicability for HLC in planning and management.
Points 1 & 2 are from Fairclough 1999. The Bishop 1999 quote is from a paper at the same conference, given on the practical use of HLC in Nottinghamshire.
Image from Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs AONB.
Peveril castle, Derbyshire
Comparability would include group value (contribution to a similar group), as well as rare or unique qualities. Setting/ context will be highly important for landscape evaluation