Arrived late for the conference, so we listened to the end of Fiona’s speech before our new Chairman, Simon Jenkins, got up to speak.
Simon started by talking about why he took the job. And right now he’s making us feel good by comparing us favourably to English Heritage. Almost all things to almost all men and women, he says, balancing the high art with the working farm. He senses moving from an era of protecting and preserving places for the nation, to one where we are almst handing the places over to the nation, engaging people in the work so much that we should almost put places at risk.
Now his knocking us off our pedestals, telling us that we present our houses to art historians, while people actually want to know what it’s like to live in the house. We should treat our houses like we treat our industrial heritage. Putting the houses to work: “if it’s a dining room, people should eat in it”.
He says we shouln’t shy away from controversy, but we should be carefull. We should respect the diverse views of our members, embrace those diverse views, not alienate the members that hold them.
His last point is about beaurocracy, and quotes Adam Nicholson saying “is the Trust slow because it’s big, or big because it’s slow?” He is shocked by the quality of the language in internal papers, too full of the jargon of large organizations.
He is followed by Peter Nixon. He onteiduces the theme of the conference, Conservation. He talks about it being the the carefull managementnif change, and highlights the uncertainty of the current times. He would like all staff to feel that conservation us their objective, not just the remit if the conservation department.
He mentions the controversy over Erddig, and talks about the lessons learned from that controversy. Especially, not assuming that if every who comes to meetings agrees, that everyone in the community also agrees.
He goes on to talk about how conservation (and other) advisors need to be supportive, to be realistic, to be positive and to be aware that the advice they give will have an impact beyond the specific area they are looking at, and beyond the properties too.
Interestingly he says it’s no longer acceptable that when there’s a irreconsillable conflict between access and and conservation, then conservation will prevail. Instead, he says, the irreconsillable has to be reconcilled.
