|
The terms "conservation" and "preservation" are all too often used loosely without a full appreciation of their respective meanings. This guidance note sets out to define the terms and relate them to "green lanes" and explores the implications of preservation and conservation when applied to unsurfaced highways.
Preservation.
Definition: To preserve a historic artefact, building or landscape exactly as it currently appears in all respects. Only absolutely essential works are carried out to the minimum extent necessary in order to protect the preserved artefact.
Conservation
Definition 1: To retain a historic artefact, building or landscape protecting, as far as is practicable, its fabric and character whilst putting it to some practical use in modern society.
Definition 2: To retain a historic artefact, building or landscape protecting its character by continuing to utilise and maintain it in the way that led to the development of that character.
To differentiate between the two definitions of conservation, throughout the rest of this note we'll call the first "modern" conservation and the second "traditional".
A good example of preservation is a Scheduled Ancient Monument upon which virtually no work of any type (even archaeological investigation) is permitted except in exceptional circumstances.
An example of the first, modern, type of conservation might be a Georgian manor house which is converted into a hotel or conference centre whilst retaining as much of the original character and appearance of the building as possible.
Examples of the second, traditional, type of conservation might be coppiced woodland (which requires regular coppicing or it will just become woodland without the coppice!), heathland (requires regular burning off and/or grazing), historic wooden boats which, if they are to remain afloat, will require routine replacement of rotten timbers etc.
Bringing this into the context of green lanes the question is whether we (the nation rather than GLASS!) ...
(a) Preserve green lanes exactly as they currently appear
(b) Conserve lanes retaining as much of their character as possible but using, where necessary, different maintenance methods and materials from those traditionally used on that lane in order to sustain current types and levels of use
(c) Conserve lanes protecting their character by using the maintenance methods and materials traditionally used on that lane.
Let's look at each definition in turn, in more detail and particularly from the perspective of the motor vehicle user ...
Preserving lanes is the worst option. By definition, a preserved lane can only sustain use if that use causes no deterioration whatsoever to the fabric of the lane. Even very gradual deterioration is unacceptable since it will inevitably lead, eventually, to repairs being necessary and that will defeat the primary objective of preservation.
However, whilst preservation is, therefore, one option we want to avoid if at all possible we must, if we are to be realistic, accept that there are going to be a very small number of exceptional cases where it is the most appropriate option for a particular lane. One possible circumstance would be a Roman road where the archaeological remains of the Roman road construction are vulnerable to damage if the route is subject to wear and tear through modern use.
That said, closure to modern use in order to preserve the archaeology should still be a last resort after all possible methods of protecting the archaeology whilst permitting continued use have been considered and found wanting on genuine grounds (cost not being one of them although temporary closure for a reasonable period until funds can be allocated for protective works may need to be considered).
That deals with preservation so what about conservation?
Here the argument is between using traditional methods appropriate for a particular lane versus methods, either traditional or modern, which have not previously been used on that particular lane.
Stone, for example, is a traditional material for road surfacing. Using suitable stone to repair lanes which have, historically, been surfaced with stone is entirely appropriate.
However, stone is not a traditional maintenance material for lanes which have never previously been surfaced with stone. Its use on such lanes in order to permit sustained modern use is infinitely preferable to tarmac, or other modern materials, but, no matter how carefully and sensitively the work is carried out, the application of stone to previously unsurfaced highways inevitably changes the character of the lane.
It is perhaps unwise, in any case, to adopt a blanket policy advocating either modern or traditional conservation. So much depends on the individual history and current state and status of each lane. For example; where the maintenance problems on a lane which has never traditionally had a stone surface are confined to a short stretch of that lane, it may be entirely appropriate to apply a stone surface, or sub-surface, to just that length in order to sustain modern use over the entire route.
Conversely, where the majority of the length of the lane cannot sustain modern types and levels of use without such a surface it may be more appropriate to consider restricting levels and types of use sufficiently so that the lane can be sustained using traditional maintenance methods.
However, and this is a crucial point, restricting levels and types of use should only be considered where it is unrealistic to sustain full access using traditional methods of maintenance. Restrictions should not be used to avoid carrying out adequate levels of maintenance.
There is, of course, a grey area here …
It is unrealistic to expect a Highway Authority to send a maintenance team out to a lane every few weeks to repair ruts in a surface which simply cannot sustain significant levels of use.
On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to expect a Highway Authority to have a program of regular maintenance where ruts are backfilled and compacted, trees and hedges cut back etc. on every unsurfaced Highway (be they unclassified roads, Byways, bridleways or footpaths) within its area. Indeed, the Highway Authority has an unavoidable (although all too frequently avoided never the less) statutory duty to carry out such maintenance at a level appropriate for the traffic using the Highway.
Sadly, few, if any, Highway Authorities are allocated a budget which allows for adequate maintenance of Public Rights of Way and it is, in my opinion, hopelessly unrealistic to expect Local Authorities to substantially increase Rights of Way maintenance budgets in the foreseeable future.
One possible solution is voluntary maintenance. However, without access to construction equipment such as diggers, dumpers, compactors etc., it is hard to see how volunteers can have a sufficient impact over a significant route mileage to substantially impact the long term future of the "green lane" network as a whole.
This in no way detracts from the impact that volunteer effort can have on a particular route, I am simply putting forward the notion that it is unlikely that volunteer effort can significantly affect the overall situation (not unless substantial funds can be found to develop a volunteer organisation similar to the Waterway Recovery Group with members qualified and certificated to operate various types of plant and the financial resources to operate and hire such plant as and when required, not to mention suitable insurance etc.)
To summarise the paragraphs above, preservation should be a last resort.
"Traditional" conservation is, in my opinion, preferable to "modern" conservation - the latter should, I believe, be confined to short lengths of otherwise sustainable routes.
It is difficult to see how, especially in an area like Northamptonshire, a goal of traditional conservation can be achieved without some level of restriction on types and/or levels of use. The only realistic alternative to restrictions is to use "modern" conservation techniques to provide a sustainable all weather surface (and that assumes that the finance can be found to apply those modern techniques in the first place).
If, and it is by no means a foregone conclusion, we accept that some degree of restriction on use is a necessary "evil", what form should such restrictions take?
Again, I do not believe that we can adopt a single policy for an entire county or the country as a whole. Seasonal TROs, Voluntary Restrictions (perhaps short term and put in place quickly, and lifted equally quickly, by local voluntary wardens during spells of wet weather), periodic "recovery" closures, permit schemes on lanes which will never be able to sustain more than a moderate level of use, and, I suspect, various other options as well, are all potentially appropriate to individual cases.
Perhaps the most important conclusion to be drawn is that the application of any blanket policy on sustaining "green lanes", whether by a Highway Authority or a user group, is virtually certain to be a mistake!
Bruce Peckett 4/2003 |
