Aimée L Felton 2012

18 The penalties for misusing or failing to honour the cultural significance and value of an historic property in The Netherlands, comes at a much higher cost than any of the sanctions or coercive measures in place currently within the UK. Duty of care is enshrined in law, ensuring a minimum degree of maintenance and the owner to follow the regulations laid down in the 1988 Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act which is currently still in force within Dutch law (ibid. 2001:p251). Whilst the financial incentives in place actively encourage a maintenance- led approach, inspections provided by subscription to Monumentenwacht act as the key to inciting preventative maintenance (Dann,N andCantell,T.2007,as cited in Forsyth,M.2007:p194). The report provided through the subscription service, plays a multi-faceted role in the conservation of the historic buildings. They provide the owners with detailed technical and aesthetic details of the condition, as well as advice from professionals and experts within the organisation and conclusions as to which method of repair or maintenance may prove to be the best solution; in preserving the most of the culturally significant fabric and being the most cost effective.Whilst this document is invaluable to the owner, it is also a vital reference for the submission requirements for many of the grants available to owners (Richel-Bottinga, S, as cited in Pickard, R. 2001:p263), not only positively encouraging maintenance but enrolment to the supportive network and financial assistance. Whilst this is a shining example of the best approach, integrated methods and incentive driven scheme, this is not common practice within the UK. Maintenance (for non heritage focused organisations and owners) is often associated with the attitude of ‘it it’s not broke, why fix it?’ and attitudes that fail to connect aesthetic appearance with cultural value, and historical significance. TWO Chapter Two - Context Aimee Felton