Aimée L Felton 2012

47 FIVE received by DCMS (2008:p4) following the release of the paper during the public consultation phase. Many discussed the inadequacies and inaccuracies of the proposed legislation and contained questioning regarding the biased sponsorship of the bill (DCMS and EH). Two oral evidence sessions were held to attempt to clarify and placate angered and disappointed organisations, with repeated notions that the bill was only ‘one piece of the jigsaw for securing a better future for the historic environment, providing only the primary legislative changes for the designated heritage assets’ (DCMS, 2008:Evidence 77). The absence of a duty of care for owners was the most criticised omission, with many of the larger and acclaimed heritage organisations, with SPAB and the Standing Conference on London Archaeology (SCOLA) in particular publishing their disparaging and captious responses. Dann and Cantell (as cited in Forsyth, M. 2007:194) have attributed this lack of legislative framework as the reason why the UK is falling behind the Netherlands, as the legislation could act as positive encouragement ensuring a minimum degree of maintenance. Whilst duty of care was a dominant topic within commentaries of the bill, there is no explanation within the document to explain the omission. However literature discussing the government’s attitude towards the historic environment draws tentative conclusions, suggesting that the fear of local authorities acquiring problematic buildings following negative enforcement procedures combined with the government’s perception of the historic environment acting as a barrier to progress and a constraint on development as a prominent incentive to exclude duty of care. DCMS have maintained that maintenance is not a solitary campaign but Chapter Five- Statutory and Policy Aimee Felton