Aimée L Felton 2012

48 FIVE merely a factor of importance within a spectrumof broader issues, including the protection of skill based jobs, coherency of the local environment, sustainable issues and economic factors (DCMS, 2008b). This proclamation of how to ensure the historic environment meets the requirements of the 21st century examines the potential of maintenance. When preventative maintenance is seen as the most intuitive and practical manifestation of maintenance theory, under no objections from academics, the Bill failed to enshrine the importance of this measure as protection for all heritage assets before statutory intervention becomes a necessity (SCOLA as cited in DCMS, 2008: Evidence 64). The National Amenity Societies (NAS) have long championed the effective nature of preventative maintenance as the best and cheapest method of chaperoning historic buildings for the next generation. In attempt to raise awareness, NAS supported by HLF, EH and others, and have since expressed their disappointment at the missed opportunity to make a ‘statutory obligation on owners requiring them to maintain protected buildings, or incentives to persuade them to carry out such works’. The Country Land and Business Association (CLA) (cited in DCMS, 2008: Evidence 116) responded to the Bill declaring that it would not succeed in protecting heritage by simply utilising the threat of fines. It later purported that the only strategies sufficient to protect heritage were overwhelming public support, willingness of a subsection of that public to buy and own it, and to pay for its maintenance and a willingness to accept that heritage must be allowed to change. The Bill earnestly stipulated attempts to unify heritage protection regimes, allow greater public involvement in decisions, and place heritage at the heart of the planning system (DCMS, 2008b). With an estimated cost of only £1.72million over a five year period (ibid, 2008:p9) Chapter Five- Statutory and Policy Aimee Felton