![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
Policy makers have generally assumed that the preservation of architectural heritage is underpinned by a day-to-day management consensus driven by virtuous intentions that are positive and enthusiastic at best, and benign at worst. Until quite recently, little attention or concern was paid to the need for penalties as a deterrent to deliberate defacement and illegal demolition. Sanctions to address mutilation or loss of historic buildings were left largely to local authorities and were under used. A current initiative involving a number of additional key agencies intends to provide a much better coordinated national and local response to the problem. Although this initiative also encompasses archaeology, this paper focuses on the aspects related to architectural heritage crime.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Bob Kindred
Bob Kindred, MBE, BA, IHBC, MRTPI
Bob Kindred has been involved in local government heritage management for nearly 30 years and is a member of the Council of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. He established in 1996 and still maintains the national database of listed building prosecutions for IHBC and was an external adviser to the DCLG in 2006 on the preparation of its Best Practice Guidance on Listed Building Prosecutions. He is the Standing Special Adviser on Heritage to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and has written extensively on heritage policy.
