6 C O N T E X T 1 2 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 1 from around 1660. Three of the six bells are on the Church Building Council’s list of historically interesting bells, the oldest dating from c1480. A faculty granted in August 2010 allowed for refurbishing the bells with mostly new fittings in the existing frame. The Diocesan Advisory Committee’s (DAC) approval included a recommendation that removal of the canons on the bells be considered, and that they be retuned. A subsequent variation to the faculty, granted by the chancellor, permitted the bells to be moved by way of one of the belfry windows. The society observed that it is not accepted good practice to retune medieval bells, and that it seemed strange that the practicalities of removing the bells were not sufficiently thought through at the time of the original faculty application. Once the bells had been removed, a bell hanger advised that the frame was not repairable. But a visit by an architect member of the DAC advised straightforwardly that the frame was generally in excellent condition and needed comparatively minor repairs. The parish then put forward two proposals. The first would result in the destruction of much of the 1660s frame. The second would preserve the frame without its bells, and install a new floor below the existing belfry floor and a new frame. A structural engineer representing the SPAB also concluded that the frame was in excellent condition. This led the society to conclude that what was being contemplated was the destruction of a piece of craftsmanship which had survived unscathed for 350 years, when all that was needed was modest repair. At issue for the SPAB was a potentially entirely inappropriate variation to the faculty by the chancellor to permit either of the parish’s options, both of which would be a fundamental reversal of the faculty already granted. If it was decided not to continue to use the bell frame, the chancellor should require a new faculty petition with full supporting information, including statements of need and significance. The society considered that as a result of its objections, if necessary, a consistory court would have to be convened. Not to do so would set a fearful precedent, with the chancellor setting aside the democratic process and deciding that he had the authority to issue a variation on such a fundamentally different set of proposals. The society concluded that no comparable powers existed in the secular system. The latest Transactions of the Association for the Studies in the Conservation of Historic Buildings (ASCHB) have recently been published (retrospectively) for 2010 presenting well-illustrated subjects in greater depth than is often permissible in most other heritage periodicals. While repair and restoration projects at three sites are discussed in detail, the approach to key principles is particularly also worth following up in this set of Transactions. The first project concerns the restoration of the east end chapels of Chichester Cathedral, described by Colin Kerr, surveyor of the fabric since 2006. This part of the building contains some of the country’s most significant transitional work from Romanesque to Gothic in the country, and brings to a conclusion repairs of the masonry begun in the 1960s. The external repairs have continued to use Richemont Jaune stone for the general ashlar and Lepine for weatherings, with Purbeck replacing Ashburton, which had survived for only 140 years. Kerr describes the history and the external and internal works, including the conservation of the decorative scheme with a very fine full-page colour illustration of a surviving mid-16th century decorative vault painting, which at one time decorated the entire cathedral. In relation to the stained glass restoration by Clayton and Bell in the 1870s, incorporating fragmentary medieval glass, he remarks that many people seem to think that conservation was invented in 1975. The contentious recreation of the Elizabethan garden at Kenilworth Castle is described by Richard Griffiths. Although this scheme has been reported extensively elsewhere, the article addresses the philosophical, practical and interpretive issues in the context of the English Heritage Conservation Principles. Needless to say, as Kenilworth is an English Heritage-managed site, the claim is one not of restoration but of ‘recreation or re-presentation’. The appropriateness of this is posed in the context of Morris’s and Ruskin’s views about any attempt to restore the past: ‘a feeble and lifeless forgery is the final result of all the wasted labour’. As, in the real world, works are exempt from, for example, the building regulations, the application of the conservation principles might be better tested by way of the Planning Inspectorate. On a broader scale, Peter Kendall considers Chatham and the fortifications built for the defence of the dockyard as a militarised landscape. This is in need of positive management. Kendall explores the physical survival, significance, communal values and enjoyment of military heritage assets as the basis for inscription as a world heritage site. Rena Pitsilli-Graham provides some valuable insights into specifying, tendering and training of operatives as the preliminaries to the very challenging restoration of Hadlow Tower at Tonbridge in Kent. The tower has similarities to Thomas Beckford’s eccentric Fonthill Abbey. Built as an octagonal folly in 1838 at 44 metres high, a lantern added a further nine metres in 1840. The upper part was rendered in Parker’s patent cement. After severe deterioration, Tonbridge and Malling District Council carried out emergency repairs in 1993 after compulsory purchase. The current repairs involve a consortium including the local authority and the Vivat Trust. There are immense practical challenges, not least the height. The project has been able to take advantage of Europewide research into the historic use of Roman cement (ROCEM), which in turn has necessitated the introduction of prospective tenderers to the nature of natural cement and the need for appropriate specialist training. Reference was made above to the application of the English Heritage Conservation Principles. In a very informative article John Neale of English Heritage takes these as a meditation on the general sense in which the term ‘restoration’ is used to describe attempts to revive what are considered to be a building’s interest or character. Neale does not advance a systematic argument but explores the issue through the medium of six transactions volume 33 2010 AssociAtion for studies in the conservAtion of historic buildings
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=