Institute of Historic Building Conservation No 126 September 2012 IHBC Annual School in Winchester Significance: who decides?
Call us now on 01248 600 656 or visit www.welshslate.com Welsh Slate, Penrhyn Quarry, Bethesda, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 4YG E-mail: enquiries@welshslate.com Roofing the nation’s heritage for hundreds of years
C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 1 Cover: Annual School delegates at the reception in Winchester’s Great Hall hear Professor Martin Biddle separating the facts from the legend of the Round Table which hangs behind him. (Photo: Jonathan Taylor) Institute ofHistoricBuildingConservation No126 September2012 IHBC Annual School in Winchester Significance:who decides? Editorial Getting to grips with significance www.ihbc.org.uk Registered as a charity in England andWales number 1061593 and in Scotland number SC041945. Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England number 3333780. Registered Office: 3 Stafford Road,TunbridgeWells, Kent TN2 4QZ. Officers President Trefor Thorpe email president@ihbc.org.uk Chair Jo Evans email chair@ihbc.org.uk Vice Chair Sheila Stones email vchair@ihbc.org.uk Secretary Eddie Booth email secretary@ihbc.org.uk Treasurer Richard Morrice email treasurer@ihbc.org.uk Membership Secretary Paul Butler email membership@ihbc.org.uk Education Secretary David McDonald email education@ihbc.org.uk Publicity Secretary Doug Black email publicity@ihbc.org.uk Law & Practice Coordinator vacant email law@ihbc.org.uk Director Seán O’Reilly email director@ihbc.org.uk Projects Officer Fiona Newton email projects@ihbc.org.uk Consultant Consultations Coordinator James Caird email consultations@ihbc.org.uk Membership Services Officer Carmen Moran email membershipservices@ihbc.org.uk Administration Officer Lydia Porter email admin@ihbc.org.uk Committee Chairs Policy Mike Brown email policy@ihbc.org.uk Membership & Ethics Paul Butler email membership@ihbc.org.uk Finance & Resources Richard Morrice email resources@ihbc.org.uk Education David McDonald email education@ihbc.org.uk Communications & Outreach Charles Strang email communications@ihbc.org.uk Branch Officers North Geoff UnderwoodTel 0191 433 3435 NorthWest Crispin Edwards Tel 0161 474 2620 Yorkshire David Blackburn Tel 01943 603479 West Midlands Charles Shapcott Tel 0121 7044312 East Midlands Roy Lewis Tel 01623 756623 South Julia Foster Tel 01296 585888 SouthWest JamesWebbTel 01202 732849 East Anglia Phil Godwin Tel 01263 516131 South East Sean Rix Tel 01483 523379 London JohnWebb Tel 020 8871 6645 Scotland Stuart Eydmann Tel 01506 775279 Wales Nathan Blanchard Tel 01492 583443 Northern Ireland Colin Hatrick Tel 028 9064 1126 Republic of Ireland Cormac O’Sullivan Tel 00353 5677 62907 Business Office Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA England Tel 01747 873133 Fax 01747 871718 email admin@ihbc.org.uk Why can’t we just enjoy historic buildings for their own sakes? Because these days we need to understand, and communicate, their significance. This summer’s IHBC annual school got to grips with that subject. Eddie Booth (page 18) reflected on two tricky examples: Donald Campbell’s boat Bluebird, in which he died in his attempt to break the water speed record in 1967, and the zebra crossing in London’s St John’s Wood featured on the cover of the Beatles 1969 Abbey Road album. Agreement on why Bluebird was significant was needed before a decision could be made about whether it should be restored, following its salvaging in 2001. As for the Abbey Road crossing, it was listed in 2010 even though none of the original tarmac and paint remained, and at the time it was thought that the crossing had been moved slightly for traffic management reasons in the 1970s. The Abbey Road crossing is significant because it was the subject of a famous photograph.You could say that the significant cultural artefact is the photograph, rather than the crossing, which is why the crossing could be listed even when physically none of the original molecules of paint or asphalt remained. In future the test of whether the crossing is still sufficiently authentic to carry the weight of its significance will no doubt be whether it looks sufficiently like the iconic photograph. As much as you can argue that the photograph, not the crossing, is the essential cultural artefact, Beatles fans want a real place to visit. We, though, are concerned not with boats and pedestrian crossings but with buildings. At least they stay in one place. The problems start when it comes to restoring them, making policy about them, interpreting them and altering them. The speakers at the annual school had a range of different approaches to the subject of significance. Some shed new light on it; some mentioned it in passing; some resisted it. Some approved of basing conservation on values. Others followed Matthew Slocombe (page 20) in insisting that the fabric of buildings was the only valid basis for making decisions about conservation. No one denied the subject’s – well – significance. Briefing 2 The writer’s voice 4 Out of Context 5 Gentrification and the NPPF James Moir 6 Heritage protected at Bunhill Fields Kristian Kamiński 10 Periodically 11 Legal Briefing 14 IHBC Annual School 2012 Significance: who decides? 17 Day School reports The origins of significance David McDonald 18 Designation and assessing significance David Clegg 19 Significance and the SPAB perspective Charlotte Dodgeon 20 The setting of heritage assets David Grech 21 Materials significance David Blackburn 22 Significance in archaeology Jules Brown 23 Significance and change in the historic landscape Lone LeVay 24 Significance and climate change Alan Byrne 26 Evening civic reception at the Great Hall Julia Foster 27 Study tours SaxonWinchester walking tour StuartWest 29 Winchester city centre walking tour Elizabeth Marten 30 Winchester Cathedral study tour Adrian Browning 31 Hampshire Records Office study tour Chloe Oswald and LisaWalton 32 Alresford study tour Elizabeth Mayle 33 Fort Nelson study tour Michael Taylor 34 Hospital of St Cross and the Almshouse of Noble Poverty study tour Tina Lloyd 36 Defining significance in designation Emily Gee 37 Reflections of value John Davies 40 Conference report: Niasvizh, Belarus Dennis Rodwell 42 Notes from the chair 44 Director’s cut 46 Vox pop 48 Book reviews 50 Products and services 53 Advertisers index 56
2 C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 Briefing Context Editor Rob Cowan Editorial Coordinator Fiona Newton 21 George Street, Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9JU Tel 01507 602567 email editorial@ihbc.org.uk Editorial Board Fiona Newton (chair) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Michael Taylor (main features) Cartoons by Rob Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2012 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Published for the Institute of Historic Building Conservation by Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA Tel 01747 871717 Fax 01747 871718 email context@cathcomm.co.uk www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to corporate bodies at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £60.00 Elsewhere £90.00 Subscription orders, together with remittances payable to Institute of Historic Building Conservation, should be sent to the IHBC Business Office at Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily held by the IHBC or the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. The remaining copy deadline in 2012 is: November, Issue 127 17 September CONTEXT READER SURVEY Let us know what you think about Context. Please take a minute to fill in our survey. www.surveymonkey.com/s/contextsurvey Baronial style in the Merchant City A programme of repairs to Glasgow’s B-listed Houndsditch Building has been completed. The ornate three-storey building in the Merchant City was built to house a wholesaler, J&W Campbell. The family became something of a political dynasty. The founding partner was Provost Sir James Campbell and his son was Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Liberal prime minister from 1905 to 1908. Built in about 1854, its highly decorative facade was designed by the historian, artist and architect RW Billings. ‘Most people associate Scots baronial architecture with grand country houses,’ says Gordon Urquhart of the Glasgow City Heritage Trust, ‘but Glasgow’s Merchant City has a couple of notable examples designed as commercial premises. ‘Because Campbell’s warehouse – an early form of department store – sought to attract the attention of shoppers, it was a clever move to use a showy style of architecture that would stand out from its more subtle classical neighbours.’ Urquhart says: ‘Billings’ love of historic styling can be seen on the detailing of small rosettes that line each of the large windows. There are also other flurries of decoration such as Dutch gables, turrets and oriel bay windows projecting from the facade.’ The architect became best known for his illustrations and studies of other great Scottish buildings. Unusually for his time he had a fascination with conservation, and was himself involved with the restoration of several Scottish castles such as Cawdor Castle and Dalzell House. James Macaulay, author and formerly architectural historian at the Mackintosh School of Architecture, adds: ‘RW Billings’s reputation rests on the four volumes of his Baronial and Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Scotland, 1845–52. From that came the attempt, not wholly successful, to introduce Scottish baronial forms into an urban setting. Today these buildings can be accepted as early brutalism and therefore worthy of note.’ In the 1980s the facade was retained when new flats were built behind. But aggressive stone cleaning and cement patching techniques, popular in the 80s, had left the stone facade vulnerable to further decay. It was not until 2011 that Glasgow City Council was able to take advantage of a change in the law which meant that it could fill the gap in funding to allow the necessary repair work to go ahead. Owners were grant-aided by Glasgow City Heritage Trust and the shortfall was underwritten by Glasgow City Council. Glasgow City Council paid the shares of a minority of owners who were unwilling or unable to participate. It will pursue them for full recovery of the costs plus expenses on completion of the works, using the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006. Call for ethnic diversity Those involved in the historic environment sector need to take more action to ensure success in developing the ethnic diversity of its work and volunteer force. This is the conclusion of a research project that examined ethnic diversity in the historic environment workforce. The report, commissioned by the Council for British Archaeology diversifying participation working group and funded
C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 3 by English Heritage, identifies barriers to participation for minority ethnic groups in education, volunteer schemes and the workforce. The report makes a number of recommendations to overcome diversity issues through better data collection, greater profiling of ethnic minority involvement, and improvement in recruitment processes and professional practices. Piece Hall success The scheme to transform Halifax’s Piece Hall, featured in the previous issue of Context (July), has been awarded £7 million in Heritage Lottery funding. The complex, opened in 1779 for the trading of ‘pieces’ of cloth, was saved from demolition in the 1960s by one vote of the then town council. Margate dreams on Thanet District Council has received approval for the compulsory purchase of a site in Margate that it says will become the site of the world’s first amusement park of historic rides. The council claims to have spent more than £1 million on carrying out urgent repairs to the Dreamland site’s neglected heritage assets. The Dreamland Trust is working in partnership with the council to create an amusement park of historic rides, classic side shows, vintage cafes, restaurants and gardens. Events and festivals are planned to celebrate popular and youth culture heritage. The Dreamland Trust emerged from the Save Dreamland Campaign to rescue the park from redevelopment into housing and retail units. The site’s heritage assets include the 1920 Scenic Railway, a Grade II* listed structure which is the UK’s oldest roller coaster; a 1935 2,200 seat Grade II* listed cinema building; and Lord George Sanger’s Grade II-listed menagerie cages, dating from the 1800s, believed to be the last of their kind. The Dreamland Margate project is partly funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and the DCMS Sea Change programme. Culture counts TheWorld Cities Culture Report, commissioned by the Mayor of London, examines the culture of 12 cities (Berlin, Istanbul, Johannesburg, London, Mumbai, NewYork, Paris, São Paulo, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and Tokyo). It concludes that world cities are as important in cultural terms as they are in terms of finance or trade. New porches at Ripon Ripon Cathedral in NorthYorkshire has reopened its doors on completion of the Narthex Project. A programme of works has involved the installation of new glass porches, with engravings by artist Sally Scott, depicting scenes from the life of St Wilfrid, founder of the cathedral. The design was by Caroe Architecture and the contractor was William Anelay. St Wilfrid (c634–709) brought craftsmen from Europe to build a new stone church on the site. It was dedicated to St Peter in 672, although only the Saxon crypt survives from this period. Parts of the present building date back to the 1100s. Fantasy for sale A Grade I listed house in Lavenham, Suffolk, which was used to create the fictional village of Godric’s Hollow in the film of ‘Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows’, is for sale. A number of different shots of the building, de Vere House, were combined to represent an entire village. The house is said to be (after 10 Downing Street) the second most photographed doorway in Britain. Managing consent The recent consultation on proposals to improve listed building consent, led by the Department of Culture Media and Sport, was met by a hardhitting response from the IHBC (www.ihbc.org.uk/consultations/docs/ PDF/lbc/IHBC%20response.pdf). The institute discussed the process of managing consent, in particular the need to have access to practical conservation skills in line with the IHBC’s membership criteria, and the value of good conservation services. A range of other organisations made substantial and informed statements. Here is a selection of some of them: Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies We continue to feel that the most objective source of advice to a local planning authority is that given by an in-house conservation officer. Many of these will have been in post for years and possess an intimate knowledge of their local area and buildings. Conservation officers also have a vital role in many other ways – offering advice to owners, preparing conservation area appraisals, drawing up supplementary guidance. Limiting their role in development control, as this proposal would do, would further discourage local planning authorities from employing such officers at a time when they are already under threat as a result of public spending cuts. The third of local planning authorities who do not have any in-house conservation expertise would have even less reason to remedy that serious failing. Royal Town Planning Institute Those responsible for this consultation should understand that, in noting that 95 per cent of English Heritage sampled applications were approved, it is not implied that these applications were pointless or timewasting; it more likely indicates that the listed building consent system is well understood, that local authority expert advice is well-directed and positive, and that the public interest is well served by the process that encourages sound proposals. It is to be regretted that within the outlining of these proposals it is implied that the services provided by conservation professionals within local planning authorities might readily and beneficially be replaced by accredited experts funded by applicants. It is inevitable that many independent experts (including English Heritage) will rely on and have good reason to trust the local knowledge and understanding of context that will rest with the local planning authority staff. CivicVoice Most local authority planning departments employ at least one full-time conservation officer, and some larger authorities employ several. These officers have built up an extensive knowledge of the listed buildings and conservation areas in their district, and their experience is valuable and hard to replace. Smaller authorities that do not employ a full-time conservation officer and rely on part-time outside assistants should be required to comply with the requirements of the planning act by considering employing full-time staff but by sharing employees with an adjoining authority. It would continue to ensure
4 C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 that these officers are recognised by the general public as, in the main, being independent and not influenced by external factors. We should be investing in conservation departments, not looking for further ways to decrease their capacity and knowledge. If in the long term councils pursue this approach and in doing so reduce the number of conservation area officers, there could be an unintended consequence that the default position would be to require ‘expert’ input for all applications, which could actually disincentive building owners to pursue expert advice due to costs involved, which is contrary to the aim of the proposed bill. Planning Officers Society It is important that any change does not undermine the integration that already exists in local planning authorities. All too often planning officers, ecological specialists and listed building specialist officers work very closely together. This unified approach benefits both the applicant and the buildings’ integrity. There appears in both the consultation and Penfold Review acknowledgement of the importance of this joint working. It is difficult to see how the introduction of accredited agents would produce any advantage to the applicant in instances where planning permission is also required. Given that the responsibility for consulting on the application and making the decision will remain with the local planning authority, there is every likelihood that a non-binding recommendation from the applicant’s agent would still need the same scrutiny From The Making of the English Landscape by WG Hoskins, 1955 As the railways extended rapidly to all parts of the country their effects on local building and building materials grew correspondingly wide. In Middlesex the impact came soonest, and was most violent. The older houses had been built of a homely and native brown stock brick, and the farm-buildings largely of wood. Between 1800 and 1850, however, a hard soapy-looking yellow brick was pouring up the Thames from Suffolk, and most of the new Middlesex churches were built of it. ‘From 1850 onwards’ – with the triumph of the railways – ‘every kind of material was poured on to the unprotesting soil: harsh red bricks, sometimes glazed; in the north, yellow-green brick from Three Counties, near Hitchin; slates, pantiles, green tiles; stucco, artificial stone, and concrete’ (RM Robbins, Middlesex). What happened in Middlesex eventually happened all over England, and as Midland bricks and Welsh slates – and later more unspeakable materials like asbestos and corrugated iron – flooded into every corner of provincial England, the ancient local materials that fitted their own regions so well, for they came out of their very soil, disappeared one by one. In Oxfordshire the Stonesfield slate-pits and mines shut down one by one during the second half of the nineteenth century; in Leicestershire the Swithland slate-quarries, which had been worked since Henry III’s time, shut down altogether in 1887; and so it was in nearly every county in England. All regional styles and all local materials were exterminated except where the well-to-do could afford to build deliberately in the old manner, with the aid of an architect. What had been the living style of a whole region, modified to suit all classes of people, became a piece of pleasant antiquarianism for a rich man. as they would if it were submitted by a professional agent under current arrangements. There is potential for additional financial burdens being placed on applicants, as well as raised expectations. It is considered that greater certainty would be achieved through effective pre-application engagement with the local planning authority. This accords with the approach prompted in the National Planning Policy Framework. The submission of well-researched reports that assess the impact of the proposals on the special interest of the listed building benefits all parties. This is already part of best practice regarding listed buildings and other heritage assets. Every applicant should in any event submit sufficient information and reports to allow the local planning authority to assess the development proposals. English Heritage Judgement as to the nature of impact and whether it is genuinely positive or justified can be exacting. It may require expert input from consultees such as local amenity societies, English Heritage and the national amenity societies. It may be something that is sufficiently concerning for the secretary of state to wish to consider. Determining the optimum viable use of a listed building can require a thorough consideration of the impact of alternative uses on long-term conservation. It is something that could require substantial evidence and would benefit often from the input of consultees and the public. If the choice of use is wrong, the long-term impacts on conservation could be serious and irreversible.
C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 5 Orkney landscape:‘Some folk have almost given up, and moved into town where there are no restrictions.’ ‘THREE FOLK have come to me to complain. All three had to get their houses redesigned to meet the planners’ criteria, costing them between an additional £8,000 to £12,000 for the basic kit. ‘They’ve been left with a house they do not want, having spent five figures more than they wanted – they were basically just disappointed. Some folk have almost given up, and moved into town where there are no restrictions.’ Kenny Slater of the Orkney branch of the National Farmers’ Union Scotland, quoted in The Orcadian, complaining about the Supplementary Guidance for the Design of New Houses in the Orkney Countryside. Some campaigners against the guidance object to it because, as The Orcadian explains, ‘the house style favoured in the document would not fit in with the modern houses built in the countryside over the past couple of decades’. ‘Scarborough Castle is a regular target of anti-social behaviour and the latest damage to the castle is extremely disappointing. Deliberate acts of vandalism are illegal and we take this very seriously. ‘People often climb the 300-foot cliff walls to gain access during the night. This is very dangerous as the walls are 900 years old and are unstable. People risk a fatal fall while climbing them. Removing the fence and warning signs is also very irresponsible.Whoever did this placed themselves and the public at serious risk of death.’ Peter Bleach, English Heritage’s site manager for Scarborough Castle ‘[AN] ENORMOUS problem is the influence of the surveyors who value homes. They’re unaccountable philistines: it’s an open secret they down-value modern homes. This might bring down house prices but, from an aesthetic point of view, it leads to boring and conventional housing design. ‘We need to ensure house-builders and architects find an aesthetic that reflects our era, its values and interests. Think how impoverished our cities would be if our forebears hadn’t left their mark on them. For the benefit of future generations, we must do the same. They must look back and think: “I’ve got this wonderful noughties house”. That’s part of being a civilisation.’ Dickon Robinson, chairman of the RIBA’s Living Architecture and Building Futures ‘BTwas seeking permission for 108 cabinets, many of them in sensitive locations. It would not compromise on the number, or on the design. It would not use sites that already had unused BT equipment and it would not consider putting the equipment underground or any other method.’ The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea explaining why it had refused 96 of BT’s 108 applications for street cabinets, prompting the telecoms giant to halt its programme of super-fast broadband in part of west London. ‘SUFFICE IT to say, at this stage, that notwithstanding the points you made before, during and after your meeting with the Exchequer Secretary, I am satisfied with the rationale for the measure which removes the anomaly that alterations to listed buildings are zero rated, while repair and maintenance to listed buildings (and all building work to non-listed buildings) are standard rated.’ The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s disappointing reply to the Cut theVAT Coalition’s open letter, co-signed by the IHBC and other organisations. ‘A COMPLETE teardown of such a home would set the stage for numerous future demolitions that will alter the character of our beloved San Francisco neighbourhoods.’ One of the many protesters against a proposal by EvanWilliams, co-founder of Twitter, to demolish an arts-and-crafts house and replace it with a zero-net-energy home, quoted in the Guardian. ‘IT IS THE only residence by the world-famous architect that is based on the circular spiral plan of the Guggenheim Museum in NewYork, whose construction followed it by six years.When the house was first published in 1953, it was stated that no other Wright house since Fallingwater was as praiseworthy and remarkable. Since then its reputation has only increased and several architectural historians and architecture critics consider it to be among the 20 most significant Wright buildings.’ Architectural historian Neil Levine on the DavidWright House in Phoenix, Arizona, which is at risk of demolition by developers
6 C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 Gentrification and the NPPF James Moir tells the story of an appeal decided in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework. Such a small thing. The picture on the left shows a very unassuming, simple latch to a backstair door; on the right is what the present owner had introduced without listed building consent. Now, four years after the change came to light, an appeal against refusal of retrospective listed building consent has finally been dismissed. The owner put up a barrage of reasons why the latch had been replaced, contending that the latch was broken, was a fire risk, had little historical value (a submitted statement from former occupiers of the dwelling stated that they themselves had installed it, prior to listing). The inspector for the appeal stated that ‘these considerations do not persuade me to allow works that I consider to be harmful to the special interest of the listed building’ and ‘I consider that the ornate style of the replacement latch is at odds with the simple, austere appearance of the host door and the detailing of the rooms and the separate stairway serving this part of the listed building’. While the case for our sector has been won, should we be asking: ‘As conservation officers, haven’t we all got better things to do?’ That was what the appellant asked, and it was a view shared by some key individuals at the local planning authority. If this had been the only issue at the property, I would probably have to agree, given that bigger battles are being fought to defend the historic environment against major threats such as resource depletion in conservation teams. However, a raft of other issues vindicate the effort and time exerted in achieving this encouraging decision. The latch was in fact one of three appeals, the other two also having been dismissed. To understand the nuances of these two other appeals, it is important to understand the evolution of this farmhouse. It is a listed building, located in the Chilterns AONB, lying close to Hemel Hempstead in Hertfordshire. The central core of the house was originally a two-cell lobby entrance, timber-framed structure with a kitchen and parlour flanking a large central brick stack, all dating to the early 17th century. It has grown organically at each end. The first extension was to the north, probably in the mid-to-late 17th century, when a two-storey cross-wing was added. In the mid 18th century, the farmhouse was further extended by adding a further service bay to the south. The first appeal dealt with plaster that had been removed from various areas in the house. It was accepted that the previous owners had created an unfortunate precedent by stripping off plaster in the cross-wing parlour and kitchen, as evidenced by the historic buildings report (by BEAMS) which the owner himself had fortunately commissioned shortly after buying the property. The report’s photographs clearly helped to identify these new areas of loss. One of the most damaging has been the removal of plaster adjacent to the principal staircase, itself an addition probably in the 1720s or 1730s, when the former parlour was converted to a large hallway. The staircase has clearly been brought from another location.When it was inserted, the old parlour fireplace was plastered over. The owner claimed that ‘the original lime plaster was loose and fell off when the staircase was being refurbished’. ‘Refurbish’ is not an accurate term for the total dismantling, sanding and re-erection of the staircase – all done without listed building consent, and unnecessarily destructive both of original patina and adjacent surfaces. Now the exposed brickwork and fireplace adjacent to the staircase gives a visually confusing message and the staircase has lost its restrained backdrop. Other areas where plaster was removed included the entrance lobby, where the owner simply stated that leaving the brickwork exposed provided a practical finish in an area that suffered from dirt and wet. In the case of the upstairs landing, he argued differently, claiming that the removal of a poorly constructed panel of lath and plaster, and replacement with plasterboard, was more sustainable and better for fire resistance. Finally, plaster had been removed in the chamber over the parlour. From the BEAMS report it was clear that only one panel – to a former doorway – was plasterboard, whereas all the other panels were covered in lath and plaster. By the time of the appeal, the owner – despite the BEAMS report –was claiming that the whole wall had been covered in plasterboard and softwood battens installed before the date of listing in 1987. This was clearly the formerly exposed end gable of the house, a particularly valuable piece of evidence, providing possible clues as to lime mixes and possible external colouring used on external walls in the early 17th century, had been destroyed. The inspector concluded in these cases that exposing the brickwork underneath had altered the appearance of the rooms concerned, was visually jarring and detracted from the architectural integrity of the spaces in which they stood. The third appeal related to timber partitions, consisting of vertical tongue-and-groove boarding nailed to horizontal studs, which had been removed at the base and head of the An unassuming, simple latch to a backstair door and (right) its replacement
C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 7 back stairs adjacent to the latch in question. The owner claimed at appeal that these were 1970s in date. This is despite the fact that the BEAMS report stated that ‘it is likely that this part of the house was occupied by farm workers/servants; the accommodation is much plainer in style, there are separate front and rear doors, and a separate rear staircase to access the first floor.’ The partitions were typical of the changes in Victorian farmhouses, introducing a hierarchy in terms of the ‘low’ and ‘parlour’ ends of the house, and also in terms of introducing partitioning to provide an entrance lobby and a more ‘private’ stair which did not give directly on to the bedroom. The inspector concluded that the removal of partitions from the ground and first-floor rooms confused the historic layout and plan form of the house, and how it had evolved prior to its listing. Overall the inspector concluded that these alterations represented an unacceptable loss of historic fabric, obscuring the building’s historical origins and development. The three aspects covered by these appeals still may appear relatively minor. However, the local planning authority is now bracing itself to receive appeals against the enforcement notices it intends to serve for these three cases, and the other 12 offences where the owner had failed to apply for listed building consent. The owner was trying to pick off the easy wins in his appeal strategy. In August 2010 a successful prosecution by the local planning authority led to the owner being fined £4,000 with costs of £5,070 at St Albans Crown Court, for carrying out unauthorised works to the farmhouse which affected its character as a building of architectural and historic interest. The judge commented that ‘The degree of damage is considerable... [the local planning authority] said that you systematically swept through the entire building, removing certain elements, concealing or damaging others and introducing false elements.’ In these sweeping changes, a host of subtle alterations had occurred. Some second-hand timber had been introduced into three of the rooms. Most door architraves had been replaced, in some cases concealing carpenters’ marks on the adjacent timber framing. A new letterbox had been carved into the doubleleaf front door and much of its ironmongery altered. Loudspeakers had been inserted into the ceilings of the principal rooms, which raised suspicions as to whether the ceilings themselves had been replaced. The upstairs bathroom had been nudged out to take in a former landing cupboard. Two chimneypieces had been lost to inappropriate replacements. The incremental effect of these changes has been damaging enough, though the owner claimed they were all simply repairs. He stretched this concept to include: 1. Converting the attic space over the parlour chamber into a bedroom, which in turn involved reconfiguring the bedrooms below it to introduce an unsuitable staircase, with the sawnout joists being used to decorate the partition wall as mock timber-framing. 2. Dry-lining every internal face of the external walls, both to the ground floor and upper storey. The owner claimed that nothing had been destroyed in the process, but this has been impossible to verify. The metal fixing system clearly required holes to be drilled in the original plaster, while room sizes have been affected, and inevitably every aperture and skirting detail has had to be altered to accommodate the new linings. 3. Changing much of the detailing of the roof by building out the eaves, replacing four-inch with sixinch guttering, and doubling up on bargeboards at the gables. The owner was prosecuted for 15 offences in August 2010. These were a distillation of the total works carried Now the exposed brickwork and fireplace adjacent to the staircase give a visually confusing message. The main staircase being dismantled
8 C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 out to the house, as it was possible to include changes to the farmhouse only where it was provable beyond doubt that the accused had carried out the alterations without listed building consent, either through his own admission at the two PACE interviews carried out in March and May 2009, through his own written rebuttals to changes itemised by the Conservation Department, or through the opportunity to compare photographs taken from the BEAMS report with those taken on an audit of the house in June 2008. The 15 offences represent a large array of damaging changes but by no means constitute a definitive list. The June audit resulted in an initial catalogue of 137 items. For example, alterations to window and door furniture were thought to be more extensive than reflected in the offences. The enforcement team requested the owner to submit a full schedule of the works that had been carried out, but failed to do so – hence the symbolic nature of the latch. Apart from the quantum of works carried out, the case raises two key issues that are, to some extent, somewhat at odds with each other. There were numerous concerns that the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would not provide the same protection to heritage assets as had been the case with PPG 15 (the owner himself expected to get a better deal from the new legislation). The council responded to the Planning Inspectorate’s case-worker’s request seeking any additional comments in the light of the introduction of the NPPF (which came into force in March 2012) as follows: Notwithstanding paragraph 214 which states:‘For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework’, the present new NPPF would appear to support further the local authority’s case. Para 126:‘Local planning authorities should set out in their local plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.’ This paragraph makes the important reference to fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable – echoed in the Historic Environment section of our emerging local development framework. Para 128: ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected.’This refers to the failure by the applicant to recognise the importance of the heritage asset and instead to focus on the ‘merits’ of removing historic fabric, replacing it with unsuitable interventions or obscuring it with unsuitable materials. Para 129: ‘Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal ...taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.’ The local authority has done all in its power to demonstrate the significance of the assets affected. However, it should be recognised that the appeals deal with heritage assets that had already been destroyed or obliterated by the applicant, with insufficient record being made. Through the successful court case, the Exposing the brickwork detracts from the architectural integrity of the spaces. The inspector concluded that the removal of partitions confused the historic layout. The attic conversion with inserted rooflight, inappropriate stair and plasterboarded throughout
C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 9 significance of the heritage assets affected was demonstrated by the failure of the applicant to apply for listed building consent for each of the items included in the various appeals and by the acceptance in most cases by the applicant’s own expert witness that ‘harm’ had been caused. Para 132: ‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation... Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset ...As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.’ This paragraph is also supportive of the council’s case. In this case, it can be said that by destroying the historic fabric without listed building consent, no weight was given by the applicant to its conservation, and no clear or convincing justification was put forward for destroying it. The inspector decided to judge the three appeals solely on the NPPF: ‘I have been referred to Planning Policy Statement 5, Planning for the Historic Environment. However, it has since been replaced by the framework and I have considered the appeal in the context of current national planning policy.’ The NPPF therefore provided some strong support for the council’s case, the inspector concluding that: ‘The modest, vernacular appearance and detailing of the farm house is central to its special architectural and historic interest. Many features and elements contribute to this special interest from the plain, humble fixtures such as the door furniture, to the plan form, layout and function of the various spaces within the building. Taken cumulatively, the works that have been executed detract from this special interest and have caused substantial harm to the heritage asset.’ As this makes clear, historic fabric had not been destroyed through neglect or ignorance of its importance. It was carried out in spite of the owner himself having commissioned a thorough report on the significance of the farmhouse. The unfortunate – and often overlooked – impact of overzealous investment in ‘upgrading’ a listed building has been the underlying problem. To be fair, the process of ‘gentrification’ had already begun a decade or so before the present owner acquired the farmhouse in 1997. In 1989 the house had been sold off from the estate of which it had been a part for over 200 years with approximately five acres of land (in 1840 it had 174 acres attached to it.) Almost immediately, permission was granted to turn the former stables and outbuilding adjacent to the farmhouse into a dwelling, and a separate barn was hived off and also converted. The remaining five acres offered opportunities for a small equestrian estate, with the consequent knock-on effect of hobby-farming practices on the curtilage landscape immediately around the farmhouse. The present owner has continued the process by further converting another set of stables to guest accommodation and offices adjacent to the house, enlarging outbuildings created in 1991 and creating a swimming pool to replace the former modest garden pond. This is apart from the half a million pounds spent on the house itself. Gentrification is often a slow, insidious process where the arguments and action that can be brought to bear on those owners who chose to ignore historic buildings legislation are far less clear-cut than in cases of total neglect. Changes and alterations are usually difficult to detect, and the lack of any proper recording means there is often no baseline evidence against which to assess where such changes have occurred. There are also more subtle ramifications.Wealthy owners are usually better at manipulating support. In the present case, MPs and councillors were lobbied (unsuccessfully) in an attempt to ‘expose’ the fact that the conservation department was ‘mismanaged and employed people of such low intelligence’. The real challenge is the inordinate amount of time spent in putting together the evidence, assessing poorly constructed retrospective planning permissions, fighting subsequent appeals and then applying and implementing any enforcement actions. Major efforts are currently being made to tackle historic buildings at risk. By definition, these tend to be structures which have been abandoned or badly neglected. It should surely be of equal concern that the process of over-gentrification may also be inflicting significant harm on heritage assets – particularly in the present economic climate where owners are staying put, investing substantially in existing buildings rather than in new build. The NPPF would appear to provide the clarity that has been needed to combat the type of incremental harm that sometimes flows from misguided applications of this approach. It will be a tragedy if depleting conservation resources make it impossible to apply. James Moir is lead conservation officer with Dacorum Borough Council. The parlour before and after the change of chimneypiece
10 C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 Heritage protected at Bunhill Fields Kristian Kamiński reports on the first significant appeal decision on heritage under the NPPF concerning the setting of a burial ground. Bunhill Fields Burial Ground has exceptional and international architectural and historic significance as a rare surviving early inner-city burial ground and the pre-eminent final resting place for nonconformists in England, including Blake, Bunyan and Defoe. It is designated Grade I on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens, contains within it 76 Grade II and Grade II* listed monuments, and its walls, gates and railings are listed Grade II. The burial ground has substantial aesthetic and communal value as a rare green open space on the edge of the city, which is much used and enjoyed by workers and local residents. The site is adjacent to the Bunhill Fields and Finsbury Square Conservation Area. An appeal was lodged with the Planning Inspectorate by Southern Housing Group against the refusal by the London Borough of Islington for a scheme comprising 121 residential units adjacent to Bunhill Fields Burial Ground. The appeal was determined after a public inquiry held in February 2012. The development site was occupied by a single-storey primary school, constructed in 1966, an unusually lowdensity development for the city fringe and surplus to educational need due to the area’s changing demographics.The site was previously occupied by Victorian commercial and light industrial buildings, destroyed by German bombing during the second world war, which had replaced Georgian terraces. The southern and eastern boundaries of the site are directly adjacent to Bunhill Fields Burial Ground. It was proposed to construct a five-toseven-storey building with an L-shaped footprint, continuing the building lines along Featherstone Street and Bunhill Row.Within the space to the rear of the perimeter block a row of threestorey terraced houses was proposed, approximately four metres from the wall to the burial ground and within the canopy spread of its trees. Due to its low scale, the school was barely visible from the burial ground. The perceived openness of the site reinforces the openness sensed when standing within the burial ground – an important way in which is the burial ground is experienced and appreciated. The existing extensive views (from within the burial ground) of open sky are important, as these further add to the sense of openness. For these reasons the council took the view that the site, as an appropriate setting to the heritage assets, made a substantial, positive contribution to the significance of the heritage assets and the appreciation of their significance. Furthermore, the redevelopment of the site was an important and rare opportunity to enhance the setting of the heritage assets and historic development on the site, and existing developments in the area did not justify harmful new development. It was the council’s case that the excessive scale of the proposed perimeter development and the close proximity of the proposed townhouses to the burial ground would result in an overbearing sense of enclosure, which would detract from the burial ground’s sense of openness and intimacy.The public benefits of the proposed development were not considered to outweigh the substantial harm arising from it. In her decision, inspector Christine Thorby concluded that the development would ‘threaten the sense of seclusion and tranquility by altering the balance from one of harmony between built form and the open burial ground to one where the surrounding buildings would be oppressive and dominant’. With the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), some IHBC members have expressed concern that public benefits such as housing may be increasingly considered to weigh in favour of proposals that harm heritage assets. In this case the inspector was clear that the heritage assets were of ‘outstanding historic and architectural interest and they make a considerable contribution to society.The harm to their setting would damage the appreciation and experience of the heritage assets to the public. In my view, the proposed benefits, although considerable, would not outweigh the harm.’ We will have to wait for the results of further appeal decisions, particularly on heritage assets designated at lesser grades, before the NPPF’s full implications for heritage are known. Kristian Kamiński, conservation officer, London Borough of Islington The development site was occupied by a single-storey primary school, constructed in 1966, an unusually low density development for the city fringe
C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 11 Periodically By the time you read this, the London Olympics will be over. While there has been much talk of a lasting legacy, the latest edition of the Journal of Architectural Conservation (Vol 18, No 2, July 2012) takes one genuine physical legacy of the 1948 games held at Wembley Stadium as its opening paper. Tim Pretty and Alison Foster describe the conservation of the monumental Olympic Plaques (Roll of Honour), removed from the Wembley site when the old stadium was demolished in 2003. After a lengthy debate to determine their future that lasted for over seven years, the plaques have finally been conserved and returned to Wembley as part of a permanent public exhibition display within the new stadium. The authors describe the challenging processes of extraction (including the careful removal from their concrete backing), transportation, repair and safe return of these three-tonne edifices. The work was aided by the input of the original artist Hugo Powell. He provided important details not only about the initial design and manufacture of the panels but also about the context of the aftermath of the second world war, which has made this project such a worthwhile, if protracted, undertaking. This issue of the journal also has something of a brick and terracotta theme. Hugh Byrd takes the suburb of Handsworth in Birmingham, one of the best examples of decorative artisans’ terraced housing in the UK, as a demonstration of the threat to the particularly rich variety and detail of the ornamental brickwork characteristic of this inner suburb. Having described the dynamics of how the area rapidly developed during the latter part of the 19th century, the author describes the pressures the brickwork which adorns the houses. Having managed to survive wartime bombing, rapid social change and redevelopment in the 1960s (as so commonly found elsewhere), the brick decoration of Handsworth continues to be threatened by social ‘improvement’, and defacement by external painting and rendering. These attractive dwellings are significant local heritage assets. They deserve better appreciation and recognition, and protection from unthinking mutilation. The article illustrates many of the attractive detail types. These are a persuasive argument for better area-based conservation controls, especially with the prospect of further exterior alteration to mitigate the effects of climate change and cut energy consumption. Where brickwork has been defaced, tinting can restore this. In an excellent article Peter Sloane describes the historical practices of enhancing the colour of English brickwork over many centuries, and highlights with some good colour illustrations. He explains the often very subtle craft practices and how tinting can be identified. In modern times a lack of knowledge and inappropriate colouration can be damaging. They represent a lost opportunity for correct conservation. The author laments the loss of the appropriate craft skills since the second world war. In highlighting the differences between modern and traditional practice, he has provided many valuable insights, which should be of great interest to all readers who deal with brickwork conservation. Two other interesting European papers in the same issue are worth highlighting. The first is an assessment by Claudio Galli and Francesco Conserva of architectural terracotta friezes in Bologna. They explain how they have identified the chronology of the way these friezes developed from the 11th to 16th centuries, and the colours and coatings applied in the second half of the 15th century. With exemplary illustrated examples, they explain the solutions adopted for appropriate cleaning, consolidation and conservation. They also present proposals for rapid prototyping and reverse engineering of the restoration of ruined terracotta friezes. The second European paper, by Ann Verdonk and Marjolein Deceuninck, describes the conservation of the interior of the Japanese Tower (pagoda) of 1904 in Laeken, Brussels, designed by the French architect Alexandre Marcel as a curiosity for King Leopold II of Belgium. The timber tower, made by European craftsmen, has a remarkable interior decoration, comprising decorative interior elements shipped from Japan, mixed with other European elements. Architectural paint research, illustrated in colour, identified and differentiated the Japanese and European interventions. The former provides unique insights into Meiji era Japonisme in Europe, and cultural relations between Europe and Japan at the turn of the 20th century. Recent issues of this column have highlighted the enhanced significance being attached to the value of historic windows and window glass. A further perspective is offered in the latest issue of The Historic Environment: policy and practice (Vol 3, No 1, April 2012). This looks at new strategies for the retention of historic casement windows in Bavaria, written by Susanne Gampfer, professor of building construction, University of Applied Sciences, Augsburg. Unsurprisingly the greatest danger being identified today is the pressures to improve thermal performance. The article is valuable for rehearsing
www.ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=