Institute of Historic Building Conservation No 142 November 2015 Who is the expert? New perspectives on heritage mean new roles for expertise
C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 1 Cover: Recognising the validity of multiple perspectives, the heritage sector is coming to terms with other forms of expertise (see page 11). Photo of a Winchester streetscene by Rob Cowan 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 David McDonald, president@ihbc.org.uk Chair Mike Brown, chair@ihbc.org.uk Vice Chair Kathryn Davies, vchair@ihbc.org.uk Secretary Jo Evans, ihbcsecretary@ihbc.org.uk Treasurer Richard Morrice, treasurer@ihbc.org.uk National Office Director Seán O’Reilly, director@ihbc.org.uk Projects Officer Fiona Newton, projects@ihbc.org.uk Consultant Consultations Coordinator James Caird, consultations@ihbc.org.uk Membership Services Officer Carmen Moran, membershipservices@ihbc.org.uk LETS Officer Kate Kendall, lets@ihbc.org.uk Administration Officer Lydia Porter, admin@ihbc.org.uk Committee Chairs Policy David Kincaid, policy@ihbc.org.uk Membership & Ethics Paul Butler, membership@ihbc.org.uk Finance & Resources Richard Morrice, resources@ihbc.org.uk Education Henry Russell, education@ihbc.org.uk Communications & Outreach Charles Strang, communications@ihbc.org.uk Branch Officers North vacant NorthWest Crispin Edwards, 0161 474 2620 Yorkshire David Blackburn, 01943 603479 West Midlands Charles Shapcott, 0121 7044312 East Midlands Roy Lewis, 01623 756623 South Julia Foster, 01296 585888 SouthWest JamesWebb, 01202 732849 East Anglia David Andrews, 07760 208231 South East Sean Rix, 01483 523379 London Sheila Stones, 01223 582716 Scotland Jane Jackson, 0775 527314 Wales John Edwards, 07796 440934 Northern Ireland Jill Kerry, 028 9048 7395 Republic of Ireland Cormac O’Sullivan, 00353 5677 62907 Institute ofHistoricBuildingConservation No 142November 2015 Who is the expert? New perspectives on heritage mean new roles for expertise We can all get involved! How can I help? 2 Briefing 3 Out of Context 4 Legal briefing 7 Periodically 9 The writer’s voice WHO IS THE EXPERT? 11 Editorial 12 Who do heritage values belong to? Rebecca Madgin and Michael Taylor 15 Legitimate expertise: how decisions are made Helen Graham 18 C of E buildings and their volunteers Andrew Mottram 22 The National Trust’s building conservation volunteers Richard Watson 24 Our place in time Luke Wormald 27 Conserving Tecton structures at Dudley Zoo Stuart Hicks 29 Retrofit measures for historic buildings and cities Carsten Hermann and Dennis Rodwell 33 The president 35 Notes from the chair 36 Director’s cut 38 Vox pop 39 Book reviews 41 Products and services 44 Advertisers index
2 C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 Editor Rob Cowan Editorial Coordinator Fiona Newton, 01507 602567 editorial@ihbc.org.uk Editorial Board Nigel Crowe Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Rebecca Madgin Fiona Newton (chair) Elizabeth Smith Michael Taylor Cartoons by Rob Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2015 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA 01747 871717 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 Context on-line archive Past editions of Context can be viewed on the IHBC website six months after publication. The archive provides a searchable database and reference for key articles. See www.ihbc.org.uk/page55/context_archive. 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. Briefing Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. The next four copy deadlines are: March, issue 143 15 January May, issue 144 11 March July, issue 145 13 May September, issue 146 15 July Special character in Kingston The London Borough of Kingston has approved its first local area of special character in 14 years, following the recent adoption of a local area of special character policy. Four streets have been given the designation in a move to preserve and enhance historic local buildings in the North Kingston area. The buildings, which are predominantly of late-Victorian residential character, have been identified by heritage consultants the Drury McPherson Partnerships as being of significant local value. Councillor Hugh Scantlebury, chair of the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee, said: ‘Much like the rest of the London, Kingston is growing.We need to manage this growth and ensure that it’s right for our borough. Part of this is making sure that we preserve our heritage, including buildings which are distinctly “Kingston”, contributing to the overall feel of the borough.’ Consideration as local areas of special character is being given to distinct areas of the borough which, due to their architectural, environmental or historic qualities, are worthy of special protection but would not meet conservation area criteria. The designation does not affect permitted development rights. The area comprises streets that were developed mainly with small houses between around 1860 and 1900. There are no listed buildings and the area is not subject to any other national heritage designations. It adjoins two conservation areas. The area is considered to be a good, representative example of the late Victorian outer London type, particularly characteristic of places such as Kingston, but also found in many towns in southern England. Its merit is said to be in its completeness rather than any exceptional architectural quality, its value as a whole being somewhat greater than its parts. A good deal of original architectural detail has been lost, especially by the replacement of timber windows with uPVC, and slate and clay roof tiles with concrete tiles. A number of houses have been insensitively extended. Sentences for heritage crime The Sentencing Council has announced new theft guidelines which include, for the first time, theft of historic objects or the loss of the nation’s heritage. Plaques stolen from war memorials, gangs stripping church roofs of lead, ‘nighthawks’ stealing historic objects from the ground and unlawful salvage from historic shipwrecks are all heritage crimes, which for the first time will be recognised in the sentencing process. The new guidelines add weight to thefts that cause damage to heritage assets. The changes will come into force in all courts in England andWales in February 2016. The new guidelines will help the courts identify all the relevant factors to include in their sentencing decisions in relation to heritage crime, including ‘going equipped to steal,’ ‘the act of theft’ and ‘handling stolen goods’. It will help Historic England’s work with the police and Crown Prosecution Service in bringing theft cases to court where it involves loss and damage to a significant heritage asset. Research published in 2012 by English Heritage highlighted that in 2011 an average of 200 crimes were committed against listed buildings across England Kingston’s new local area of special character: representative examples of the lateVictorian, outer London type
C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 3 ‘I COULDN’T disagree more with letters bemoaning the stunning skyscrapers shooting up in London. At last the city is beginning to look like something and no one has torn down a single listed building to do it. ‘Nor will they replace our palaces, monuments and museums – the Cheesegrater was slanted to avoid blocking views of St Paul’s and it looks great as a result. I am growing bored with blackened masonry covered in pigeon droppings.We could build 10 more Shard-like skyscrapers and I’d still be envious of Shanghai.’ A letter from Nick Rougier in the London Evening Standard ‘VALUE comes from giving the building what it needs, not what that particular owner at this moment needs.’ John Sell, chairman of the Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies ‘IN JUST these few years, philistines on the council have obliterated more Grade I important places in Beatles history, including the Nems shop and Beatles office (demolished), Litherland Town hall (completely altered) and Aintree Institute (demolished). ‘I was driving past the Institute one day – glancing up to see it, as I always did – and it was gone, a hole in a terrace to match the shape of my mouth, and this on the eve of Liverpool’s Capital of Culture year. The Beatles played this atmospheric dance hall 31 times, including a string of Saturday nights where things really kicked off… and now the place is gone, for no justifiable reason. ‘Council madness exists everywhere, and they do it particularly well in Liverpool – the Cavern to which tourists flock from around the world is a re-creation because the real one was demolished and filled in to make way for precisely nothing. Here and now, I urge all Merseyside councillors to commit publicly to a moratorium, so that demolition of these historic landmarks, this mad slashing of the city’s own heritage, can at least be discussed first.’ Mark Lewisohn writing in 2013 in The Beatles Tune In, the first of three volumes on his history of the group. every day, affecting over 70,000 listed buildings and three in every eight churches. According to the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group’s latest data, more than 6,700 churches and 42 commercial heritage properties, such as museums and country houses, have fallen victim to metal thieves in the past five years, costing nearly £12.5 million. Beyond the buildings The IHBC London branch hosted a conference on 8 October at the Royal College of Physicians on identifying and conserving historic landscapes, asking ‘What exactly are historic landscapes?’, ‘How do we recognise their significance?’ and ‘How should they be protected?’. The underlying message was that too often consideration of the heritage value of parks, gardens and landscapes came second to the appreciation of buildings and structures. The conference aimed to redress the balance by examining the range of historically important landscapes from urban parks to open countryside, and considering how they should be protected and conserved. Scottish heritage angels The winners of the inaugural Scottish Heritage Angel Awards have been announced. Funded by the Andrew LloydWebber Foundation, the initiative celebrates remarkable individuals and their efforts in helping to better understand, appreciate and protect Scotland’s heritage and history. Awards went to Friends of Glasgow Necropolis for their work to digitally capture and create a permanent record of some 3,500 graves, memorials and mausolea throughout the 37-acre site; Forres Heritage Trust for restoring and bringing back into community use two local historic landmarks, Nelson Tower and the Tolbooth, Moray; Scottish Fire and Rescue Service volunteers for their Scottish fire heritage project in South Lanarkshire and throughout Scotland; and the ScottishWaterways Trust and Canals College for their canal and waterways heritage work in Falkirk. The Scottish Heritage Angel Awards are delivered in partnership between the Andrew LloydWebber Foundation, the Scottish Government, Historic Scotland, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, the Scottish Civic Trust and Archaeology Scotland. Excellence from the 1970s Computershare’s Bristol offices and surrounding grounds have been listed. The Pavilions building in Bedminster Down is one of 14 post-war buildings to be recognised. The financial services firm is the second largest private sector employer in the Bristol City Council local authority area, with over 1,300 people working at The Pavilions. The building, begun in 1975, was designed by Arup Associates, influenced by principles of Frank LloydWright and the arts-and-crafts movement. The building originally housed the former Central Electricity Generating Board. Computershare recently invested £13 million in a refurbishment. In its report, English Heritage describes the building as ‘an excellent example of a low-energy commercial building of the 1970s’. Nelson’s Tower (Photo: Forres Heritage Trust) Arup Associates’ Pavilions building in Bedminster Down is one of 14 post-war buildings to have been newly listed.
4 C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 TOM DEARDS The duty to have ‘special regard’ Recent case law on the duty on a local planning authority to have special regard to the setting of a listed building when considering whether or not to grant planning permission. Last year the Court of Appeal provided some useful clarification on the interpretation of section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 in the case of Barnwell ManorWind Energy Ltd v East Northamptonshire District Council and others [2014] EWCA Civ 137. This decision has been since been followed by the High Court in two further decisions in quick succession: R (Forge Field Society) v Sevenoaks District Council [2014] EWHC 1805 (Admin); and R (Trustees of the Cecil Estate FamilyTrust) v South Kesteven District Council [2015] EWHC 1978 (Admin). Statutory framework Generally speaking, under section 70(2) of theTown and Country Planning Act 1990 a local planning authority must have regard to any ‘material considerations’ when determining an application for planning permission. Clearly the impact of the development on a listed building is a material consideration for these purposes. Section 70(2) is silent on what weight a particular material consideration should be given by a local planning authority and how competing material considerations should be balanced against each other in determining an application for planning permission. The traditional approach (as set out by Lord Hoffman inTesco Stores v Secretary of State for the Environment and others [1995] 1WLR 759) is that the weight to be given to a particular material consideration is purely a question of planning judgment for the planning authority and, therefore, not strictly a legal question that is susceptible to challenge by way of judicial review in the courts. However, under section 70(3) the general power to grant planning permission under section 70(1) is expressly subject to sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 66(1) provides: ‘in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority, or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’ Section 72(1) provides: ‘with respect of any building or other land in a conservation area… special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.’ Recent case law has clarified how this ‘special’ regard or attention (to listed buildings and their setting and conservation areas respectively) fits into the traditional approach of balancing competing material considerations under section 70(2). Barnwell Manor windfarm Barnwell ManorWind Energy sought planning permission for a five-turbine windfarm in the vicinity of Lyveden New Bield, a Grade I listed building also included in the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest at Grade I.The nearest turbine would be around 1.3 kilometres from the boundary of the registered park and 1.7 kilometres from the building itself. On appeal from a refusal by East Northamptonshire District Council, the planning inspector concluded that the effect on the setting of the listed building, while clearly detrimental, would not reach the level of ‘substantial harm’ for the purposes of Policy HE9 of PPS5 (then in force). He then carried out the balancing exercise required by Policy HE10, concluding that the significant benefits of the windfarm proposal in terms of the energy it would produce from a renewable source (having regard to the ‘significant weight’ that PPS22 then The impact of the two turbines of Newton Marsh windfarm on the setting of Tetney Church, Lincolnshire. An additional eight taller turbines have recently been approved on appeal to further affect the setting. (This case is not covered in this article) (Photo: RobertWalker)
C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 5 advised should be given to this factor) would outweigh the less-than-substantial harm it would cause to the setting of the listed building. He therefore granted permission. The decision of the inspector was challenged by way of judicial review by the local planning authority, the National Trust and English Heritage on the basis that he had failed to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building under section 66(1). The High Court found that the planning inspector had not at any stage in the balancing exercise accorded ‘special weight’ to the listed building. Instead he had treated the harm to the setting and the wider benefit of the windfarm proposal as if those factors were of equal importance. The inspector had wrongly applied the policy in PPS5 without giving effect to the section 66(1) duty, which applies equally whether the harm has been assessed as substantial or less than substantial. The High Court held that under section 66(1) a decision-maker should accord ‘considerable importance and weight’ to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building when weighing this factor in the balance with other ‘material considerations which have not been given this special statutory status’. Barnwell then appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that section 66(1) did not, in fact, require the decision-maker to give any particular weight to this factor and, when carrying out the balancing exercise implicit in section 66(1), the weight to be given to the harm of the setting of a listed building was entirely a matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker, to be balanced against other factors, such as the advantages of the proposed development. Lord Justice Sullivan, who gave the leading judgement in the Court of Appeal, upheld the decision of the High Court on the basis that section 70(1) was expressly subject to section 66 of the Listed Building Act. He agreed that decision-makers should give ‘considerable importance and weight’ to the setting of listed buildings and that the inspector in this case had failed to do this. Sullivan LJ accepted that the inspector’s assessment of the degree of harm to the setting of the listed building was a matter for his planning judgement, but he did not accept that the inspector was free to give that harm such weight as he chose when carrying out the balancing exercise. It did not follow that if harm to a listed building was found to be less than substantial under the balancing exercise in policies HE9 and HE10 that a decision-maker could ignore the overarching duty imposed by section 66, although if the harm was less substantial it would plainly lessen the strength of the presumption against the grant of planning permission. On this basis, the Court of Appeal quashed the planning permission that had been granted by the inspector. Forge Field This decision of the Court of Appeal in February 2014 was followed a few months later by the High Court, in a decision relating to an affordable housing proposal in the village of Penshurst in the HighWeald in Kent. The decision of Sevenoaks District Council to grant planning permission for the proposed development was challenged by an unincorporated association of local inhabitants (known as the Forge Field Society). The challenge was on a number of grounds, which included failure on the part of the local planning authority to discharge its duties under section 66(1) and section 72(1) in respect of potential harm to the settings of Star House, a Grade II* listed building erected in 1610 and Forge Garage, a building in the arts-and-crafts style, now divided into the Old Smithy and Forge Garage Cottage, and listed at Grade II – all situated in the Penshurst Conservation Area.This ground of the claim was introduced only at a late stage in the proceedings, after the Court of Appeal had given its decision in the Barnwell ManorWindfarm case. The decision in the case of Barnwell Manor windfarm related to its impact on Lyveden New Bield, a Grade-I-listed, unfinished Elizabethan summer house. (Photo: Ed Bramley, Wikimedia Commons)
6 C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 The report of the chief planning officer recorded the views of the council’s conservation officer that the proposed development would not cause substantial harm or loss of significance to the conservation area or to the setting of any of the listed buildings in the vicinity of the application site for the purposes of paragraphs 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (which have replaced the equivalent paragraphs in PPS5). The report went on to refer to sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings Act, noting that special regard must be given to the desirability of preserving surrounding listed buildings and the character or appearance of the Penshurst Conservation Area, even though the potential harmwas limited. It concluded, however, that the benefits of the proposal in terms of the provision of affordable housing carried greater weight. The High Court, perhaps going further than the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Barnwell Manor Windfarm case, held that a finding of harm to the setting of a listed building or a conservation area gave rise to a ‘strong presumption’ against planning permission being granted, and that a local planning authority could strike the right balance only if it was conscious of that statutory ‘presumption’ and if it demonstrably applied that presumption. The court held that even though the chief planning officer’s report did cite the relevant sections of the Listed Building Act, it did not go on to apply the statutory presumption in the correct way. Again, the court stressed that this harm, although limited, was not merely another material consideration to be weighed against others in the normal way. Blackfriars Street, Stamford The High Court has considered the point again in a decision as recent as May of this year, in a case involving potential impact to listed buildings in the Blackfriars Street Conservation Area in Stamford, Lincolnshire. In this case, South Kesteven District Council granted planning permission for development adjacent to two Grade II listed buildings owned by the trustees of the Cecil Estate Family Trust. The trustees had objected to the application on the basis that the development might have affected the structural integrity of two curtilage listed buildings and applied for judicial review on the basis that the council had not applied the duty in section 66 in the correct way. The council accepted that its officer’s report contained no assessment of whether the proposed scheme would have an impact on the listed structures. But it argued that the words ‘development which affects a listed building or its setting’ restricted section 66(1) to applications for planning permission for development of the listed building or its immediate setting (that is, its curtilage) and not to a proposed development on a neighbouring site which would harm the listed building or its setting. The council also argued that any proposed development which did affect the structural integrity of a listed building would need listed building consent, and it would be at this stage that the impacts would be assessed, rather than as part of the determination for planning permission. The council accepted that its officer’s report contained no assessment of whether the proposed scheme would have an impact on the listed structures on the basis that section 66 was expressed in terms of how the proposed development would affect the setting of a listed building and not whether the development would affect the listed buildings themselves (including the curtilage listed buildings). The High Court held that the council’s interpretation was too narrow, and inconsistent with the scope of section 66(1), as set out in the Barnwell Manor case. The words ‘development which affects a listed building or its setting’ in section 66 clearly covered development on a neighbouring property and embraced development which would have an impact on a listed building or its setting, whether direct or indirect, and whether harmful or beneficial, or a mixture of the two. The court also rejected the council’s reliance on the listed building consent regime, which served a different purpose in only requiring consent for works for the alternation or extension of a listed building, rather the purpose of section 66, which was to avoid damage to such a building or its setting before it occurred. For these reasons, the court quashed the planning permission granted by South Kesteven District Council. Conclusions These cases are crucial in clarifying the weight that a local planning authority should attribute to the preservation of the setting of a listed building or the listed building itself (as demonstrated by the Stamford Blackfriars Street case), and to the preservation of the character of a conservation area, when considering a planning application and how this should be balanced against other material considerations. Following these decisions, local planning authorities will need to take extra care to ensure that they give these factors the proper weight and that this weighting is fully recorded in their decision-making process in any proposal that has a potential impact on a listed building or a conservation area. As the Forge Field case shows, even if the report of a planning officer or conservation officer makes reference to sections 66 or 72, a decision to grant planning permission may still be vulnerable to challenge by way of judicial review if the preservation of the listed building or conservation area is not given considerable weight and importance. The decisions should be very much welcomed by those seeking to object to planning applications on the basis of the impact on a listed building or a conservation area, as they confirm that even if the harm is not considered substantial, it must still be given considerable importance and weight when balanced against other material considerations, even in the context of other strong policy grounds in favour of development, such as renewable energy generation or affordable housing. Ultimately the result should be stronger protection for these heritage assets. Tom Deards is a solicitor in the legal department of the Canal & River Trust.
C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 7 Periodically Another quiet spell for the publication of heritage journals has resulted in a shorter column than usual this time. The summer issue of the Association of Preservation Technology Bulletin is always a double one. The latest (Vol XLVI, Nos 2–3, 2015) is wide ranging it its content, after several recent editions have been devoted to the conservation of metals. Although there is earthen vernacular construction in many parts of Britain, this is usually small in scale. So it is fascinating to read a description and history of an earthen building on the grand scale: the Djenné Great Mosque in Mali, on the world heritage list since 1988 and defined by the French as in the ‘Subanese style’. Trevor Marchand explains how the exterior is maintained on an annual basis (with photos that would have any UK health and safety official in shock). He explains the regrettable impact of fractious regional heritage and religious politics, and what these mean in terms of the challenges for preservation that the local community must face in the light of external advice and interventions. Turning to more technical issues, Lizzie Olson and Derek Trelstad discuss the deterioration of 19th-century masonry structures affected by harsh marine environments by using the example of Fort Jefferson in Florida, built between 1846 and 1875. Buildings of this type rely for their structural integrity on geometry, proportion, and the quality of the materials and original construction. If properly designed and built, the actual material stresses within unreinforced masonry are less to do with the materials than the design. The authors describe the programme of testing, analysis and monitoring carried out in 2013 to understand the fort designer’s original intentions. They evaluate the condition of the masonry structure using field measurements, traditional graphic analysis, and modern finite element and thrust-network analysis, with in situ and laboratory testing of the materials to determine acceptable levels of deterioration and the works necessary to maintain the stability of the structure. Documentation plays an important part in guiding strategies for the appropriate conservation of important sites. Ilene Tyler describes how this was carried out at the Highland Park Ford Plant in Michigan. Numerous innovations in car mass production were developed there between 1910 and 1926. It was the birthplace of the moving assembly line, and the noted architect Albert Kahn designed a number of the distinctive buildings in reinforced concrete and brick that are characteristic of his industrial work. The article is well worth sourcing for its description of how large redundant and semi-derelict industrial sites can be assessed; how a resulting cultural resource management plan aims to guide rehabilitation and adaptive reuse; and how a historic structures report documents the existing condition and proposed future treatment of the most intact but most vulnerable buildings. Although few derelict, historic, industrial sites on this scale exist in the UK, the described methodology merits reading as a guide to the rehabilitation of large, challenging sites where important abandoned heritage buildings and structures remain standing. Carolyn Andrews has produced a paper on the repair of a major doubledeck trunnion bascule bridge across the Chicago River, completed between 1916 and 1921. At the time this was the longest and heaviest two-truss bridge in the city. The bridge has been exposed to harsh environmental conditions, including the use of winter road salt and high traffic loads. Rehabilitation of the bridge began in 2008. Andrews describes in detail the engineering assessment, the removal of inappropriate or ineffective later alterations, the reinstatement of historic detailing, and the repair and cleaning of the stone bridge-houses and stonework abutments. She emphasises the importance of aiming for long-term restoration results and the need to ensure that the role of the conservation architect is not marginalised within a largely engineering-based team. There are a number of lessons from this example that could be applied elsewhere, not just to similar bridges but also to the professional interpersonal dynamics of multi-disciplinary projects. In my March 2015 review of the Association of Preservation Technology Bulletin I referred to the conservation of dalle-de-verra panels used on the New York Hall of Science for the 1964–63 World’s Fair – one of its few permanent surviving mid-century landmark buildings. The cobalt blue glass panels were set within reinforced concrete frames. Two of the authors of the earlier paper, Raymond Pepi and Laura Buchner, describe the approach to the repair of the cast-in-place reinforced concrete coffers, and how field and laboratory testing led to the repair approach adopted. The conservation of historic interior finishes does not appear very frequently in the Bulletin, so it is a pleasure to recommend a paper by Claudia Kavenagh and Raymond Pepi about the restoration of two aesthetic movement rooms at the huge Seventh Regiment Armory in NewYork City, completed in 1880 to the designs of Charles W Clinton and containing interiors by
8 C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 pre-eminent designers of the period such as Tiffany. Unsurprisingly, the original decorative scheme did not appeal to later sensibilities and had been largely overpainted in the 20th century. An initial pilot project was undertaken to clarify the practicality and cost of revealing the original finishes. The article is especially useful in explaining the approach to initial smallscale testing, the specification of the works, bidding and construction. It is candid about the potential conflicts between the conservator’s prime directive to protect the historic finishes versus the overall construction budget and timescale, and the skirmishes that can arise unless there is clear collaboration and common objectives. The final paper, by Arne Johnson and W Robert Hannen, looks at the plethora of guidelines for the protection of historic buildings from construction vibration, and the widely varying recommended limits often presented without appropriate explanation or reference to the scientific basis. This is particularly crucial for museums and the conservation of works of art, but the authors consider that the commonly used vibration limits are too conservative. They set out the basis of the standards, including the UK BS 7385 and US, Swiss and German standards, before concluding about the establishment of limits and the need to consider an overall plan for vibration control. The authors give five short, practical examples applied to major US arts institutions. One of the great benefits of membership of the 20th Century Society is receiving copies of its excellent and substantial journal. Past issues have dealt with ‘Housing the twentieth century nation’ (No 9, 2008); ‘The seventies: recovering a lost decade of British architecture’ (No 10, 2012); and ‘Oxford and Cambridge’ (No 11, 2013). The latest issue, No 12, a whopping 224 pages edited by Elain Harwood and Alan Powers, is entitled ‘Houses: regional practice and local character’. Although past issues of the journal in 1996 and 1999 looked at individual houses, the current issue brings together a range of houses that covers the whole span of the Twentieth Century Society’s interests from 1914 to the present. Some of the architects chosen may be well known to IHBC practitioners in particular localities: Hampstead Garden Suburb or Merseyside for example, but they may otherwise suffer from what Alan Powers describes in his introductory essay as the ‘semi-obscurity of regionality’. This might be disparagingly called provincialism, notwithstanding the inventiveness and sophistication of many of the designs of the period and the reluctance to abide by the canons of the prevailing taste.What we know of regional design and designers of the last century often comes from books and magazines. Powers contrasts the promotion by Country Life and subsequent fame of Edwin Lutyens by comparison with the relative obscurity of his significant contemporary Detmar Blow.While private houses were better promoted after 1945 by architectural and house design magazines, many good regionally based practices did not receive the wider exposure the journal seeks now to address. If you are not a member of the society – and perhaps you should join – this bumper issue is well worth seeking out. The latest quarterly TM:Theatres Magazine (Issue 45, Autumn 2015) places the Theatre Buildings at Risk Register centre stage (if you will excuse the pun). There are 31 theatres on the register, which covers England, Scotland and Wales. The trust uses a different method of assessment from that traditionally developed 30 years ago by English Heritage, assessing buildings against nine categories of threat and two four-point systems (0 to 3) to assess the quality of the theatre and the community value. Overall the maximum risk value is 9, but theatres scoring less than 4 are not included on the register. About half of the problem buildings are concentrated in a band from North Wales through the north west to West Yorkshire. A snapshot of the issues relating to each one is illuminating. It is encouraging to note the many cases where the future appears quite promising as a consequence of local initiatives by community theatre groups, local friends groups or the involvement of a building preservation trust. However, it is notable that the withdrawal of local authority arts funding or freehold disposal to relinquish council responsibility has also exacerbated the problem of maintaining continued viable theatre uses. In my column in March I referred to an editorial in Issue 42 of TM by Mhora Samuel, director of the Theatres Trust, regarding widespread concern about the aging of plaster and hessian materials used in late 19th- and early 20th-century theatres. This followed the widely reported collapse of the ceiling at the Apollo Theatre in London in 2013. Subsequently the Association of British Theatre Technicians (ABTT) brought together the Health and Safety Executive, English Heritage, the Theatres Trust, the Society of London Theatres, heritage plastering experts and structural engineers to discuss solutions. They reported in May this year. A new regime will be imposed on theatre owners. In future the top of suspended 19th-century ceilings – often only viewed in semi-darkness – must now be cleaned and visible for regular inspection. Plastering firms and structural engineers have been told to cease putting caveats and limits to their liability in their inspection reports. Two other outcomes of note are that 1 Twentieth Century Architecture12 Regional Practice and Local Character Houses
C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 9 From Nathaniel Hawthorne’s 1860 novel The Marble Faun To a spectator on the spot, it is remarkable that the events of Roman history, and Roman life itself, appear not so distant as the Gothic ages which succeeded them. We stand in the Forum, or on the height of the Capitol, and seem to see the Roman epoch close at hand. We forget that a chasm extends between it and ourselves, in which lie all those dark, rude, unlettered centuries, around the birth-time of Christianity, as well as the age of chivalry and romance, the feudal system, and the infancy of a better civilization than that of Rome. Or, if we remember these mediaeval times, they look further off than the Augustan age. The reason may be, that the old Roman literature survives, and creates for us an intimacy with the classic ages, which we have no means of forming with the subsequent ones. The Italian climate, moreover, robs age of its reverence and makes it look newer than it is. Not the Coliseum, nor the tombs of the Appian Way, nor the oldest pillar in the Forum, nor any other Roman ruin, be it as dilapidated as it may, ever give the impression of venerable antiquity which we gather, along with the ivy, from the gray walls of an English abbey or castle. And yet every brick or stone, which we pick up among the former, had fallen ages before the foundation of the latter was begun. This is owing to the kindliness with which Nature takes an English ruin to her heart, covering it with ivy, as tenderly as Robin Redbreast covered the dead babes with forest leaves. She strives to make it a part of herself, gradually obliterating the handiwork of man, and supplanting it with her own mosses and trailing verdure, till she has won the whole structure back. But, in Italy, whenever man has once hewn a stone, Nature forthwith relinquishes her right to it, and never lays her finger on it again. Age after age finds it bare and naked, in the barren sunshine, and leaves it so. Besides this natural disadvantage, too, each succeeding century, in Rome, has done its best to ruin the very ruins, so far as their picturesque effect is concerned, by stealing away the marble and hewn stone, and leaving only yellow bricks, which never can look venerable. FIS, which represents companies in the Finishes and Interior sectors, has been working hard to develop a series of forms to help their customers assess the competency of fibrous plaster inspectors and contractors. The just half a dozen firms in the UK that can do this type of work now comprise the FIS Heritage Plastering Group. The forms referred to and the list of members can be obtained by emailing Robert Barker at robertbarker@thefis.org. In the September 2015 issue of Natural Stone Specialist Barry Hunt continues his examination of great British stones with the geological and quarrying history, properties, testing methods and uses of Purbeck limestone. His article lists 24 stone types named by quarrymen in descending order from the highest (youngest) to the lowest beds in the quarries (this list does not include other types of stone present, such as clays, shales and marls) within the sequence. Purbeck, which could be said to be the antecedent of the British marble industry, was used around 2,800 years ago for a bronze-age coffin near Swanage in Dorset, the area where all the quarries are now based. Purbeck is found extensively at Salisbury Cathedral, where 15,000 tonnes of stone were used, mainly for the flooring. Beds of the stone are rarely more than one metre thick and typically are in the order of 0.3 metres thick. Weathering along the bedding planes and joints often reduces the amount of material that can be extracted. Because the quarrying can be so haphazard, the stone is graded as it is quarried rather than there being a defined, predictable reserve of the different types of material present. Quality control for Purbeck is therefore very much down to the skill of the quarrying contractor. The October issue has a long article on the present state of stone cleaning techniques, and the compromises to be struck between the aesthetics of pristine stonework and the patina of age. There is much good technical advice available. This includes a brief outline of the history of stone cleaning literature to address past cleaning failures identified by Historic Scotland in 1989-1991; the first English Heritage Practical Building Conservation handbooks; and the very recent Conservation, Repair and Management ofWar Memorials by David Odgers, published in June this year. For stone specialists the article commends the recent Stone Restoration Handbook by Chris Daniels. Also useful are the references in the article to the current two-year Facade Preservation Apprenticeships. These are CITB courses run by StoneTrain, the training arm of the Stone Federation Great Britain. People with two or more years experience can obtain a Level 2 NVQ. The same issue examines growing support among the Welsh slatemining industry for Gwynedd County Council’s bid for world heritage status, which was greeted without much enthusiasm when first proposed in 2011. Since then the tourism potential of the Welsh slate industry is becoming much better appreciated. Bob Kindred MBE
10 C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 1994 - 2015 Celebrating 21 years IHBC recognised historic environment service provider › Conservation area management › Article 4 Directions › Urban design and the public realm › Regeneration funding › Characterisation studies › Site evaluation › Listed building advice › Statements of significance › Buildings at risk and local lists › Conservation plans › Training and locum support › Expert witness 01730 816710| theconservationstudio.co.uk THE CONSERVATION STUDIO ✔ The finest quality lime putty plasters ✔ Natural hydraulic lime ✔ Natural insulation products ✔ Sympathetic paints, oils & waxes ✔ Practical training courses ✔ Unrivalled customer support Better for your home, better for you, better for the environment Traditional Building & Decorating www.mikewye.co.uk 01409 281644
C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 11 A fragile consensus Who is the expert in the historic building heritage? The IHBC member, obviously: a rigorous assessment process ensures that. But there are other experts too. We describe as heritage things that we value and identify with, and we may not need professionals to tell us what those things are and how we should treat them. Back in the 1980s Lionel Esher described what he saw as changing attitudes towards heritage. ‘Until 1940 educated people were extremely choosy about past styles of architecture. The Antique had a century of adulation; Tudor came in and went out; Louis XV went out then came in. But outside these decorators’ fashions, any new buildings were always thought to be an improvement and in designing them no deference whatever was paid to old environments. Then, perhaps as a result of the uniquely destructive character of World War II, there occurred a change in human sensibility. By 1950 we loved everything, however hideous.’ The change in human sensibility had not changed Esher’s confidence that, whatever anyone else thought, he knew what was important and of universal value. In the 21st century, by contrast, our ideas of the value of heritage – of what is of value and who has a right to have their views heard – have become much more fluid. On page 12 Rebecca Madgin and Michael Taylor set the scene for a set of articles in this issue of Context that look at how decisions about heritage are made and at some of the new types of expert that are playing valued roles in the sector. If heritage values belong to everyone, Madgin and Taylor wonder, where does that leave the role of the heritage professional? The heritage sector has continually evolved, they conclude: the challenge now is to unlock and recognise other forms of expertise in a world where consensus is fragile. Who is the expert?
12 C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 REBECCA MADGIN and MICHAEL TAYLOR Who do heritage values belong to? Finding the tools to unlock and recognise different forms of heritage expertise will be challenging in a society in which identity is complex and historic consensus fragile. During the 21st century the value of heritage has shifted in two main ways. First, the notion of what is of value has shifted both temporally and also in the type of historic assets that are afforded official value. Second, the idea of who can ascribe value has been extended. The what category is accepted within the heritage profession as a necessary element for the evolution of the sector, particularly as more recent structures assume significance. The who question is much more complex but it, too, is part of the same need for the heritage to evolve. If, as Historic England states, heritage belongs to everyone, then by definition anyone at any time and for any reason can ascribe a value to the physical legacy of our past. However, this presents problems for a formal system that privileges categories that are adjudged to be ‘objective’ by experts with specialist knowledge to ‘read’ and ‘de-code’ historic buildings. Historic England’s Conservation Principles recognised this with the introduction of communal value and especially its sub-category of social value.1 Who has a say in how to measure and incorporate value within heritage management presents a continuing problem. The Farrell Review asked ‘how do we make conservation of our future heritage a more open, democratic and interactive process?’2 This revealed the inherent contradiction that while heritage may be for everyone, their values are not sufficiently recognised within the current system. Until now the debate has centred on plurality and democracy; who is an ‘expert’, who is a ‘professional’ (and therefore who is neither an ‘expert’ nor a ‘professional’) remain the focus yet remain unresolved. To ascribe official value to St Paul’s Cathedral in London or to St Bride’s Church in the new town of East Kilbride goes unquestioned because one is 17th century and the other was designed by a distinguished architectural practice, Gillespie, Kidd and Coia. The expertise that adjudged these buildings to be historic assets is thus recognised. At the heart of this is a cultural acceptance that the process of ascribing significance to St Paul’s and St Bride’s was based on valid knowledge. However, more recent moves within the planning system and in society more generally are questioning received practices in the name of plurality and Leicester’s Clock Tower has been dismissed as being ‘like some mightily elaborated flagpole’ but many locals name it as the landmark they most readily identify with the city. References 1 Jones, S (2014) ‘Conservation and social value’, Context 133, March 2014 2 Farrell,T (2013) The Farrell Review, Farrells, London
C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 13 democracy. Professionally trained planners, architects, archaeologists, architectural historians and conservationists are increasingly seen to play onlyapart rather than the part in determining the future for places.The knowledge on which these professionals based their decisions is increasingly challenged and questioned both by those in other related professions and from those outside the professions. Perhaps then, the question is not what is of value, nor who is an expert but where is expertise located? Reframing it in this way gives rise to a broader debate concerning ‘local’ and ‘national’ experts, and questions the extent to which these levels of expertise can work together. Three examples show the interplay of national and local ‘expertise’, and how we should neither elevate communal value nor denigrate it as too subjective.The first two are drawn from Leicester and the third from London, where young people demonstrated their values in relation to ‘the world’s oldest surviving skate spot’. Leicester’s Clock Tower (listed at Grade II) is at the functional and emotional heart of the city centre. It stands close to the site of the Roman and medieval East Gate in what was once a key traffic intersection but is now a vehicle-free public space. Built in 1868 over an important junction of the borough’s sewers, the Clock Tower is neither the finest work of its highly competent architect Joseph Goddard (1840–1900) nor that of his favourite architectural sculptor Samuel Barfield (c1830–89). For Brandwood and Cherry it displays ‘an excess of ornament but no firmly articulated structure to go with it – like some mightily elaborated flagpole’3. Others have echoed this less-than-enthusiastic assessment. In a recent series of focus groups about Leicester’s built heritage, a number of older people instantly named the ClockTower as the landmark they most readily identified with the city. More surprisingly a multicultural group in their teens and early-twenties equally readily identified the ClockTower as the place they met friends and which they, too, saw as the place that most evoked Leicester. In the terms of English Heritage’s Conservation Principles4, the Clock Tower would therefore hold relatively little evidential, historic or aesthetic value but would score very highly on communal value. A mile or so from the Clock Tower, the route northward passes along Belgrave Road, dubbed the ‘Golden Mile’. The area developed from the 1860s as a radial road, with a series of connecting streets of terraced housing interspersedwith industry, churches and schools. Over the decades from the 1960s, Leicester’s Hindu community has made Belgrave Road its own, with shop signs and displays, posters, and snatches of music and, more recently, by brightly painting the fronts of buildings. The painting would not normally be recommended in terms of retaining the area’s architectural character or on conservation grounds, but it has undoubtedly heightened an already remarkable visual atmosphere in Belgrave Road.The Hindu community has not just arrived but is confident, energetic and well-established. It has created a place enjoyed by the community itself and by many others who visit for events, shops and, especially, food. Over the last 40 or so years the significance of Belgrave Road has evolved from that of a site displaying evidence of late-19th century urban development to one that demonstrates the contemporary evolution of a multicultural society in Britain. In both these Leicester examples the value of the historic environment and the local memories of experience, use and enjoyment embedded within place are perpetuated, albeit in a Leicester’s Hindu community has made Belgrave Road its own, brightly painting the fronts of buildings. References 3 Brandwood, G, and Cherry, M (1990) Men of Property: the Goddards and six generations of architecture, Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Records Service 4 English Heritage (2008) Conservation principles policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment
flippingbook.comRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=