CONTEXT The Association of Conservation Officers No 35 September 1992 Stone cleaning What is demolition? Autumn books feature
'<ltuhor~oof Wile @o. 1fiimiteh Manufacturersof HANDMADECLAYROOFTILES StrengthandFrostestedto BS402 ,~,r! \VI~ Certificate No. FM 11616 A B.S.I. 5 750 Registered Company Suppliedwitha fullrangeoffittings; Ornamentals, OastsandKentPegs,Flat andCrossCambered. AvailableinRed,MediumandDarkAntique. Acceptedinsensitiveareasandregardedbythemostdiscerningspecifiersasthefinesthandmadetile onthemarket.Weintendto continueto supplyhighqualityrooftilesandto givethehighest grade ofserviceto ourcustomers whocantakepleasureintheirinvestmentknowingthattheyareadding to thequalityoftheenvironmentandourheritage. Refurbishmentof roofof Grade1 listedbuilding inTUDORHANDMADEMediumAntiquetiles. TUDORROOFTILECO.LIMITED DengmarshRoad,Lydd,KentTN29 9JH 1991 Historic Houses Association Award Winner Telephone0679 20202 Fax0679 20700
CONTEXT No35 September 1992 ISSN: 0958-2746 Editor Published for the Association Bob Kindred (Ipswich Borough Council, Tel: 0473 262934, Fax: 0473 262974) of Conservation Officers by Hall-McCartney Ltd, PO Box 21, Unit 7, Campus 5, The Business Park, Letchworth 4 All Saints Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP! 4DG, Tel: 0473 259441 SG6 2JF, Tel: 0462 675848, Fax: 0462 679356 Assistant Editor Gus Astley (Bath City Council Tel: 0225 461111 ext 2549, Fax: 0225 448536) Annual Subscription (inclusive of post & packing-UK only): £30.00 Single Copy: £10.00 Manor House, Wells Road, Hallatrow, Bristol BS18 5EJ, Tel: 0761 453047 The views expressed in Context are not necessarilythose held by the ACO or the publishers. Neither the publishers nor the ACO shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. Context is published quarterly and is distributed to all members of the Association of Conservation Officers. © Association of Conservation Officers 1992 The products and servicesadvertiselin this publication are not necessarilyendorsed by the Association. THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION OFFICERS Officers Cbairrnan: Chris Smith (Stroud Valleys Project Officer, l0AJohn Street, Stroud, Glos GL5 I DZ, Tel: 0453 753358) 24 Middle Street, Stroud, Glos GL5 2HA, Tel: 0453 753949 Vice Chairman: Mary King (Liverpool City Council, Tel: 051-225 5678) 24 Beech Road, Aughton, Ormskirk, Lanes L39 6SJ, Tel: 0695 424297 Secretary: Graham Steaggles (East Hampshire District Council, Tel: 0730 266551, Fax: 0730 267366) 54 Pulens Lane, Sheet, Petersfield, Hampshire GU31 4DD, Tel: 0730 266653 Treasurer: Peter Richards (EssexCounty Council, Tel: 0245 492211 ext 51511) 139 Lifstan Way, Thorpe Bay, Essex SS! 2XG, Tel: 0702 468252 Membership Secretary: James Ross (EssexCounty Council, Tel: 0245 492211ext51672) Three Bears, Laindon Common Road, Little Burstead, Essex CMl2 9TL Education Officer: Mike King (TACP Design, CONTEXT 35 Tel: 051-708 7014) 24 Beech Road, Aughton, Ormskirk, Lancs.L39 6SJ, Tel: 0695 424297 Projects Officer: Dr Richard Morrice (English Heritage, Tel: 071-973 3132) lA Bloomsbury Place, Kemp Town, Brighton, Sussex BN2 IDA, Tel: 0273 623260 Publicity Officer: Alan Taylor (Staffordshire County Council, Tel: 0785 223121 ext 7282) 15 Village Gardens, Walton on the Hill, Stafford STl 7 0LL Tel: 0785 664473 Council Minutes Secretary: Andrew Cooke (Enfield LBC, Tel: 081-967 9595) Branch Officers North: Keith Murray, Durham County Council, Tel: 091-383 3237 ext 2237 North West: Rob Burns, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, Tel: 051-691 8197 ext 8197 Yorkshire: Bob Scriven, 2 Lambert Avenue, Roundhay, Leeds LS8 lNH, Tel: 0532 668782. (Convenor contact Jacqueline Ryder, Tel: 0924 296590) West Midlands: Colin Richards, South Shropshire District Council, Tel: 0584 874941 or Dave Baxter, Hereford City Coucil, Tel: 0432 268121 East Midlands: Graham Beaumont, Nottinghamshire County Council, Tel: 0602 243060 South West: to be announced. South: Julia Smith, Buckinghamshire County Council, Tel: 0296 382823 East Anglia: John Preston, 90 Histon Road, Cambridge CB4 3JP. (Cambridge City Council, Tel: 0223 358977 ext 2630) South East: John Davey, Guildford Borough Council, Tel: 0483 444660 London: Rosemarie MacQueen, City of Westminster, Tel: 071-798 2519 Scotland: Debbie Robertson, Edinburgh District Council, Tel: 031-225 2424 ext 6562 Wales: to be announced. Northern Ireland: to be announced. CONTENTS Editorial News Case studies A rare success. Listed barns in 4 4 Sussex. Jeff Lander 7 Beating the birds and bees. Brookes Cottage, North WiJlingham. Stewart Squires 8 Opening the window. 1992ACO Summer School. Francis Biard. 9 Building limes forum 10 M'learned friend. What is demolition? CharlesMynors 11 Sir Titus. Rebuilding in conservation areas. David Morton 13 'Supporting Columns'. Rescue of Clapton Park Church, London. A Newton 14 Rolling back the tide. Battling against security shutters. Prue Smith 16 Education for life. Sir Bernard Feilden 17 Coming dean. Stone deaning in Scotland and the Scott Monument. Emma Crawford 19 COT AC courses in building and architectural conservation in the UK. Mike King. 22 Conference reports Civilising town centres. Dennis Rodwell 25 Saving Croatia. John Preston 26 News 27 Good vibrations. Ultrasonic testing of timber. Robert Demaus 28 Feedback Letter from America. Sarah Woodcock Letters ACO Business News ACO Branch News Autumn book reviews ILLUSTRATIONS IN THIS ISSUE 29 29 33 35 38 Front cover: ACO Scotland on tour in Elgin. Photo: Mia Scott p5: Victorian shops in Durham. Photo: Durham County Council p7: Sussex barn after repair. Photo: Jeff Lander p8: Brookes Cottage, North Willingham. Photos: Stewart Squires p 15: Drawings and photos of Clapton Park Church. Photos: Brian Morton & Partners p16: 16 Bridewell Alley, Norwich. Photos: Norwich City Council. p20: Scott Monument, Edinburgh. Photo: Emma Crawford p26: Eltz Castle, Vukovar. Photos: Goran Niksic p28: Ultrasonic testing. Photo: Robert Demaus p39: Gatehouse, Eaton Hall. Photo: Victorian Society 3
4 EDITORIAL This bumper issue reflects the fact that as our numbers grow, so more members have views to express and see Context as forum for those views. It is a pleasure to report here several recent successful projects; illuminating Schools and Conferences and to offer guidance on conservation training courses among many other things. The growth of the ACO brings with it greater influence in conservation matters but also greater responsibilities. Your Na.cional Council continues to work hard (almost entirely in their own time) on your behalf, and it is intended to keep you better informed about the fruits of these labours by expanding the ACO Business section. The subjects covered are rarely as dry and esoteric as you might chink. Our Chairman has frequently asked for more help at either national or local level on the principle chat a little from everyone goes BETTER PROTECTION FOR THEATRES IN SCOTLAND The excellent work of the Theatres Trust and the obligation of English LPAs to consult was explained in detail in Context 23. It will be recalled that having been established by the Theatres Act of 1976, the Trust, under its Director John Earl, has actively and skilfully developed its role "to promote the better protection of theatres for the benefit of the nation". The Secretary of State for Scotland now requires all local authorities north of the border to consult the Trust similarly before determining any planning application for development involving land on which there is a theatre. This brings Scotland into line with a procedure which has applied in England s1nce 1977. It should be remembered that this requirement applies whether the building is listed or not and whether it is at present in use as a theatre or not. In all its work, the Theatres Trust's principal objective is not simply to see buildings preserved, but to safeguard live theatre use -or potential for such use. The Trust's address is now 22 Charing CrossRoad, London WC2H OHR, but the phone numbers are unchanged, Tel: 071836 8591 Fax: 071-836 3302. IMPORTANT NOTE Please use the Bankers Order form in the ACO Business section of this issue if you have failed to pay your ACO Subscription. If you don't wish to cut up your copy, photocopy the relevant page. Do it now! a long way. This is now slowly emerging and it is pleasing to report a revitalisation of several Branches with a growth in local activities. Branch reports not only indicate what you may be missing but often provide a source of ideas for others to develop. I also hope you feel that Context is something you would like to write for occasionally instead of just read! The intended theme of this issue was approaches to brick and stone cleaning. Do I detect chat the almost total lack of response indicates chat this is simply not a problem in the UK? Surely not! Themes are there to stimulate thought. Do you chink Conservation Areas are being abandoned to their face?What is to be done about integrating new buildings 1n Conservation Areas? If you have a view or an interesting case on either of these issues write something for Context by 15 October! COVER STORY ACO Scotland continues to provide us with the liveliest quarterly Branch News, reflecting the infectious enthusiasm of the organisers and strong support of the participants. It is appropriate that we celebrate one of their recent gatherings in the splendid setting of St Giles Church, Plainstones in Elgin, apparently during one of the frequent stops for ice cream! THE CONSERVATION PORTFOLIO In the September 1992 edition of the Portfolio are: Brickmatch Ltd - Specialist Brick Matching Service Butterworth Ltd - Scientific & Technical Publishers James Longley & Co Ltd - Building Contractors J Scott (Thrapston) Ltd - Double Glazed Period Windows Selectaglaze Ltd - Secondary Glazing Specialists FORTHCOMING ISSUES The next issue will address the theme of the future of Conservation Areas and new building within them. Copy deadline 15 October for posting on 4 December. Spring 1993 will contrast the experiences of those who work in local authority conservation with those who have moved into other organisations such as Trusts and quangos. What's the view from the other side of the fence? Copy deadline 15 January 1993 for posting on 5 March. Summer 1993 will examine how to cope with the aftermath of fire damage, vandalism and theft. Good and bad experiences and their timescales would be appreciated. Copy deadline 16 April 1993 for posting on 4 June. It may seem a long way off but start chinking now. All other material of interest also welcome of course! My thanks to all those contriburors who plan far enough ahead not to find it necessary to FAX copy at the last minute. Copy deadline dates are final! CALLS FOR IDEAS - CONFERENCE CONTRIBUTORS? Dr Malcolm Airs will be known to many of you as the former Conservation Officer of South Oxfordshire. He is now Lecturer in Historic Conservation at the Dept of Continuing Education, Oxford University, and ran a highly successful conference on Legislation for Historic Buildings over three days in May. A similar conference next year will celebrate 25 years of Conservation Areas. If you have a burning desire to express your enthusiasm, frustration, successes or failures by contributing a conference paper, Malcolm would like to hear from you soon. You can contact him at the DoCE, 1 WellingtonSquare, Oxford, Tel: 0865 270360, Fax: 0865 270309. CALLS FOR IDEAS - MANUSCRIPTS Donhead Publishing is interested in hearing from Conservation Officers with proposals for publications. The company specialises in high qualiry books for building practitioners in the field of building conservation. If you have a manuscript of that definitive study that everyone else should know about, or you are just interested in further details of forthcoming cities, please contact Jill Pearce, Donhead Publishing, 28 Southdean Gardens, Wimbledon, London SW19 6NU, Tel & Fax: 081-789 0138. CONTEXT 35
LIVING OVER THE SHOP The ACO has long championed the cause of Living over the Shop. A major article on the pioneering Ipswich scheme appeared in Context 17, pp8-10 as far back as 1987. Its desirability is also referred to in Dennis Rodwell's review article on the Civilising Town Centres Conference in this issue. Many ACO members will be aware of Ann Petherick's excellent York based LOTS project which has raised the profile of the problem of vacant upper floors. Now guidance to the solution has been published. Living Over The Shop - A Guide to Practitioners, written by Ann with Ross Fraser, contains within its 90 A4 pages valuable information on the problem of upper floors; the recommended solution; the players -owners, housing associations and local authorities; the process and the funding. Nine recent, short case studies are illustrated. This essential handbook is available from the LOTS Office, University of York, Kings Manor, York YOJ 2EP, for £15.00 on receiptof an A4 SAE. ROSE AND SAINT COMBINE Conservation Officers who have used Rose of Jericho for their supplies of historically accurate lime mortars, distempers and historic paints may care to note that this expertise has now been amalgamated with the St Blaise lime mortar business and analytical laboratory to provide what is claimed to be the most comprehensive lime service in England together with the availability of considerable experience in sheltercoats and finishes. They can be contacted at New Jericho Works, Westhill Barn, Evershot, Dorset DT2 OLD, Tel: 0935 83662, Fax: 0935 83017. GUIDANCE ON DECORATIVE TILES Hot on the heels of the Victorian Sociery's Doors advisory leaflet ( Context 34, p6), the second on the series has now been published. This is a well illustrated and presented 8 page guide to Decorative Tiles. It explains the evolution of 19th century tilework, the types of tile that might be encountered and how owners can enhance their properties by better rile care. Commonsense advice is offered on repair, reinstatement and cleaning. The Victorian Society has very kindly offered a discount to ACO members purchasing copiesof either leaflet. The price to A CO members is £2. 00 (inc postage) each instead of the usual £3. 00. CONTEXT 35 NEWS COUNTY DURHAM ENVIRONMENT AWARDS 1992 These annual County Council awards, made to encourage good design and the promotion of the care of the environment were first covered in Context 31. The builtenvironment category includes conversions which enhance the townscape of an area and paving schemes which improve the street scene. Overall there were 54 entries of which 23 were short-listed. Among the schemes commended were three Victorian shops in North Road, Durham. The upper floor domestic accommodation was converted to three self-contained singleperson flats and the window joinery and shopfronts, which had been severely neglected, were substantially overhauled or renewed. Architects for the project were Alan Todd Associates and the work was carried out by Blackburn Marshall of Darlington. THREAT TO ASTOR HOME AVERTED No. 3A Elliot Terrace, Plymouth was once owned by the Astor family and given by them to the City as the Lord Mayor's official residence. The recently restored frontage of this l 860s 4-storey town house, which has commanding views of the Hoe, masked an extensive and complicated piling operation taking place in areas of extremely limited access and low headroom. During an underpinning operation, problems occurred when a freak cavern 12ft square appeared without warning. Sofr clays overlying pitted limestone had leached through, causing erosion to the substratum above the good limestone in this and other locations. Subsequent attempts to pile proved unsuccessful. A specialist contractor, Guardian Foundations, was called in to take over the contract and provide a long-term solution to these difficulties. This involved drilling down 30 piles, up to I 5 m depth, constructed by a permanently cased ODEX system - 145 mm OD reducing to a 115 mm rock socket. In some locations the greater depths of the clay (often reaching up to 25 m before the bedrock was encountered) meant that the piles had to be predriven before a rock socket could be constructed. Reinforcement was also increased in these longer piles to provide them with the same behaviour characteristics as columns. On top of this a heavily reinforced concrete slab was constructed beneath the internal and parry walls. ADVERTISEMENT Potmolen Paint c\':,pccialisl 0 TradilionalPainls POTMOLEN PAINT, 27 Woodcock Industrial Esiatl', WARMINSTER, Wiltshire BAl2 9DX, England. Tdl'phonc: Wanninstcr (0985) 213960 Tckt<tx: M8S 2.13()31 5 J
6 TRACE HEATING Following the disastrous fire rwo years ago, during the first restoration of U ppark, West Sussex, the National Trust is nearing completion of its second restoration. As pare of the work, nearly 400 of selfregulating heat tracing cable was supplied by Raychem Led of Swindon and installed to lead guttering and downpipes by Gil crests of Horsham. The heater adjusts its heat output to the ambient conditions at any point to prevent snow build-up and the cycles of thawing and refreezing which create the build-up of successive layers of ice. The specially formulated outer jacket withstands the potentially damaging effect of UV sunlight. Also built-in was a water-sensing and locating cable called Tracetek to detect any melrwacer infiltrating the building through joints. Both the Lead Sheet Association and the British Lead Manufacturers Association strongly recommend the use of heat tracing tapes for buildings with inaccessible parapet or valley gutters. NEWS 'DOING IT IN STYLE' The London Borough of Wandsworth has tackled issues which bedevil many of us - how owners can be helped to avoid the pitfalls of house maintenance and repair and how sensitive alteration and extension of domestic property can be promoted. The new booklet persuasively argues that this can save home owners unnecessary time and expense. The guidance is written in an exemplary manner with householders in mind. Do it in Style packs a considerable amount of sensible information about the essential principles of conservation into its 44 pages. It is well illustrated with both examples of good, existing architectural features and horrendous examples of what is often done in the name of 'home improvement'. Lists of helpful contacts are given (including the ACO!) as well as advice on further reading. There is a very good summary of do's and don'ts. Copies can be obtained from the Borough Planner, Wandsworth LBC, Town Hall, High Street, London SWJ 8 2PU, price £7.50. BANKING ON CHANGE The Georgian Group, The Victorian Society, The Twentieth Century Society and The Ancient Monuments Society have combined to produce a major new study which not only deals with the history of Bricains's banks, but looks at what lies in store for these giants of the High Street. The report authors examine how old bank buildings are coping with the introduction of modern banking technology, how elements such as cash dispensers and open-plan interiors affect the historic fabric and, most topically, what the likely options are for redundant bank branches. DIARY DATES The Thirties Society has recencly changed its name to the Twentieth Century Society and widened its remit to cover a wider period of modern architecture. As buildings of the 1950s are now eligible for listing. Context readers may be interested in a conference being organised by the Society encicled 'Refashioning the Fifties - British Architecture 1945-1960' at the Architectural Association on 2-4 October. Further details (with SAE) .from Alan Powers, 99 Judd Street, London WCI 9NE. They are vital architectural elements in our historic townscapes yet, at this crucial stage in the development of the High Street bank, the prospect for our historic bank stock looks uncertain, as they increasingly feel the need to set low-cost and userfriendly functionalism against architectural worth. It is this trade-off that particularly concerns the National Amenity Societies and which forms the basis for this report. Banking on Change can be bought via The Georgian Group (37 Spiral Square, London El GOY), price £3.75 inc postage and packing. It is hoped to review the publication in a forthcoming issue. Special Notice for Members This issueof CONTEXT contains4 loose imertsfor: Donhead Publishing Wandsworth Borough Council ACO - East Anglia Branch Historic Houses Association AGM Invitations If any item is missingftomyourjournal, please contactthepublishingdepartmentat Hall-McCartney Ltd. Tel: 0462 675848 CHURCH OFFERINGS An important source of technical advice, which is not widely promoted but deserves to be, is the great range of valuable and very reasonably priced publications from the Council for the Care of Churches. In many cases the philosophy of approach adopted and the techniques proposed could be put to more general application by Conservation Officers. The list is too long to give in its entirety here (there are about 40 tides including a video) but it does include the indispensable Mortars, Plasters & Renders which should be within easy reach on every desk. Others (almost all of which cost less than £5 each) include invaluable technical guides on protection of churches against lightning; heating; lighting & wiring; inspection, maintenance and repair of fabric as well as guidance on Wall Paintings; Textiles; Organs and Glass (this last, superbly and concisely written by Jill Kerr of English Heritage). A full list of the publications, together with prices, is available from the Publications Department, Council for the Care of Churches, 83 London Wall, London EC2M 5NA - applyfor one today! SHOPFRONT DESIGN GUIDE COMPETITION ACO EAST ANGLIA For the first time at an ACO Cambridge Conference, an award will be given to the best local authority design guide on shopfront design in historic areas submitted for assessment by the conference organising group. As with all competitions, the judges' decision will be final! The sponsors Sweet and Maxwell have provided a generous book prize. The aim is to promote good practice by example, and to provide due credit to both the officer(s) directly responsible and the employing authority. Shorclisced entries will be exhibited at the conference. The book prize will be presented on the day but the certificate for the winning authority will be presented lacer, within their area to ensure maximum publicity for both the Authority and the ACO. The only conditions of entry are: a delegate from the authority must come co che conference, and entries must arrive before Monday 16 November to: James Clifton (ACO Competition), clo British Waterways, Lawn Lane, Hemel Hempstead, Herts HP3 3YT Further details from James on 0442 235400 or John Preston on 0223 358377 ext 2630 or 0223 313486 (answerphone). CONTEXT 35
CASE STUDIES (I) A RARE SUCCESS Jeff Lander of Chichester District Council on renovation of listed barns. The one thing that traditional agricultural buildings are not suffering from is a lack of policy statements as to how and why they should be treated when the cost of renovation leads owners and farmers to seek alternative uses. If the location is so remote as to make any alternative use unacceptable to the local planning authority and the Planning Inspectorate which must judge any planning appeal, then often barns continue to be used for storage purposes until they fall victim to tile thieves and eventually collapse because of the rotting of the structure. When the agricultural barns at risk in question are late 17th century to early 18th century and are listed the stakes are raised. This was the situation with the two listed barns in a group of traditional buildings overlooking the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. They are part of a farm amalgamated from three smaller farms sold by the Leconfield Estate (of Petworth House fame) to Lloyds Bank Pension Scheme. Chichester District Council became aware of their plight as a result of a letter from a concerned member of the public. The owner's agents, Smiths Gore, were of the opinion that the group of buildings could be sympathetically converted for alternative use, retaining their intrinsic character. The Council was at variance with this view, not least because the tenant farmer was keen to continue using the barns for agricultural purposes and also because of the remote location. To prevent further deterioration, the Council's Planning Committee gave officers the authority to serve an Urgent Works Notice on the, by then, all but vacant barns to secure minimum repairs to make them wind and water eight and structurally safe. Following this, Smiths Gore reassessed the future of the barns and recommended full restoration with the prospect of a 35% grant from MAFF under its Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme. In making this recommendation, the agents were principally influenced by the tenant farmer's enthusiasm for continuing to use CONTEXT 35 the buildings for agricultural purposes and his willingness to accept their declassification as redundant in his tenancy agreement and inclusion therein, on full repairing and insuring terms, upon completion of restoration. The agents also considered it shortsighted simply to effect temporary emergency repairs. The Council, keen to encourage this initiative, withheld the Section 54 Notice, aware that time was not on the barns' side and that, if the owners chose not to restore, the cost of the urgent works would increase, possible requiring the preparation of another schedule of works and another delay. Fortunately, the good relations between the Council and the land agents prevailed during this time and this mutual crust paid off in the positive decision of Lloyds Bank Pension Scheme to restore the barns and agree new terms with the tenant farmer for their continued agricultural use. A grant application to MAFF has now been submitted to help with the £33,000 renovation cost. It is unlikely that an owner-farmer could have saved these buildings. The MAFF does not allow additional grant support from other bodies to bolster its 35% grant for the repair of traditional farm buildings. The writer questions the reasoning behind this restriction and considers that 75% grant assistance would be nearer the level required to achieve general success. In this case, the listed barns have been saved! The barn owl remained in residence throughout the renovation works which were carried out afrer the nesting season. The farmer still has barns where he needs them and Lloyds Bank Pension Scheme has shown chat institutional ownership of agricultural land can work in the interest of conservation. The contractors engaged, BJN Roofing Ltd, completed the work to a high standard and, finally, the tenant farmer tarred and stained the new weatherboarding to blend in with the old materials. Various security measures have been taken to prevent tile thieves gaining access to the site. In the unlikely event of their achieving this, and of the alarm not already having been raised, their efforts would in any case be thwarted. In renewing the roofs, all tiles have been double nailed to prevent stripping, such modest additional cost otherwise being justified to secure these exposed buildings against winter gales. 7
8 (2) BEATING THE BIRDS AND BEES Stewart Squires, Conservation Officer with West Lindsey District Council, describes the rescue of Brookes Cottage, North Willingham. Brookes Cottage is a Grade II listed building, a two-up, two-down stone and pantile cottage, with a washhouse and pantry to the rear under a catslide roof. It dates from the late 18th century, with some minor 19th century alterations. In July 1989 it was purchased by its present owner. In August 1990 West Lindsey District Council classified it as risk category 1, (extreme risk) in the Council's buildings at risk survey. At that time the pantile roof was largely missing and the rear washhouse and pantry were in a state of collapse. The top section of the western gable had fallen, windows and doors were rotten, and there was severe erosion of large areas of its stonework due to the actions of masonry bees, and nesting birds. In September 1990 the District Council authorised the service of Urgent Works and Full Repairs Notices. These were not required, however, as the owner carried out some works, shoring of the eastern gable, and tern porariiy covering the roof and windows. Although of a very short-term nature, they did serve to keep out the worst excesses of the following winter. Negotiations on the building's future proved to be protracted. The cottage is sited alongside the road on the outside of a bend on the busy A631, on the western edge of the village. Traffic noise and vibration made it unpleasant to live in. In addition, the provision of a modern kitchen and bathroom in the existing structure would leave little space for the other demands for modern living, and would probably lead to proposals for extension, with a consequent loss of character. The chosen solution was a package. In October 1991 outline planning permission was granted for a replacement dwelling at the rear of the cottage, subject to a Section 106 agreement requiring the renovation of the listed building. At the same time, listed building consent was granted for renovation work on the cottage, including its conversion to a double garage and store in association with any replacement dwelling on the site. Some of the work on the building was eligible for grant aid from the Council's buildings at risk, and historic buildings grant schemes, and a grant was offered. Conversion and restoration began in February/March 1992. This involved, externally, the rebuilding of the top half of the front wall and gable ends. The walls are of a local stone no longer quarried, and of a very s~'ft nature. To provide a supply for repairs the rear wall was demolished and the stone recut. It proved possible to reclaim and recur enough stone to rebuild the rear wall as well as repair the others. The roof timbers and wall plate were carefully inspected and it proved possible to limit replacement to seven pairs of rafters. The retained rafters were all strengthened, and the roof covered with reclaimed pantiles. New windows and doors were made as exact copies of the originals which were beyond repair. Internally, the original stairway could not be retained, but the internal wall and chimney and three fireplaces were refurbished. The first-floor joists, exposed on the ground floor, and floorboarding were retained. Some joists (those with ends that had rotted) were secured with joist hangers. The greatest change came at the rear, where a pair of modern garage doors has been inserted. This can, however, be viewed only from the garden; the public elevations, to east, west and south, have been faithfully restored. The work was completed in June 1992. What this demonstrates is that a pragmatic and flexible approach to historically important buildings in poor condition can solve difficult problems. CONTEXT 35
Francis Biard looks back on this year's ACO Annual School on historic gardens and landscapes OPENING THE WINDOW This year's Annual School proved to be both instructive for ACO members and fertile ground for those already involved with historic gardens and landscapes. It was the first time the Annual School had stepped away from conservation of the built environment to explore the surrounds and landscape beyond. What made this year's School, at Keele University between 1 and 5 April, different was the wide field of professionals it drew together. Conservation and management of historic gardens and landscapes could be viewed and explored in the round. Two principal questions were answered for the 150 people who attended. What are we looking at? What do we do now we have recognised it? The first proved to be a voyage of discovery for many delegates. Whilst well versed in buildings they had probably taken less time to look at the undergrowth or explore the overlays in parks and gardens which have often taken place following the dictates of changing fashion. Paul Everson of RCHME helped by outlining how garden archaeology could help; the type of techniques it used, and providing examples of how overlays of later designs could be recognised - a sequential development to be worked out by careful study, something most would be well versed in from their experience of buildings. Furthermore a previously unrecognised monument type - historic garden remains - was simply waiting to be studied and analysed with garden buildings providing clues along the way. JUST WHAT WERE WE LOOKING AT? Dr. Hazel Conway, author of 'Peoples Park, The Design and Development of Victorian Parks', gave an authoritative account of the development of urban park's throughout the 19th century. Difficulties of getting trees to grow in heavily polluted urban parks produced the preference for bedding displays which remains today. Early parks were r~esigned later in the century to accommodate organised sporting facilities. Residential development also produced early parks at Birkenhead and Regents Park. The talk provided many delegates with a new understanding, enlivened later by visits to the urban parks of the Potteries. CONTEXT 35 WHAT DO YOU DO NOW? This brought in a mix of expert practitioners and professionals. David Lambert, the Garden History Society's Conservation Officer, outlined the development of the garden history movement and the range of controls and protection available mainly to local authorities. If used in a planned and coordinated way these could be quite effective. They could include Tree Preservation Orders, policies in Local Plans and Planning Agreements. He also cited case studies and appeal decisions which had featured the importance of gardens and parkscape in assessing planning proposals. WHAT PRO-ACTIVE MEASURES COULD BE TAKEN? Here there were plenty of speakers, plenty of examples and lots of advice. Recognition and the development of a management plan was explained by Elizabeth Banks, a consultant on historic gardens and landscapes. Understanding a parkscape which may have been partly swallowed up by agriculture could be aided by vegetation analysis and the use of aerial photos. She used documentary sources, and examined the landscape in horticultural, silvicultural and artistic terms and discussed the scenic facets, and nature conservation value. The results were then used to set future layout and management directions for the landscape. Delegates saw this approach in the progressive uncovering of the wonders of Hawkestone Park near Hodnet, Shropshire. This extensive garden was developed as a parkland landscape round a hall in the late 18th century. In the next century it 'spread' to a spectacular sandstone ridge which was moulded in the picturesque style over several miles in a dramatic and spectacular landscape of walks, features and monuments. The landscape is to be opened to the public next year and delegates were given a highly instructive preview. A garden and parkscape which remain vested with their ancestral family gave another perspective. Peter Gijfard acknowledged that the process of lovingly looking after over 4000 acres of the Chillington Estate in South Staffordshire was more demanding than in the days when the most pressing question his predecessors had been faced with was whether to picnic in the Roman or Grecian temples. Replanting, the effect of the M54 severing the southern end of the park, the care and use of the buildings, and, how to deal with a plague of cormorants which invaded an island in the pond, all demonstrated that running a parkland estate was no longer a p1cmc. Merrick Denton-Thompson outlined the pioneering work of the Hampshire Gardens Trust. There are now over 20 county trusts, each developing its own structure, skills and activities. Help can be given by sympathetic and aware local authorities in the form of analysis and landscape policies and resources. Members can provide historical research and undertake surveys. Owners can allow their gardens to be the subject of carefully agreed intervention. Finally, education is being undertaken with talks to schools as a practical extension of the curriculum. Further contributions were given by Paul Walsh who outlined the Countryside Commission's role and the importance placed on producing a management plan. Limited resources and personnel ensured that help was given in setting projects up, but subsequently maintenance was more difficult. He proved to be a mine of information on tax incentives, the Stewardship Scheme and the involvement of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. John Sales of the National Trust provided an insight into some of the ways the National Trust ran over 150 gardens and 50 landscape parks and coped with the visitor pressure these could generate. Delegates visited a fine rescued, restored and managed example, the formerly 'lost' garden at Biddulph Grange in North Staffordshire. This 20 acre garden was laid out between 1842 and 1860. For most of this century it was in hospital ownership before being purchased and restored by the National Trust. James Bateman, a local landowner and industrialist who had developed it with a certain fanaticism, was a keen orchid collector and plantsman. With Edward Cooke he designed a series of theme gardens with their own microclimates. China, Egypt, the Italian garden, the Pinetum and the Glen became home to newly discovered 9
10 and imported species which still thrive. The garden is heavily supplemented by structures and ornamentation. These required repair and in some cases wholesale restoration. It was the finest example delegates saw of how restoration could be successfully undertaken. William Hawkes spoke on his careful work in restoring garden buildings, including those of Enville in South Staffordshire. Their future use emerged as the most crucial question. Garden buildings and structures had come out as the single most endangered type in the Buildings at Risk surveys. At Alton Towers delegates were torn between experiencing the delights of the theme park and walking round the extensive pleasure gardens set in a deep valley. The Tussauds Group had now purchased the site and was trying to make some kind of sense of the haphazard development of the theme park, rides and other areas the park now offered. Andrew Nichols was drawing up a management plan where none had existed before. This envisaged the historic Towers and gardens in the centre of the site being protected from the rides and more garish attractions which were moved out to the fringes where they could be more easily hidden and softened in the landscape. Greater understanding was paving the way for a more considered future for this spectacular park and garden. All this activity requires a philosophical framework to provide direction. David Jacques, English Heritage's Gardens Inspector, led the way with a penetrating analysis of the intervention required and its future direction. Drawing from many examples worldwide, he recommended caution and investigation before intervention. He raised a number of issues relating to: D preservation with no intervention; D maintenance of primary materials, trees and plants which had a particular (often historic) importance; D maintaining the integrity of the original design; D removal or display of historic accretions or changes to gardens; and D solely speculative repair: All these decisions had to be taken with gardens and landscapes just as with buildings. The difference was dealing in part with living materials. Many skills were required to develop a conservation strategy and then to follow it, often in the face of the inventiveness or expediency which 'gardening' engendered. Keith Goodway in his talk on historic plantsmanship expanded this message. Planting had to be authentic and not an anachronism. If avenues of trees were to be replanted, care was needed not only in the species chosen but also the subsequent management in order to provide the correct restoration. John Phibbs demonstrated in the final talk how his work as a consultant had revealed that Shugborough was "a joy of chaos" resulting first from whims of the Anson family even though it contained many classic element of garden evolution. Complicated management arrangements for the park developed later. Late 18th century monuments were in the wrong place and their locations had never made a great deal of sense. A later overlay of the picturesque and Ferme Ornee ideas confused matters further, as did the canal and railway which had been grudgingly accommodated in the parkscape. Was this landscape what it seemed? Here was a maverick and a demonstration that the evolution of a particular garden posed questions and challenges which were still to be properly unravelled. If there was a message, it was, "tread with care, things are not always what they seem". The Annual School broke a lot of new ground. It was in a sense pioneering in a new field even though there are already many practitioners. Their efforts could only be improved by the impetus created. This is a topic which Conservation Officers should not dismiss as being 'out there' and therefore unrelated to buildings. As at all Annual Schools opportunities were taken to make important specialist contacts for future reference; to inform, instruct and reinvigorate, the stuff that good Annual Schools are made of. It is hoped that the full proceedings will be published in due course, so watch this space. BUILDING LIMES FORUM Peter Burman writes: Members will be interested to know that, on the initiative of a small number of active practitioners in the use of lime and research into the use of lime, a Building Limes Forum has been founded. A steering committee has been established (chairman Peter Burman; secretary, John Dorrington Ward, University of York and northern representative of the SPAB; and with Bob Bennett, Pat Gibbons, William Holborow, Peter Hood, Bob Heath, Martin Hadlington and Paul Drury as members). The aim of The Building Limes Forum is to encourage the development of expertise and ~derstanding in the use of lime in building conservation, by means of: (a) exchanging, collating and disseminating information, through publication of a regular journal, and by holding meetings and conferences; (b) encouraging practical research and development through field studies, trials, monitoring and analysis; (c) encouraging development of appropriate craft skills and technology, and by raising professional awareness and expertise; (d) developing contacts with institutions and individuals in other countries who have similar aims and objectives; and (e) educating building professionals, conservators, craftsmen and homeowners in the appropriate use of lime in building through demonstrations, publications, courses. The Steering Committee is at present planning the first annual workshop and AGM, which will be held at The King's Manor, York, from lunchtime on Thursday 22 October until lunchtime on Saturday 24 October. This will be essentially practical in its content, and will follow on from a fourday course run for the MA students in Conservation Studies at the University of York by Bob Bennett of The Lime Centre. There will be presentations by practitioners from several parts of Britain, and we hope also to have a number of participants from other European countries, especially Germany and Sweden. There will be a number of visits, including one to the National Trust's Alum Works at Ravenscar between Scarborough and Whitby, where enterprising experiments have been made with the use of building limes at an exceedingly exposed coastal site. Anyone wishing to know more about the Forum, or who wishes to attend the workshop, should write for further details to me at the address below. Peter Burman is the Director of Conservation Studies at the Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, The Kings Manor, York YOI 2EP. CONTEXT 35
Charles Mynors FRTPI ARICS Barrister considers the vexed question of 'what is demolition?' M'LEARNEDFRIEND Listed building consent is needed for the demolition of a listed building and for almost any alterations or extensions to it; but there are differences as to the procedure to be followed depending on whether proposed works are or are not demolition. Conservation Area consent is needed for the demolition of an unlisted building in a Conservation Area, but not for its alteration or extension. Since 27 July 1992, planning permission is usually needed for the alteration or extension of any building, whether or not it is listed or in a Conservation Area - but it is only sometimes needed for the demolition of a building that is neither listed nor in a Conservation Area. It will thus be readily appreciated that it is important to know what is the meaning of'demolition'. On the face of it, there is no problem: to "demolish" means "to lay in ruins; to destroy, put an end to" (Chambers Dictionary; the definition in the Oxford Dictionary is similar). A building is either destroyed or it is not. The problem arises of course because the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that a building includes a structure or erection, and any part of a building or structure or erection, (section 336). To demolish part of a building is thus demolition. If for example the principal front of a fine house is removed, that is demolition. However, that leads to problems. A door handle is "part of a building": does that mean that to remove a door handle and put it on the bonfire is also demolition? GUIDANCE IN CIRCULAR AND CASE LAW Guidance from the Department is given in para 81 of Circular 8/87. That however merely draws attention to the definition of building in the Act (see above), and comments that "the demolition of a part of a building should thus be regarded as the demolition of a building". That adds nothing to the debate; and was accurately described as "totally unhelpful" by the court in R v North Hertfordshire DC ex parte Sullivan [1981] JPL 752. Unfortunately, the comment of the judge (Comyn J) in that case - which concerned the extension of a farmhouse (listed Grade II) - was on the face of it also almost CONTEXT 35 totally unhelpful: almost every alteration or extension, he said, included some demolition; but "not every piece of work by way of alteration or extension necessarily amounts to demolition". He thought that any court would be prepared to treat as an extension rather that demolition something small, by way of interference with a listed building, but not something elaborate. A few months after the North Hertfordshire decision, Webster J in the same court took a different line, in Long and Long v SSE and North Norfolk DC [1981] JPL 886: he considered that it was possible that 'demolition' did not necessarily include demolition followed by immediate rebuilding, but did not arrive at any conclusion about it. That case concerned the dismantling (to use a neutral word) of a barn almost to the ground, and its replacement with a new building of somewhat altered design. That view has probably now been overtaken by Cambridge CC v SSE and Milton Park Investments [ 1992] 2 PLR, in which Glidewell LJ in the Court of Appeal concluded that, in considering whether demolition amounted to development, it was necessary (amongst other things) to consider demolition followed by rebuilding as two separate operations, and to look at each to determine its true character in law. The other propositions which were established in Cambridge -after an exhaustive analysis of previous cases - largely related only to the law as it was before 27 July 1992. First, demolition was not inevitably development, but it might be if it fell within the definition of a building, engineering or other operation. Secondly, partial demolition might be a structural alteration and thus a building operation; and demolition of a particular type, or of particular structures, might be a building or engineering operation. Thirdly, and most importantly, whether particular works came into any of these categories was a matter of fact for the decision maker. THE NEW LAW The decision in Cambridge, and in particular the first and second of the three points above, have largely been overtaken (except in Northern Ireland) by the coming into force of s 55 (lA) of the 1990 Act, inserted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. That establishes beyond doubt that 'building operations' include: "(a) demolition of buildings; ( b) rebuilding; (c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and (d'J other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business.as a builder." Bearing in mind the statutory definition of building (so as to include all or part of any building, structure or erection - see above), it is difficult to envisage any demolition that would not be "demolition of a building", and thus a "building operation". By virtue of s 55 (2) (g) of the 1990 Act, however, not all building operations are "development" - since the Secretary of State can by direction exclude demolition of particular categories of building. In particular, the demolition of a building that is listed or in a Conservation Area or a scheduled monument is not development, as a result of the Demolition - Descriptions of Buildings Direction 1992. The purpose of that exclusion is obviously because some other form of consent is needed, so that there is no point in requiring planning permission to be obtained as well. At the time of writing, incidentally, it is expected that a replacement direction may be issued, to rectify one or two drafting errors in the original version that was included as an Annex to Circ 16/92; readers need therefore to keep alert to know the current position. The alteration of such a building, on the other hand, will still be development, and will thus normally need planning permission -which brings us back to where we started: what 1s demolition, and what is alteration? PARTIAL DEMOLITION The third proposition established by the Court of Appeal in Cambridge was that whether particular works come into the particular categories of development identified (a structural alteration, and thus 11
12 a building operation; or demolition of a particular type, or of particular structures, so as to be a building or engineering operation) is a matter of fact for the decision maker. The same principle applies in considering whether particular works amount to demolition - which itself, after all, is now a particular category of development. It must be a matter of fact and degree. It is of course true that every alteration includes an element of partial demolition - that is the removal or extinguishment of some part, however small, of the building. To insert a screw into a wall involves the removal of that part of the wall now occupied by the screw. The first principle, therefore, must be that 'demolition' at such a trivial level cannot require consent. To describe this principle, lawyers use the phrase "de minimis non curat /ex" (or at least they did when they still, some decades ago, spoke Latin!) - which means "the law takes no account of trifles". At the next level up, what about the removal of, for example, a window? This may occur for any of a number of reasons :_ so that it can be repaired and put back; or so that it can be replaced with a new window of identical design, or with a new window of more or less altered design; or so that it can be replaced with something quite different (a door, for example, or brickwork). In each case, however, the removal is part of a larger operation. It would be unlikely that anyone would intentionally remove a window and replace it with nothing. Whilst, therefore, a window is a part of a building, and thus its removal could technically be held to be demolition, it would seem to be more likely that a court would hold that the removal and replacement together constitute a single operation which would thus amount to a 'structural alteration'. To take another example, the same principle would, probably, apply to the removal of a shop front, prior to the bricking-up of the space it occupied or its replacement with one of a more modern design: the whole operation would be seen in its entirety as a structural alteration. Thus the proposition put forward in Cambridge, that demolition followed by rebuilding should be considered as two operations, probably only applies to works on a reasonably substantial scale. That case itself related to the demolition of a semi-detached house so as to make way for the redevelopment of the site. Clearly it would be possible to stop after the house had been removed. The same would apply where a major part of a building is demolished and replaced - a wing of a country house, for example. Where the line should be drawn is inevitably uncertain, and must depend on the facts of the particular case. An alternative approach is to consider what word most accurately describes the works. Door-handles are 'removed'; windows are 'altered'; shop-fronts are 'replaced'; inconsequential back staircases are 'removed', but a substantial principal one may be 'demolished'; similarly, a single piece of timber panelling or a plaster ceiling rose may be 'removed', whereas panelling covering a whole room or an elaborate plaster ceiling might be said to be 'demolished'; a whole side-wall of a building, or a boundary wall may be 'demolished'; whole buildings are certainly 'demolished'; and so on. This test is not infallible, but it is not a bad guide. A particular situation that often occurs is where an extension to a building is constructed. This almost inevitably involves at least some minor element of what might be termed demolition - even if only that of the small part of the wall that has to be removed to enable the insertion of a door leading to the extension. Usually, however, some greater part of the original building has to be removed, such as a wall, or part of the roof. Here there is not necessarily any temporal relationship - the removal of the wall does not necessarily precede the construction of the extension; they are probably carried out at the same time. It is therefore probably most logical to regard the whole operation as one - which is therefore surely an 'extension'. That was indeed the situation in the North Hertfordshire case. A further test is to consider the purpose of the works. If works are carried out whose sole purpose is negative - that is, to 'remove' some part of a building, without any replacement - that may amount to demolition of that part. If, on the other hand, the intention is to replace that part -with either something similar or something different - that may suggest that the removal is part of an 'alteration'. Thus to remove the roof of a building in order to render it incapable of being occupied and thus not liable for rates could be said to be 'demolition'; to remove a worn-out roof prior to replacing it with a new roof, or as part of constructing an extra storey, is probably 'alteration'. Similarly to remove timber panelling from a ~all and replace it with nothing more than paint is likely to amount to demolition -certainly if carried out on any scale. ROYAL COMMISSION GUIDELINES The Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England (RCHME) is one of those bodies that must be informed of any application for listed building consent to demolish a listed building (by virtue of the direction in para 81 ofCirc 8/87). It has issued a leaflet which contains a legal reference sheet which purports to describe "how both the Act and the Circular define the legal duties and responsibilities of RCHME". This suggests that, because a building "is defined as" any part of a building, it is necessary for planning authorities to notify the RCHME of "applications for total and partial demolition, for alterations to interiors and exteriors involving the removal of features and for schemes of repair and restoration". This seems unduly comprehensive, and suggests that the removal of a door, or even a door handle, is demolition, which is doubtful. The leaflet also contains guidelines on cases of interest to RCHME. Examples of the type of applications which concern RCHME are listed as being: 1. total and partial demolition; 2. removal or replacement of internal partitions and floors; 3. removal or replacement of roof structures (as distinct from roof coverings); 4. extensive stripping of wall coverings which may reveal historic decoration, or reveal evidence for the building's structural history; and 5. applications of uncertain extent, these often being described using phrases such as 'internal alterations', 'general refurbishment and improvement', 'repair and restoration', 'conversion and change of use'. The first is unexceptionable - except that it begs the question of what is partial demolition. As to the second and third, the removal of a partition, floor, or roof structure on its own probably would amount to demolition - certainly if done on any scale. It is doubtful, however, that the replacement of one would, however much the RCHME and other groups might like to become involved. The fourth is similar; but here the guidelines are confused, since they are importing a test relating to the quality of the decoration etc: the stripping of wall coverings either is or is not demolition: the merit of what may be revealed is irrelevant. The fifth item is also confused: if what is proposed is of uncertain extent, the remedy is to seek further details, so that a proper decision can be made as to whether or not it involves demolition; it is no good the RCHME merely seeking to see all applications that might conceivably involve some element of 'demolition'. CONTEXT 35
ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=