Institute of Historic Building Conservation No 96 September 2006 IHBC Annual School in Plymouth
TANKERDALE Conservation & Restoration The conservation and reinstatement of Nicholas Hawksmoor’s Reredos, St George’s Church, Bloomsbury Over 25 years experience of furniture and joinery conservation for historic houses, churches, museums and private clients throughout the UK. Johnson’s Barns, Waterworks Road, Petersfield, Hampshire gu32 2by Tel: 01730 233792 Email: mail@tankerdale.co.uk Web: www.tankerdale.co.uk Photo: Richard Holttum
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 0 0 6 1 Context Cover: IHBC Annual School delegates viewing Urban Splash’s entrance foyer in the converted Mills Bakery at the Royal William Yard (Photo: Jonathan Taylor) See p31. Many questions in a city of war and peace Editorial Briefing 2 Out of Context 3 Letters 4 TheWriter’s Voice 4 Periodically 5 Legal Briefing Charles Mynors 8 • IHBC Annual School: sustainable conservation on the waterfront 13 • The Architecture of the plan for Plymouth Jeremy Gould 14 • Plymouth: a past with a future Charles Strang 20 • Plymouth’s defences: a resource and a challenge David Kincaid 21 • The conservation of Royal Naval buildings Mike Adams 22 • Let’s ask ourselves: why do we bother? Debbie Maltby 26 • New design sustains historic centres Collette Hall 27 • No light on heritage protection reformAdron Duckworth 29 • Confusing ripples from Urban Splash Matthew Crook 31 • Inspiration from buildings in context Helen Dimond 34 • Building sustainable communities Robert Ladd 35 • Making sustainable construction the normKimWinter 36 • Community-based, heritage-led regeneration David Piggott 38 • Mount Edgcumbe Country Park and other tours Christopher Pacheri and Linda Moran 39 Notes from the chair 40 Director’s cut 41 Membership notes 42 Vox pop 42 Book reviews 43 Other books received 44 Products and services 45 THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORIC BUILDING CONSERVATION www.ihbc.org.uk Registered as a Charity Number 1061593. Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England Number 3333780. Registered Office: 3 Stafford Road,TunbridgeWells, Kent TN2 4QZ. IHBC Officers President David Lovie email president@ihbc.org.uk Chairman JohnYates email chairman@ihbc.org.uk Vice Chair Dave Chetwyn email vcpolicy@ihbc.org.uk Secretary Richard Morrice email secretary@ihbc.org.uk Treasurer Michael Knights email treasurer@ihbc.org.uk Membership Secretary Mike Lea email membership@ihbc.org.uk Consultations Secretary Karen Holyoake email consultations@ihbc.org.uk Education Secretary John Preston email education@ihbc.org.uk Publicity Secretary vacant email publicity@ihbc.org.uk Law & Practice Coordinator vacant email law@ihbc.org.uk Director Seán O’Reilly email director@ihbc.org.uk Projects Officer Fiona newton email projects@ihbc.org.uk IHBC Committee Chairs Policy Dave Chetwyn email vcpolicy@ihbc.org.uk Membership & Ethics Mike Lea email membership@ihbc.org.uk Finance & Resources Richard Morrice email resources@ihbc.org.uk Education John Preston email education@ihbc.org.uk Communications & Outreach Mike Brown email communications@ihbc.org.uk Branch Officers North John Pendlebury Tel 0191 284 2119 NorthWest Anthony Blacklay Tel 01270 610050 Yorkshire Keith Knight Tel 01904 658482 West Midlands Karen Holyoake Tel 01384 826891 East Midlands vacant South Gill Butter Tel 02380 285324 SouthWest Colin Ellis Tel 01305 838334 East Anglia Pippa Colchester Tel 01245 437337 South East David Kincaid Tel 01227 862185 London David McDonald Tel 020 8881 6724 Scotland Charles Strang Tel 01835 822560 Wales Nathan Blanchard Tel 01285 642428 Northern Ireland Sharon BrownTel 028 9754 3087 Republic of Ireland Bernard DeeTel 00353 1 873 7226 Business Office Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA England Tel 01747 873133 Fax 01747 871718 email admin@ihbc.org.uk The IHBC’s Annual School provides a chance for reflection, learning and exchange. Usually the setting provides a stimulus of its own. Plymouth, this year’s venue, was no exception. The city is changing. Some of that change is a result of what one speaker referred to as the ‘peace dividend’. That phrase sounds odd at a time when the ‘war on terror’ is being actively fought on two fronts, but it is certainly true that much of Plymouth’s historic infrastructure of warfare is no longer required. Another opportunity is offered by the city centre which, after decades of mediocre development, could yet inspire Plymouth to raise its aspirations as to the sort of place it might become. In 1944 Patrick Abercrombie created Britain’s first and last great beaux-arts city plan, as Jeremy Gould explains (p14). This would be a new vision to replace the war-battered Victorian city, reflecting the hopes for an egalitarian and democratised society in peacetime. The best architects of the time leapt at the chance to become involved. The fact that the dream faded does not mean that Plymouth should not once again strive for excellence. Conserving that modern heritage, as well as the older naval buildings, could be the key. Jane Grenville pointed the Annual School towards further reflection in her well-received talk (p26) which urged conservationists to reassess their values. She called on us to ask ourselves how the personal values behind the beginnings of the conservation movement in the 1960s translated into public conservation policy which forms the basis of heritage protection today. Speaking of which, the Annual School is also an opportunity to catch up with current policy developments. That is why Adron Duckworth (p29) was disappointed that, as he saw it, Peter Beacham of English Heritage failed to give any sense of where the current heritage protection review is going. In its time, Plymouth has been unique in leading the way in industrialised production (for warfare) and peaceful town planning. Its future may lie in building on both of those achievements. The prospect seemed an ideal stimulant to a questioning frame of mind. See you next year in Liverpool! Institute ofHistoricBuildingConservation No 96 September 2006 IHBC Annual School in Plymouth
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Context Briefing Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November.The final copy deadline for 2006 is 15 September for November’s Context, Issue 97. Editor Robert Cowan Editorial Coordinator (acting) Fiona Newton 21 George Street, Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9JU Tel 01507 602567 email editorial@ihbc.org.uk Editorial Board Fiona Newton (acting chair) Susan Brook (treasurer) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Michael Taylor (main features) Cartoons by Robert Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2006 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Published for the Institute of Historic Building Conservation by Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA Tel 01747 871717 Fax 01747 871718 email context@cathcomm.demon.co.uk www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to non-members of the IHBC at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £50.00 Elsewhere £75.00 Subscription orders, together with remittances payable to Institute of Historic Building Conservation, should be sent to the IHBC Business Office at Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily held by the IHBC or the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. And so on until the full 5,000 have been published, perhaps. The project is in danger of getting a little tedious. And Culture Online needs to check its facts: its citation for the Oxford English Dictionary actually relates to Dr Johnson’s dictionary. From barracks to library The Drill Hall Library at the Universities at Medway campus, owned and run by Greenwich and Kent universities, has won a prize the Medway Design Awards. The new awards, run by the Medway Renaissance Partnership, celebrate outstanding buildings and public spaces in the region. The £8 million Drill Hall Library, based at Chatham Maritime, was judged the most impressive refurbishment of a historic building in Medway. The design was by RMJM Architects. Formerly a Royal Navy barracks serving HMS Pembroke, the library now provides computing and study facilities. At 184 metres in length, it is thought to be the longest library in Europe. Medway’s Drill Hall Library Burges’ vision A painting of the original design for the Cardiff Castle Clock Tower, not seen in public since 1878, has been bought by Cardiff Council for a new exhibition at the Castle. William Burges, the architect responsible for the transformation of Cardiff Castle in the 19th century, commissioned the watercolour to illustrate his vision for the new tower in 1869. The painting was first exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1870 and later in Paris in 1878. Since that time, it has been part of the private collection of David Mallock, the great, great, great, great nephew of William Burges. The painting will be put back on public display when the new Burges Gallery opens in 2008. This permanent exhibition will show the collaborative Summerhouses restored Hill Close Gardens Renovation work on historic Victorian summerhouses in Hill Close Gardens, Warwick has been completed. Hill Close Gardens is a rare surviving example of Victorian hedged gardens, traditionally found on the edge of town and used by shopkeepers and professional people. These were people who lived over their businesses in a town centre and so had no garden attached to their home. Instead they would use these edge-oftown gardens to relax and grow flowers, fruit and vegetables. Many of the gardens at Hill Close were particularly well‑appointed, including nine brick-built summerhouses overlooking the common. These often had tiled floors, and plastered or panelled interiors. Some had fireplaces and even a cellar. Four are now listed. Following a lengthy campaign by residents, the whole site has been recognised as being of exceptional national importance. Restoration work has been carried out by Linford Group. Our 5,000 favourites The ICONS project has identified a further set of ‘Icons of England’ that it is urging us to explore, enjoy and celebrate (see Context 94, May 2006).The project, funded by Culture Online, part of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has attracted hundreds of thousands of votes for the nation’s favourite icons. More than 5,000 icons have been nominated and around 300,000 votes cast. What do we value? According to the new batch: the oak tree, fish and chips, the Tower of London, the bobby, the White Cliffs of Dover, Sherlock Holmes, the Oxford English Dictionary, Magna Carta, rugby (the game), the Mini, the Archers, the Lake District, the bowler hat, Oxbridge, Robin Hood, Monty Python, hedges, foxhunting and the ban, the parish church, and the pint. Musical chairs Fiona Newton has been appointed acting chair of the editorial board for Context. Mike Brown, whom she replaces, has been appointed acting chair of the IHBC’s Communications & Outreach Committee. This follows Fiona’s resignation from the communications and outreach post on taking up employment with the IHBC as its projects officer (to avoid any potential conflict of interests that might otherwise have arisen).
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 works between Burges and the Third Marquess of Bute from the 1860s to Burges’ death in 1881, including many of the original architectural drawings currently not on view to the public. MatthewWilliams, castle curator (left) and David Mallock with the painting in front of the Castle Clock Tower Somerset round houses Investigations are being carried out on a site at MaundownWater Treatment Works near Wiveliscombe, on what is expected to be a village of about six round houses dating back to as far as 100BC. Early examinations show that iron-age villagers at theWiveliscombe settlement may have been living in round houses much longer than is commonly recorded. Archaeologists believe a site of this age should show signs of square, Roman houses, but the existence of only round houses shows that these Somerset ancestors may have been behind the times. The floor of one of the round houses is still preserved, which is very rare in a house of this age. The remains of an iron hanging bowl have also been found. It had probably fallen from a rafter and lay on the floor for about 2,000 years. A reconstructed round house ‘Until interim protection is given to buildings being assessed for listing, I would now have to advise local groups to let sleeping dogs lie and not request consideration for listing. All that has happened is that contact made by English Heritage to the owners has precipitated demolition. They refused permission for an internal inspection. ‘Even though outline planning permission had been given for residential development, I think the building would have been left alone by the owners until the sale of the land, detailed planning permission, or contract and start of development. Changes in economic circumstance may even have allowed the building to remain in the long term. ‘All that has been achieved is the rapid and final death of the building to the detriment of a local scene in which buildings of the quality of La Banque are in desperately short supply. The empty site will be a further eyesore until development takes place. ‘If the owner had had to wait until a decision was made and he received a notification that the building was not to be listed, I suspect that there would have been a good chance that he would have left the building standing.’ Graham Arnold, principal conservation officer withWirral MBC, writing in the newsletter IHBC NorthWest about the demolition of a potentially listable pub, La Banque, in Seacombe ‘Government pressure to speed the process of decision-making puts a daunting burden on the backs of planners and conservation officers who work in towns and cities of special archaeological and historic interest such as Chester. ‘My brief history of the demolition of Roman structures and medieval houses within the city walls since 1960 shows how easy it has been to turn a blind eye to very serious examples of vandalism. The sagas of the Moat House Hotel and the site of the Cheshire Police Headquarters tell a similar story.Where money is at stake a local planning authority may find good decisions very difficult to reach. ‘The present campaign in north–west England to expand our towns and A voice for garden suburbs Graham Tite writes: Four of the places in and around London where I have been a local authority conservation officer have had garden suburbs or cottage estates. All had conservation area status, some included listed buildings and others had Article 4 directives. Dealing with the many applications arising from these suburbs, some of which have thousands of properties in them, has led me to wonder: should the garden suburbs form a national body? Residents’ groups in these suburbs do exist (but appear to work in isolation) and some planning authorities work with conservation area panels in vetting applications. Other (smaller) cottage areas have only an informal arrangement by which residents can join in discussion of the issues that concern them. Often the same issues come up repeatedly in different areas. There is one common theme: the role of the conservation officer. This individual has a position of privilege in knowing what are the typical issues, problems and solutions. I would be grateful for colleagues’ help in: 1) beginning to compile a register of garden suburbs and cottage estates 2) identifying residents’ groups and conservation area panels with a view to contacting them 3) commenting on the viability and usefulness of a possible national forum of garden suburbs and cottage estates to share information and encouragement between groups, and promote education and exchanges. GrahamTite, graham.tite@sevenoaks.gov.uk
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 From the foreword to the 1974 edition of James (later Jan) Morris’ 1960 book Venice I HAVE changed since [I wrote the first edition], but Venice has changed no less – not physically, for there was, I found, really very little to alter topographically, but in spirit. Then she still retained, especially in the winter, a little of that strange isolation, of separateness, which had made her for so many centuries unique in Europe. She was a half joyous, half melancholy city, but not melancholy because of present anxieties, only because of old regrets. I loved this mixture of the sad, the flamboyant and the nostalgic. I loved the lingering defiance of the place, bred of empire long before, the smell of rot and age which was so essential to its character, the queerness, the privacy. The neglect of Venice was part of its charm for me, as it had been for many aficionados before. The very echo of a footfall in a shabby lane, the soft plash of an oar beneath a crumbled bridge, could tug my heart and shape my susceptible cadences. Today all is different. Venice has captured the concern of the world, and the possibility of her extinction beneath the waters, which has moved artists and writers for generations, is seen not as a romantic vision, but as an international catastrophe. A new Venice is being born, protected, restored, no longer sufficient to itself, but adopted by the world at large as a universal heritage. While I acknowledge the excitement of this new fulfilment, I can not share it. For one thing I believe the idea of Venice to be unreconcilable with the modern world. For another, selfishly perhaps, foolishly even, I miss the tristesse. The sad magic has gone for me. Incomparable though Venice remains, I miss the pathos of her decline. I wish her well, admire her always, hope on the whole they keep her standing: but I am out of love with her. strengthen their economies has put Chester City Council into a delicate situation. Growth of prosperity is good, but not if it turns an ancient city of great individuality, interest and beauty (which has for more than a century and a half drawn in visitors from all over the world) into one great shopping mall with no home-grown distinctiveness. ‘Chester needs to become a world leader in the rare skill of interleaving ancient and modern townscapes, each setting off the other in harmony, not imitation.’ Oliver Bott, retired conservation officer with Cheshire County Council,‘now free from control-freak managers and paranoid politicians’, writing in IHBC NorthWest ‘The silver model of the Euston Arch by Carringtons was presented to the Victorian Society by Mr Valori after the Arch was demolished. Probably long since melted down, it was stolen from our office in 1968, then at 55 Great Ormond Street.We’d like to have it back!’ From theVictorian Society’s website Letters How to ruin a good shopfront From Robert Huxford, Kent On a recent visit toYork I noted that a majority of the shops in the Shambles area were equipped with grilles. The proprietor of one of the shops offered a number of explanations: for example, that the grilles were necessary to protect the listed windows, or that insurance companies insisted on their installation. He denied that there was a particular problem with vandalism or burglary.Was he telling the truth? Are there any local authorities who have been able to control the fitting of grilles, or rather require their removal? Are there alternatives to grilles where there is a genuine problem? I wonder whether your readers have answers to these questions. Shop front grilles are unsightly and represent the very worst in clutter. Robert Huxford The Shambles,York: are these unsightly grilles necessary?
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Periodically… Perhaps by the time you read this, the extended hot weather will be over, but as your reviewer writes it shows no sign of abating.What could be a nicer way to cool off than a swim? But as TheVictorian, the magazine of the Victorian Society (No 22, July 2006) reports, the opportunity to use Victorian swimming pools appears to be ‘going down the drain’. It seems from the government’s own estimates that local authority swimming pools (not all of them 19th-century) need £500 million in maintenance – a figure significantly in excess of the figure English Heritage claims is required to remove all listed buildings-at-risk from their register.The preferred solution is closure, despite such facilities often being tremendously popular and the only recreational facility in inner-city areas. Ian Gordon gives a good outline of history of swimming pools, including a depressing illustration of the concreted‑in Ashton-under-Lyne Public Baths. There is also an informative region-byregion inventory of listed Victorian and Edwardian pools, many of which are disused or derelict and at risk. The obvious alternative destination for those seeking escape from the oppressive heat of the cities was and remains the seaside. This issue presses the case for the value of Victorian seaside architecture, coupled with the pleasures of ‘holidaying at home’. The seaside theme recurs in Theatres, the magazine of the Theatres Trust (Issue 8, Summer 2006). Anthony Wills, chairman of the National Piers Society (www.piers.co.uk) asks if we are reaching the end of the Pier Show. The answer appears to be not quite. Cromer is a shining exception to the general rule; a reprieve seems possible for Bournemouth;Worthing’s Pavilion is seemingly going strong and (‘world holiday destination’) Southwold’s Pavilion has been regenerated. The 1933 Victoria Pavilion on the 106-year-old pier at Colwyn Bay is being heroically saved by the 31-year-old owner Steve Hunt who, as an individual, is not eligible for Heritage Lottery Fund funding. On the debit side is the threat to the 1,000-seat Weymouth Pavilion from harbour redevelopment, while the Wellington, Great Yarmouth, is generally considered to be a grievous loss. Judith Bowers, director of the Britannia Panopticon Music Hall Trust describes this astonishing intact survival of the 1850s in central Glasgow. Once the city’s most popular place of amusement, it closed in 1938 to be almost entirely forgotten above and behind down-at the heel commercial premises. The Panopticon, or ‘Pots and Pans’ as it became locally known, was renowned for its Friday amateur nights when such stars as Stan Laurel and Jack Buchanan made their debuts. Even a young Archie Leech is said to have performed there before moving to Hollywood and changing his name to Cary Grant. Readers may recall the building featuring as one of the unsuccessful candidates in the television series ‘Restoration’. Life goes on and the trust has concluded that there is a viable future for this amazing site as working museum of music hall and popular entertainments, with some appropriate modern entertainments and exhibitions. The same issue of Theatres also highlights the place arts and culture in regeneration. There are important lessons here for the relationship with heritage. As the editorial points out, when the Britannia opened its doors as part of Glasgow’s Doors Open weekend in 2002, over 7,000 people queued along Trongate in the heart of the Merchant City to see this still sleeping beauty. It is for the heritage sector to make these connections and build the case for community support. Cornerstone, the newsletter of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) (Volume 27, No 2, 2006), has been growing increasingly concerned about the apparent ‘spontaneous combustion’ of historic buildings, especially empty or ‘inconvenient’ ones. One recently to ignite was the 16th century tide mill at Beaulieu in the New Forest, where two men were subsequently arrested. ‘Constructive conservation’ was not much in evidence in this case. According to figures obtained by SPAB from the then ODPM, the incidence of arson in churches in England fell in 2004 to 112 cases, compared to 148 in 2003 and 215 in 1994. Accidental fires are, however, on the increase. In 2004 there were 93 incidents, compared with 74 in 2002 and 40 in 1994. It seems 2004 is on a par with two other bad years, 1995 and 1999. It would be interesting to know the figures for secular listed buildings. Sometimes significant policy issues seem to disappear from the horizon for a while when in fact the problems they address have neither gone away nor been
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 solved. One of these is the issue of vacant accommodation over shops. Early in its existence English Heritage promoted the concept of living over the shop with an effective touring exhibition. But the most ardent and consistent advocate has been Ann Petherick who, as director of Living Over the Shop (based inYork), has run a not-for-profit consultancy, tirelessly chipping away at the issue with local authorities and government departments of varying enthusiasm for what must be approaching a quarter of a century. The emergence of strong resistance to the government’s Pathfinder demolition programme and affordable housebuilding in the south east has highlighted once again that there is space for 300,000 homes above existing vacant commercial premises, but the potential has been largely ignored by ministers.The persuasive arguments are clearly spelled out (yet again) in a helpful article. Statutory casework is at the core of what the society does, and it may often comment without the impact on the final outcome always being clear.This is partly because of the lead-in time for the implementation of alterations – assuming they are done at all. Recently the newsletter has been devoting more space to its casework responses. This is helpful even to readers unfamiliar with the specifics, as the approach becomes clearer. In this issue it has been taken further with the rare opportunity for SPAB to return to churches in order to evaluate the outcomes, several far from happy. (This is a practice the Ancient Monuments Society also does in its invaluable annual Transactions). For practitioners without the luxury of mature reflection and with another immediate case to process, the general lessons gained from such hindsight can be invaluable. If escape from the heat (or the flames) is a theme in this column, it is sad to read in the informative SAVE Newsletter (May 2006) a series of arson attacks on Severall’s Hospital, Colchester. A vigorous campaign had been fought to retain the best buildings of the complex, but the hall has already been lost to fire. SAVE considered the site security to have been too lax. The same issue also gives an update on the continuing high-profile campaigning against the Housing Market Renewal Initiative.The campaign had been so effectively advocated that the might of the ODPM felt obliged to issue a preemptive response before SAVE’s report had even reached them in the post.The sector can clearly bare its teeth to good effect. The Journal of Architectural Conservation (Vol 12, No 2, July 2006) has the luxury of some colour illustrations.This greatly enhances the understanding and appreciation of the technical content. In the previous issue (in relation to the establishment of conservation principles based on nonWestern cultural or social models), Dina D’Ayala and Hui Wang wrote about progress on developing conservation principles in China. In the current issue the same authors deal with Chinese timber. Unsurprisingly, current strategies are strongly influenced by the inherent use of timber in construction.The current official approach enshrined in Chinese law is: ‘the original state can not be changed during intervention’.While this statement highlights that ‘authenticity’ and ‘value’ are attributed to the original state of the building, the interpretation of ‘original state’ can be ambiguous. The paper describes the construction and deterioration problems, and explains the traditional and current practices of timber conservation in relation to accepted conservation philosophy. Examples of some completed projects informatively highlight the issues influencing the choice between replacement and retention in structural repair.The authors conclude that in general ‘conserve as found, as far as possible’ might be a more realistic objective for the preservation of these buildings. One of the crucial issues in conservation is the absolute need to understand original materials and techniques through extensive research and analysis, prior to any attempts to reconstruct a complex scheme, particularly a decorative one. Elizabeth Hirst, Karen Morrissey and Alison Thornton describe the architectural paint research and recreation ofWilliam Burges’ polychromy and design for the restoration of Cardiff Castle’s 1873 clock tower.The tower, an important city landmark, is ornamented with painted and gilded features including clocks, sundials, heraldic shields and life-size human statues representing the planets. The difficulties inherent in the restoration were increased by the original decorative scheme having been lost beneath layers of past re-paintings, each of which had introduced a subtle alteration to the colours and layout intended by the artist. Supported by archival documents and paint research, the original appearance of the statues on the clock tower was gradually revealed, allowing their repainting to be achieved in the unique style of their creator, William Burges. The city of Bath was inscribed as a World Heritage Site in 1987, and the Old and NewTowns of Edinburgh in 1995. During that period management plans were not required by UNESCO as part of the nomination process. Surprisingly, published management guidelines for world heritage sites offer no template for the holistic heritage-driven management of such complex urban sites on this scale. Management plans for both cities have now been published, and Dennis Rodwell describes these as a follow up to his article on exemplary management of complex world heritage sites in the Journal of Architectural Conservation in November 2002. Rodwell summarises the approach and key issues that have been addressed in the two published plans, including aspects of their implementation, expectations in relation to theWorld
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Heritage Convention and whether these plans provide models for such locations elsewhere. Gerard Lynch examines the ‘The ColourWashing and Pencilling of Historic English Brickwork’. He describes, as part of the long-standing traditional bricklayers’ craft, the practice of applying a colour wash over the façades of external brickwork but then articulating the brickwork by applying thin distempered lines over the ochred mortar.This contrasts with the original, wider sizes of joints. He feels this process may have been an integral part of the finishing phase of the building process on many significant historic brick buildings well into the first half of the 18th century in parts of England. Finally, Mark Cannata of John McAslan and Partners gives the first part of two papers on the restoration of the iconic Grade I listed De LaWarr Pavilion at Bexhill-on-Sea, Sussex, designed by Eric Mendelsohn and Serge Chermayeff in 1934–5.The first part outlines the history of the Pavilion; the waxing and waning of its fortunes; the factors that eventually made its conservation possible; and the context in which the project was developed. A further article will look in greater detail at the technical issues related to the causes of the building’s deterioration, its repair and the principles, methodology and techniques that were eventually used. Articles about restoration projects have always featured prominently inNatural Stone Specialist. The April 2006 issue described the repairs by Durham County Council since its acquisition, after years of dereliction, of the 200-acre Grade ll* Hardwick Park in Sedgefield, where uniquely all the buildings in the garden were designed by the 18th century architect James Paine. (The original owner John Burden appointed Paine when he inherited a fortune from his father because all 17 of his older brothers died before their father.) The May issue explains that while there is no single source about which stones have been used for which historic building or where current sources of that stone, or acceptable alternatives, can be found, the imminent publication of the Strategic Stone Study by English Heritage will bring this a stage closer. ChrisWood of English Heritage (and a long-standing IHBC member) explains how the work was carried out. His article illustrates two examples of inappropriate choices of stone that have not blended in, with all the deleterious visual impact one might expect. Following publication there is a planned five-year research programme, with the intention of establishing priorities in terms of the most important stones and areas to survey; holding regional seminars with potential partners; commissioning or producing promotional material to raise awareness of the project; defining ‘conserve at all costs’ supplies of rare stones and the suitability of substitutes; and working with the English Stone Forum to promote the interests of English stone. The latest issue (No 42) of the RICS Building Conservation Group Journal has valuable insights into several contemporary policy issues. An abridged exposition of the RICS response to the first stage consultation on the English Heritage Conservation Principles concludes that there is a problem of ambiguity of many of the principles if these will be used in legal proceedings, and that the absence of a glossary is unfortunate. Henry Russell, chairman of the Gloucester Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) since last year, explains why part of his mission is to explain the mysteries of the ecclesiastic exemption system not only to parishes but often to their professional advisors. As a clear description of the processes of a well-respected DAC, this is a helpful explanation for those unfamiliar with the mechanics. The regular interview spot is devoted to John Fidler. Although only briefly outlining an illustrious career, it does counterpoint his concerns, not only on professional accreditation in building conservation (‘all my fault’) but also the crisis in craft skills. In concluding by pondering ‘where the next generation of people like John Fidler is coming from’, the article oddly fails to mention Fidler’s imminent departure from English Heritage. Bob Kindred MBE Cathedral Communications has just released the 2006 edition of The Building Conservation Directory. As arranged by IHBC’s membership secretary Mike Lea, each IHBC member who has asked to receive relevant promotional mailings will receive a copy of the Directory shortly by post. Members who do not, but who would like to receive future Cathedral Communications publications on the historic built environment including the annual Historic Churches, should email Lydia Porter at admin@ihbc.org. uk to change the status of their mailing preference on the IHBC membership database.
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 The extent to which the listing of a building extends so as to include a subsidiary building or structure was considered in the key cases of Calderdale and Debenhams, outlined in the previous article in this series. The principles laid down in those decisions were then developed by the courts in a number of subsequent cases, notably Watts v Secretary of State and R v Camden LBC, ex p Bellamy in 1991, and Morris v Wrexham CBC and the National Assembly in 2002. Figure 3: Bix Manor, Oxfordshire (Watts v Secretary of State) occupation. That property was being put to a wholly independent use unassociated with Bix Manor... At the time of listing there was no functional connection and that section of wall did not in any sense serve the listed building. It was clearly ancillary to another separate building and, in my judgment, was not a structure ancillary to Bix Manor’. The wall was thus not subject to listed building control. If, therefore, an object or structure is to be treated as part of a listed building, it must at the date of listing be associated with the building that is itself included in the list, and not merely associated with a building that is only treated as being part of that building by virtue of section 1(5). Figure 4: Church Row, Hampstead (R v Camden LBC, ex parte Bellamy) LEGAL BRIEFING The extent of listing (2) In the second extract from his new book, Charles Mynors explores further case law relating to ancillary buildings, and explains the rules as to fixtures and fittings. Watts concerned the demolition of part of a wall (running from A to D in Figure 3) that ran alongside a road, between Bix Manor, in Oxfordshire, and a nearby barn. The barn had been in the curtilage of the Manor House until 1981, when the owner of both properties sold the Manor House but retained the barn in its own curtilage. The Manor House was listed in 1985, together with other ancillary buildings to the south; but the listing did not include either the barn to the north or the wall. A section of wall (from B to C) was removed; and the planning authority took enforcement action to secure its reinstatement. The deputy judge, after considering at length the judgments in Calderdale and Debenhams, held as follows: ‘At the date of the listing, the section of wall formed part of the curtilage of a property separate from the listed building in terms of ownership and physical The next case, R v Camden LBC, ex parte Bellamy, concerned two buildings in Hampstead. 22 Perrin’s Walk, which was not itself included in the list, had originally formed the stable or coach house for 22 Church Row, which had been included in the list in 1950 (see Figure 4). It was agreed that the two properties had been in the same ownership until 1970, and the garden between them was used at all material times by the owners and occupiers of 22 Church Row. There was, however, a dispute as to the use of 22 Perrin’sWalk at the date of listing. It may have been used as a garage for 22 Church Row, or it may have been used separately for car repairs on a commercial basis. Nolan L J concluded: ‘The legal position was by no means simple, but if, at the time of listing in 1950, 22 Perrin’s Walk was in use as the garage or coach house of 22 Church Row, then on the basis of the test
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 laid down in the Calderdale and Debenhams cases it had to be taken to have been included in the listing.’ In other words, the requirement is that the object or structure – or, as in this case, building – must have been ancillary to the building in the list at the date of the listing. Figure 5. The Lodge, Hatton, Clwyd (Morris vWrexham CBC and the National Assembly) – each of which is clearly an integral part of it. The building also contains even more elements – such as curtains, free-standing furniture, table lamps, and pictures simply hanging on the wall – that are equally clearly not part of the house itself, however much they may contribute to its character. Between these two groups there are, inevitably, items whose status is less straightforward. Chandeliers, weighing many hundreds of kilograms; panelling and tapestries, made or adapted specifically for the house; sculptures, in purpose-designed settings; clocks and bells, built into turrets; all have been the subject of protracted arguments. Such items add immensely to the character of the buildings in which they are found, and those seeking to preserve that character are keen that they remain there. However, as long as they do, their value is, at best, negligible – whereas, once severed from the building, they may be worth thousands or even millions of pounds. As already noted, this type of problem has often arisen over the centuries in other contexts, and has given rise to a substantial body of case law. The approach adopted by the courts in relation to listed buildings has therefore been to assume that the formula in the listed building legislation (referring to ‘any object or structure fixed to the building’) simply incorporates the principles arising from those cases. Thus in the leading case, Debenhams PLC v Westminster CC (discussed in the previous article, Context 95, July 2006), Lord Mackay considered the predecessor to section 1(5) of the Listed Buildings Act. He concluded as follows: ‘It appears to me that the word “fixed” is intended in section 54(9) to have the same connotation as in the law of fixtures, and that what is achieved by the latter part of section 54(9) is that the ordinary rule of the common law is applied so that any object or structure fixed to a building should be treated as part of it.’ It follows that in cases of doubt the critical test to determine whether or not an object is included in the listing would be whether it is a ‘fixture’ (such as carved wood panelling) or a ‘fitting’ (such as furniture or paintings). It should be noted, incidentally, that to be protected by listed building control an object has to be fixed to ‘the building’ – that is, a building included in a list – not fixed to a building that is itself fixed to or in the curtilage of a building in the list. And a post-1948 addition to a listed building is still ‘listed’; it was only post-1948 structures in the curtilage of the building, not fixed to it, that were in 1987 excluded from the listing. In the present context, it is also important to remember that whether an object is or is not a ‘fixture’, and thus part of a listed building by virtue of section 1(5), is independent of any merit that it may or may not possess. But whether or not its alteration or removal will need listed building consent depends on whether the works will affect the character of the building as a building of special architectural or historic interest. Clearly the removal of fine 15th-century carvings will affect the building’s special character, and will The most recent of these three case, Morris, concerned a property known as The Lodge, near Wrexham in North Wales. The landholding comprised not only the principal building, which was specifically included in the list, but also numerous outbuildings, which had historically been used for agricultural purposes by successive residents of The Lodge (see Figure 5). However, although at the date of listing, in 1966, the entirety of the holding had been in one freehold ownership, The Lodge and the outbuildings had been occupied by different parties.The freeholders, a farming family named Evans, made use of the outbuildings for agricultural purposes, while they leased The Lodge to a retired colonel for use as a house. In determining that the outbuildings were not ancillary to The Lodge, Jackson J emphasised the lack of any functional link between the principal building and the ancillary structures at the date of listing. He stated that: ‘While matters of past history are relevant, the primary focus of enquiry should be upon the state of affairs existing in January 1966, when The Lodge was listed… It is true that the Evans family ownedThe Lodge, subject to Colonel Bromilow’s lease, and also owned and used the north-east outbuildings. However, this circumstance can not have the effect of bringing the north-east outbuildings within the curtilage of The Lodge.’ Objects and structures fixed to a listed building It is clear that a listed building is not just a bare brick box. Its appeal usually if not always lies as much in the numerous elements that go to make up its finished appearance. Thus a country house contains numerous building elements – window surrounds, skirting boards, staircases, chimney pieces and so on
10 C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 therefore require consent; the removal of a bath tap (just as much a fixture) will not. Indeed, in theory the question of whether an object is part of the listed building is wholly distinct from the question of whether its removal requires listed building consent or, if it does, whether such consent would be forthcoming. In practice, however, a dispute on this issue only arises where there is a strong desire on the part of the planning authority to retain an item of interest in a listed building; if, therefore, the correct analysis is that consent is required for its removal, it is unlikely to be forthcoming. The determination of the proper status in law of the item in question is thus often the key to whether it is possible to remove it. The common law rules This ‘ordinary rule of the common law’, imported by Lord Mackay in Debenhams into the statutory code relating to listed buildings, is far from straightforward. Indeed, many of the decisions, which go back to the earliest years of the 19th century, note the impossibility of arriving at any entirely satisfactory synthesis. The two principal tests to be applied in considering whether any particular object is a fixture, and thus part of the building, were most clearly propounded by the Court of Appeal in Berkeley v Poulett, in which Scarman L J held as follows: ‘As so often, the difficulty is not the formulation but the application of the law. I think there is now no need to enter into research into the case law prior to Leigh v Taylor. The answer today to the question whether objects which were originally chattels have become fixtures, that is to say part of the freehold, depends on the application of two tests: 1) the method and degree of annexation; 2) the object and purpose of the annexation. ‘Since Leigh v Taylor, the question is really one of fact… a degree of annexation which in earlier times the law would have treated as conclusive may now prove nothing. If the purpose of annexation be for the better enjoyment of the object itself, it remains a chattel, notwithstanding a high degree of physical annexation. Clearly, however, it remains significant to discover the extent of physical disturbance of the building or the land involved in the removal of the object. If an object can not be removed without serious damage to, or destruction of, some part of the realty, the case for its having become a fixture is a strong one… Conversely, an object affixed to realty but capable of being removed without much difficulty may yet be a fixture if, for example, the purpose of its affixing be that “of creating a beautiful room as a whole” (Neville J in reWhaley)… Today so great are the technical skills of affixing and removing objects to land or buildings that the second test is more likely than the first to be decisive. Perhaps the enduring significance of the first test is a reminder that there must be some degree of physical annexation before a chattel can be treated as part of the realty.’ So, for example, tapestries, fixed to the wall, were considered fixtures in Re Whaley, but not in Leigh v Taylor. In the first of these, it was considered that ‘the ornaments were inserted primarily for the purpose of creating a beautiful room as a whole, and not intended for the mere display and enjoyment of the chattels themselves’, whereas in the second ‘the tapestry was never intended in any way to become part of the house’. In the light of the plethora of early authority, it is encouraging to note the words of Scarman L J as to there being no need to go back before Leigh v Taylor. That case was decided in 1901; so the many 19th‑century cases should, in theory, only be looked into in any detail so far as they relate to the specific facts of a current dispute; and the focus should be on more recent decisions. In practice, of course, judges in more recent cases have continued to go back to those older authorities, which therefore continue to be useful The first test is thus to consider how solidly and permanently the item in question is physically fixed to the building – which will include considerations such as how much work was done to it and to the building to bring them together (was the picture simply hung on a hook on the wall, or was it painted onto a panel that was cut specially to fit a specific alcove?), and how much damage would be caused by its removal. But even a free-standing object, attached to the building solely by its own weight, may exceptionally be a fixture if there is enough evidence to indicate the intention behind its placing in that position. The second test is to consider why the object was placed in that location. Was it to show off the object as an object, or was it to create a beautiful room? But that test is more clearly stated than applied. A picture or a chandelier, for example, can not readily be seen or enjoyed unless it is hung on a wall or from a ceiling; and there would be no point in displaying either if they did not fit in with overall decorative scheme of the room. In practice, therefore each case has to be decided on its facts. Fixtures and fittings: examples A notable example of the outworking of these principles was provided by the controversy over the removal from the tempietto at Woburn Abbey of Canova’s statue known as The Three Graces. The secretary of state initially considered that the statue was a fixture, but
C O N T E X T 9 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 6 11 Charles Mynors is barrister in the Chambers of Robin Purchas QC (recently relocated to new premises at Francis Taylor Building in the Temple), and a visiting professor in the planning department at Oxford Brookes University.The fourth edition of his book Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments was published by Sweet and Maxwell in May. stated that he did not propose to take listed building enforcement action. SAVE Britain’s Heritage then applied to the High Court for judicial review of that decision. As a result, the secretary of state took further advice, and reached the view that the statue was not part of the building within the meaning of section 1(5), and that the question of taking enforcement action thus did not arise. In his letter to the owners of the statue setting out his modified position, the secretary of state accepted Lord Mackay’s view that the correct test to be applied was the same as is applied at common law to decide whether an article is a fixture, namely the degree and purpose of annexation. He also by implication confirmed that the relevant date was that on which the tempietto was listed. After considering carefully the history of the sculpture and the gallery, he concluded as follows: ‘The tests, although easily stated, are not so easily applied. The degree of annexation was not great. The plinth [upon which the statue stood] was fastened to the floor, but apparently not in such a way as to make the removal particularly difficult.The statue itself was freestanding. As to the purpose of annexation, the secretary of state now takes the view, on further consideration, even accepting that the tempietto was specifically built or modified to house the statue, that this does not of itself mean that the statue became part of the building. ‘[He] considers that, even if the degree of annexation, looked at in isolation, could have been sufficient to satisfy the relevant test (which he doubts), here the purpose of annexation was not such as to make the statue part of the building. If the position is judged objectively, and without regard to the way in which the owners have regarded and treated the statue, it seems to him that the object or purpose of installing the statue in the tempietto was not to dedicate it to the land or to incorporate it into the land, but to show off the statue.’ Consent for removal was accordingly judged not to be necessary. Two subsequent appeal decisions explored these matters in some detail.The first related to the removal from Leighton Hall in mid-Wales of three substantial chandeliers and an elaborate turret-clock (noted at [1995] JPL 256). The dealer to whom they had been sold argued that they were not fixtures, and thus not subject to listed building control, but that, even if they were, their removal would improve the building as they were stylistically wholly at odds with the interior of the hall. On the first point, the inspector (whose view was supported by the secretary of state) concluded as follows: ‘From the extensive case law submitted by the parties, it is clear that the tests to be applied in this appeal are, firstly, the degree to which the objects are fixed to the building, including the ease with which they can be removed and any damage caused to the structure or object by their removal, and secondly, the objective or purpose of their annexation to the building, whether for the improvement of the property or for ornamentation and the enjoyment of the objects themselves. As both parties have emphasised, the second test also touches upon the architectural merit of the pieces and their place in the design of the listed building as a whole.’ The secretary of state’s decision was subsequently challenged in the High Court, but the inspector’s report (which he had adopted) was described as ‘not only a model of thoroughness, but its group of legal principles and their relationship and application to the facts as found can not legitimately be faulted’. The challenge accordingly failed. The second case related to the removal from the Time and Life building in New Bond Street, London of four valuable works of modern art. In that case, too, the inspector agreed with the parties that the critical tests were the degree of annexation and the purpose of annexation; but he chose to apply those tests to the situation as it was at the date of listing (1988), rather than (as would seem to be more logical) as it was at the date when the artworks first arrived in the building (the early 1950s). His decision (noted at [1995] JPL 241) was therefore challenged in the High Court, and was quashed by consent. A further inquiry was held, leading to a decision by the secretary of state to uphold the enforcement notices and require all four works to be returned – even though, in the absence of listed building control, theTime Life Company (which had installed them when the building was first built) might, as a matter of property law, have enjoyed a right to remove them at the end of its tenancy. A more recent case concerned two sets of paintings at Noseley Hall in Leicestershire (noted at [1999] JPL 1145). The secretary of state agreed with his inspector that two huge horse paintings in the main hall of the house were found not to be fixtures, so that listed building consent was not required for their removal; although, interestingly, the inspector had concluded that, if they had been fixtures, he would have recommended that consent should be given. But a series of paintings in the study, each secured to the wall simply by mirror plates, were considered to be fixtures, on the grounds of their contribution to the decoration of the room as a whole. Listed building consent for their removal was accordingly refused. © Sweet & Maxwell 2006
www.ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=