Association of Conservation Officers Quarterly Newsletter No 14 • January 1987 Context
Context CONTRIBUTIONSfrom any member are very welcome, and are essential if the Newsletter is to be topical, relevant and useful. Please send copy to your Regional Contact - see next column - or to the Editor at the address below. If possible please type,single spaced, to a column width of 85mm. If you have a choice of type face, please use this one, which is Pica Elite 12. EDITOR: Jenny Birkett, 130 Bouverie Avenue South, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP2 8EA tel. 0722 336272 ext 387 (office); or 0722 334129 (home). COVER: 'The Conservation Officer', by Louis Hellman Hellman, the familiar scourge of the RIBA normally let loose only in the pages of the Architect's Journal, was invited to speak at the East of England Branch conference in November. During his long illustarated discourse he produced his version of the species Conservation Officer, having clearly never encountered the breed en masse before. Page 2 ACOREGIONALCONTACTS NORTH: Keith Murray: 091 4567531 x251 (South Tyneside Borough Council) NORTHWEST: Mike King: 0704 33133 xl21 (Sefton Borough Council) YORKSHIRE:Robert Scriven: 0924 370211 (Wakefield Metropolitan DC) x417 W.MIDLANDS:Michael Fox: 0902 27811 (Wolverhampton Metropolitan BC) E.MIDLANDS:Graham Beaumont:0602 824824 (Nottinghamshire County Council) SOUTHWEST: Robert Ladd: 0749 2338 (Mendip District Council) SOUTH: Chris Brett: 0734 786833 x358 (Wokingham District Council) EAST ANGLIA: John Preston: 0223 317616 (Cambridgeshire County Council) SOUTHEAST: Geoff Pink: 01 541 9416 (Surrey County Council) LONDON:Rosemarie MacQueen: 01 253 8455 (London Borough of Hackney) SCOTLAND:Graham Reed: 050 684 3121 x89 (West Lothian District Council) WALES: Jon James: 0352 2121 (Clwydd County Council) NORTHERNIRELAND:Colin Hatrick 0232 (DoE NI) 653251 ACO OFFICERS CHAIRMAN: Mike Pearce: 0962 54411 x670 (Hampshire County Council) The Castle, Winchester, Hampshire. SECRETARY:Chris Smith: 0272 290777 x530 (Avon County Council) 3 Paul Street, Kingsdown, Bristol BS2 8HG TREASURER:Peter Richards: 0245 352232 (Essex County Council) x 289 139 Lifstan Way, Thorpe Bay, Essex SSl 2XG MEMBERSHIPSECRETARY:John Davey: 0245 (Essex County Council) 352232 x296 19 Upper Moors, Great Waltham, Chelmsford, Essex CM3 lRB PUBLICITY: James Clifton: 0494 26100 (Wycombe District Council) Bucks HPll lBB PROJECTS OFFICER: John Fidler: 01 734 (HBMC) or 01 741 7297 ( 6010 x721 Top Flat, 36 Ravenscourt Road, London W6 OUG
Listed,scheduled..andspoilt PETER RICHARDS of Essex County Planning Dept writes of the problems which have arisen over buildings which are both listed and Scheduled Ancient Monuments. ,'f141, .1 ·I, ., ~,· I• • . ' ~. > L • ;. Coggeshall Abbey, Essex - the detached '5 building in which a strar-1 burner ,chimney r stack and concrete floor were installed ~',l,'ltlil/.Ni~:li.Tfl l\\9;.\'f"lll",a,...,;1tiQ~wv.~ l'D, Over recent years, a n~mber of buildings which fall into the joint category of being listed and scheduled (see Appendix No.l), have been affected by changes. In four particular cases, different aspects of the dual protection have resulted in different problems being highlighted. These cover design matters, Page 3 ' . ' . ' . JM7,;W; :If ...• ,.i'. . suitable uses, building regulation control and urgent repairs. Before considering these four headings, an initial matter must be mentioned. To those dealing day-to-day with these things, the fact that scheduled monument consent takes precedence over listed
building control is generally known. However, because these dual control cases are rare, it seems that officers in district planning departments are often unaware of this precedence; this can lead to considerable confusion, particularly in respect of new uses and changes of use. Some steps should be taken to make planning officers aware of the legal position, particularly at a time when more of these buildings are being considered for new uses, and also more are being listed. In addition, HBMC propose a Scheduling Enhancement Programme (SEP), which aims to increase the number of scheduled sites four-fold. Looking in detail at the four areas of concern which have been identified: 1. The design of new additions At Southchurch Hall, Southend-on-Sea (Grade I and SAM Essex No 196), a toilet block extension was proposed. This was given Scheduled Monument Consent, but no opportunity was given for either HBMC architects or the local planning authority to comment upon the design adequacy of the proposal. Although the toilet block had no detrimental effect upon the archaeology of the monument, or the integrity of the structure of the Cl4 timber-framed building, visually it left much to be desired and was indeed below the standard which would be required under listed building consent procedures for an owner who wished to extend a simple Cl6 Grade II building. 2. Suitable uses Part of Coggeshall Abbey (Grade I and SAM Essex No 85), originally a chapel, possibly the guest-house, latterly an agricultural building, was converted without consent of any kind to house a straw-burning boiler. It seems that no planning change-of-use consent was needed because the use was to remain agricultural. No objection was raised to the works when a subsequent retrospective Page 4 application for consent was suggested by the local authority, despite the danger to the structure posed by the hazardous straw-burner, and the fact that a psedo-Tudor chimney stack had been erected. It is assumed that, because there was no direct (underground?) archaeological threat, the changes were unobjectionable.However, in listed building terms, the local authority (supported by specialist advice from the County team, and no doubt with the additional support of HBMC architects), would have refused both applications; one for the danger posed by the fire risk, and the other because of the historic distortion created by superimposing a fake period chimney on a formerly unheated building. It appears that little or no consideration was given to either of these two aspects of the case. 3. Building regulation control In allowing the conversion of Rochford Hall Barns (Grade I and SAM Essex No 41) to four dwelling houses, major new structural works have been given consent. These include new upper floors, re-formed roofs, new partitions and party walls and all the necessary new plumbing and drainage works. These would all normally be controlled by the local authority building control officer under the Building Regulations 1985. However, works which have Scheduled Monument Consent do not come within the scope of these regulations unless the buildings are to be descheduled on completion of the works. The works have now started, and as yet no decision has been taken as to whether or not the building will be de-scheduled. If the works are completed without the necessity for building regulation control, it is possible that new owners or their solicitors will enquire as to the adequacy of such items as drain construction, thermal and sound insulation, fire-stopping of party walls and the construction
of flues. The lack of any certification by the building control officer may well inhibit the subsequent sale of such buildings. 4. Urgent repairs It may come as a surprise to some planning authorities that some of the the most important buildings in their areas may fall into disrepair without the local authority being able to take any formal steps to redress the matter. The Wheat and Earley Barns at Cressing Temple are a typical example. A large site here is a SAM (Essex No 211). The two barns are listed Grade I. Recently it became apparent that some urgent repairs were required to the wall of one of the barns, but the local authority, because the site is scheduled, are precluded from serving a Section 101 or 114 Notice. Apparently the only way in which such repairs to a SAM can be enforced is for the DoE to go in and carry them out. As a consequence of this position, the District Council are left with a feeling of helplessness when they see a major building in their area in disrepair; and in this particular case it is ironic that that the council concerned is one who give historic building conservation a high priority, and who would readily have served a Section 101 Notice to ensure urgent repairs. Summary It would seem that there are a number of problems arising in connection with buildings which are listed and are scheduled ancient monuments. These problems are aggravated in situations where the buildings may be put to a use (or alternative use). In the current climate, there is considerable pressure, encouraged by local planning authorities, for finding new or alternative uses for redundant or disused historic buildings. These pressures are bound to raise similar issues to those which have been discussed above, and it would seem that there is a Page 5 growing need for reconsideration of the status of buildings which are both listed and scheduled. There is, undoubtedly, a feeling of frustration in local authorities where owners of Grade II listed buildings are being pressed to keep them in g~od repair and effective use, while scheduled ancient monuments in the same area are fallling into disrepair. It is possible that those scheduled monuments which are Grade I or II*, and which are capable of conversion, repair or modernisation to a new active use, might be de-scheduled, allowing the local authorities to use their repairs notice or urgent works notice powers to bring pressure to have the structures repaired and used. APPENDIX 1 There are a total of 184 scheduled ancient monuments in Essex, of which 61 are also listed buildings. 28 of these are Grade I, 11 are Grade II* and 22 are Grade II. 35 are roofed buildings, 15 are ruins and 10 are other structures. Four sites (Audley End House, Hill Hall, St Botolph 's Priory and Widdington Barn) are in the care of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, one (Bourne Mill) belongs to the National Trust, eight belong to local authorities and the rest are in private ownership. APPENDIX 2 Scheduled ancient monuments were originally controlled by the Secretary of state for the DoE under the Ancient Monuments (Consolidation & Amendment) Act 1913, the Historic Buildings & Ancient Monuments Act 1953, and the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Areas Act 1979. The powers under these Acts include provision to purchase by agreement or by gift, to undertake guardianship arrangements, to carry out repairs, to control development and alterations, and to take legal action following any damge caused to a monument. This legislation takes precedence over the later Listed building and conseravtion areas legislation.
Pointingthe acidtest CHRIS WOODof East Hampshire District Council writes on some encouraging experiments in removing hard cement pointing, and a successful prosecution. In August a sample area of brickwork on a listed building was subjected to a controlled application of acid to try and remove a hard cement pointing. The results appear to be very encouraging, for not only has the cement mortar been removed, but no damage has occurred to the brickwork. Efflorescence has been minimal, and the original lime pointing, which still remains, appears to be unaffecLed. These experiments were carried out after East Hampshire District Council successfully prosecuted a national development company in April, for carrying out unauthorised works to a listed building. The company was fined £500 with £500 costs for cutting out the original lime pointing and replacing it with a cement pointing. Page 6 Alton Workhouse is a large 13 bay building erected in 1793. Its imposiag front facade of red brickwork in Flemish-bond with finely lined pointing even merits a mention in Pevsner. It was used as a workhouse up til 1929 and it eventually passed to the Regional Health Authority who sold it in 1984. The new owners were granted permission for the demolition of a Victorian extension, and conversion of the remainder to flats, subject to various conditions. The schedule of works and specifications, submitted with the Building Regulations application, stipulated that re-pointing was confined to making good defective areas in lime mortar. It was generally agreed that a maximum of 25% of the pointing needed remedial treatment. The
builder, acting under instructions, cut out most of the original pointing with a mechanical disc cutter and 'buttered' on a hard cement mortar. The works had virtually been completed before the Council were alerted, and although the builder stopped when told he was committing an offence, only small areas of the original remained. The result was that many bricks were badly scored, and a number of arrises had been removed. The new mortar was grey in colour, and the joints were of varying size. A number of site meetings were held, but despite various promises the company failed to produce a sample panel showing how the damage was to be rectified. The Council therefore resolved to prosecute the developer. The Council issued two summons against the developers, alleging firstly that they executed unauthorised works in a manner which affected the character of the building, contrary to Section 55(1). Secondly, that they failed to comply with conditions attached to the listed building consent, Section 55(4), namely that (a) all external elevations of the existing building shall be made good using matching and ,where available, salvaged materials, and (b) damage to the building caused by the works permitted, should be made good to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The Council's case comprised of statements from its Conservation Officer, an officer from the Historic Buildings Bureau of the County Council, and a masonry consultant. The builder who carried out the works was subpoenaed to appear. The main argument was two-fold. Firstly, the works had seriously affected the appearance and thereby the character of the building, and secondly, they were positively harmful and could directly lead to further damage. This latter argument was based on the inability of vapour to move through cement joints which themselves are likely to crack and trap moisture. Moisture movement would be likely to take place through the softer brick, and the effect of continual wetting and drying would Page 7 cause spalling of the face of the brick. This line of reasoning had previously been used in a listed building enforcement matter. The company pleaded guilty to carrying out unauthorised works which affected the character of the listed building, and as a result of the 'guilty' plea no prosecution witnesses were called and the question of damage was not aired. The magistrates considered that the problem had been one of site management and was not a deliberate attempt to avoid compliance with the listed building consent. Remedial tests have been carried out, with fairly dramatic results. The test area was thoroughly wetted with cold, clean water, and a weak solution of hydrochloric acid sprayed on, using a fine hand spray bottle. The reaction was monitored and the area was quickly hosed off with more water. This was repeated several times with the strength of the acid being increased until a 75% solution was used. The reaction produced an immediate release of green bubbling liquid indicating the breakdown of the cement mortar. Small sections of more stubborn cement were easily removed, using a stiff or non-ferrous bristle or chasing tool. The panel has been looked at again three months later. Surprisingly, there is no sign of efflorescence, and no evidence of harm caused by any acidic residue. Interestingly, the original lime pointing, which is now visible, has not been affected by the acid. Various remedies for repairing the damaged brickwork are being considered, and when the weather is more conducive, it is hoped to carry out experiments. The sheer size of the building leads to the almost inevitable conclusion that the damaged areas will not be uniform. For example, the amount of cement pointing will vary in thickness and perhaps even in strength. If a full repair is to be successfully effected, it is likely that more than one approach is needed. This is to be the subject of the next round of discussions.
Housingand Planning..in their Lordships'House Forthcoming changes in legislation: notes on the outcome of the Lords debate by Michael Pearce Matters affecting the environment (unless it be that of the Falkland Islands) do not usually generate many column inches in the official reports of the House of Commons; but the House of Lords is another place entirely. So it was that the Housing & Planning Bill reached its Committee stage in the Lords, and for nearly five hours Clause 28 (listed buildings and conservation areas) was debated. It is worth reading the original if your library can get Vol. 480, No. 148 & 149 (House of Lords) Hansard 13th & 14th October 1987. Matters debatej and, following report stage in the Commons, enacted, included the following. Sections relate to Schedule 9. Part 1, of the Housing & Planning Act 1986 1. 'Curtilage' buildings after 1.7.48 exempted from LB control; 2. Some improvement in the defence to prosecution for unauthorised works; 3. LB consent may be subject to reserved matters; 4. Application necessary to modify or discharge conditions to LB consent; 5. Ecclesiastical exemption: Secretary of State gains power to bring certain works to churches (eg partial demolition or major alteration) under control 'By Order' - not a popular procedure with peers or MP's. Debate referred to agreement having been reached with churches through representatives of the Church of England, and for other churches through the Churches Main Committee as follows: (i) the ecclesiastical exemption will not apply to the total demolition of a church. Agreed that proposals which would materially affect the architectural or historic interest of a church other than C. of E., such as spire, tower or cupola, should require LBC; but exemption would continue to apply to proposals with a lesser effect. (ii) Church Commissioners agreed to see Page 8 if Sec. of State wishes to hold local public inquiries and to respond to recommendations. (iii) Govt. continues to support Redundant Churches Fund. DAC's membership to draw from HBMC, LPA's and national amenity societies. External alterations to churches need planning permission. (Not clear what happens in case of internal alterations,. which could be, and often are, severe. We await the draft Order with interest). 6. LA's to consider using Planning Act powers in preference to Building Act powers in respect of dangerous structures (See also S2 reference to "minimum measures immediately necessary"). 7. SlOl re-written to include continuing costs as possibly allowable - eg scaffolding & tarpaulins, following the case brought & lost by Hampshire CC. Also now clear that Notice must give all details of the work. Extended to all listed buildings, (and those in CA if authorised by S. of S.) but "if building is occupied, work must be carried out only to those parts not in use". No action for excepted buildings, AM's etc. 8. Relates to control of demolition in conservation areas. 9. Form of application for LB consentLA's powers to ask for details it rquires. 10. Stops LA giving decisions while S. of S. still being consulted. (DoE recently quashed a decision of Canterbury City Council in 1984 for LB consent given before having notified the S.of S., by application for judicial review). 11. LB consent- directions as to which applications need not be notified to S.of S. This caused much debate, and the draft Order put out to pacify those who objected also gave cause for concern. It was far too complicated, in attempting to define partial demolition, or the date or size of extensions. S.of S. now bound to consult HBMCbefore issuing any direction which, of course, would allow greater ~reedom to LPA's to determine LB consents on their. own. 12. Application to LPA's of LB provisions: the question of appeal against listing was debated, but not enacted. The DoE, however, has issued a 3½ page paper intended for owners on 'How to Appeal
Tickhill Castle: a philosophical problem Derek Latham's practice has been responsible for the repair of the mediaeval Tickhill Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument. They thought readers would be interested in the problems presented in conjectural restoration of one of the doorways, and would welcome comments. John Goom writes: "The door surround illustrated is a Cl7 feature which was inserted into the curtain wall of the Castle during the Cl9, when the whole area was re-planned as aprivate garden. The walls themselves are "ruins", although quite substantial, and are now consolidated. When we began the consolidation work, the stones on the left hand jamb of the door surround had long been lost, and the remaining plinth stone oj that side appeared never to have been correctly aligned with the lintel above. The photograph shows the surround as we first encountered it. I produced the three alternatives, which show different philosophical approaches. One of the alternatives has been approved and given the necessary Scheduled Monument Consent, and will be completed in the near future. It would be interesting to see whether readers agree with our final choice!f' OVERLEAF illustrations of the three alternative approaches suggested. (continued from Page 8) Against Listing' - basically, just write to DoE Listing Branch at Lambeth Bridge House. All this has yet to be explained, but a Circular to embrace 23/77 and 12/81 is now being drafted to be the new guide to everything environmental; and there will also be new Regulations to replace Page 9 the 1977 edition. There are still orders, directions, and commencement dates to come - so continue to take aspirins as well as legal advice! Michael Pearce Hampshire CC
ALT£Ri~AT\ YE. A fr,~ ne.w carvz.d :::i-h:ir-e..'S -to ~-ploe£.. lo::.+- l:>T'"O~ cw--cl mo ~ S c::cd e:>Q ~ h r".Cj e.tonsz.~ v~1w.~ p\et~t.c... nzpcnr c,r- if\~ 'P~~~ L,I\~ o...-d rnou\dw-g ov,z,r- to lot, M.o.cla. t.,.p w1t\"'1 'Pla.d-ic:, 1Ypa1r or \l"I~ f'~ or-d r?Z:•"~ or-,, 'X."6 +o oxet- I \nhz:l bczh1rd La:od d~o,n~ prc::vtd,:z, ovz:r- movk:::J \\l<::) _JLJL__) LJ L -------------- Thi~ ~ +onz c. u-\-to !>Vft° l'1cz.W, ,5 I J\\ l \0,r' iv r-t-. Jamb I Page 10 I 11 II 11 1 • I;'' I ) -::..-=--~ -=~ - - - - ..,,,. - - - - -/- l-hw6t'C::n~l lh rvb\:)la. 51 to Y1c.-+or101 c ~w ~+onz, c..vor k 1 kayo:cl 1n w Tt+-1 -zx.1 rn1n1t1wrn d\61-ur-::::,:::ir c Vo lt.mz. m0:'0 wc.irrc: b 9, V<Z mo r,z. vcu-h, ~ ~Aj QZ;; N e.w l!>"tt:>f"\<Z,. ~~lor1 Cn:x:.k~ rnod pl°'--hc. r"Z-p::l I r SmrcZo +o t
-rnz.drd JL =-==-~ - - -~ . - _....: ~ .m1\ar n ~ n l~ft- J arnb ~,,...,~ i:,u.+-w.-H-, ,c.z Jnt" ~1+ion1r,s c..a\ JOm-b )One, ~t+hurvbblcz. ~ U!J Wl"T°'h • er- den<L -p~czd .. 1 n ::;iz, ~=-bzc-ldcd ALTE..~NATlYE C tl\1r.1murn pc~t\a:: d1etvrb::\nc.e +o <z-x.isti n:) VvOrk . Vo1cl ~ lac-4=+ whsz.nz- ~+onc;zs lo~+ Link\ ~LA'?P?~ on 6ro.l,, b~ ~\ p\~ er n:::id.s. ~ 1n+o SZ)(.li::.1'i~ 0-h:::n~rk- ~'bly wrti,out- d\.$ma.L1til~ r1,,+.:z:I Mouldln9 doVli'<Z!czdcind gl , ,n+o rt.on --·----- ---- - - --- -- T ---- 1,11 ¾7orQXI rn:xk t1 t")iZ. o+:, q:ian I~ bzhtnd Volv\-rz. nzma,ns lil f'~ po~rhor, Page 11 f
Buildingsat Risk in Hackney A report by ELIZABETH MCKELLAR of the Hackney Society !'s recent survey work In 1985 and through to early 1986, the Hackney Society, the local amenity group, carried out a Buildings At Risk survey in the borough; the results are to be published as a report later this year. The aim was two-fold: firstly, to establish a threatened buildings register; and secondly to establish the nature and causes of buildings at risk in the area. In this article I'm going to discuss the way in which we went about this. I also hope to raise various points which came out of our experiences, av·t which may be of interest to others emburking upon a similar project. Fundamental problems The initial and most fundamental problem is how to go about collecting the basic information. Even as an amenity group, in common with most local authorities we felt unable to carry out a comprehensive street-by-street survey. This would be the ideal, and it has been suggested that amenity societies could do this on a voluntary basis. This might be possible in some parts of the country, but in Hackney (and I suspect in many other similar areas), this is not really a practical proposition. There are not sufficiently large numbers of interested people to carry this work out. Hackney also has a very large number of listed buildings - about 1300 on the statutory list and about 700 locally listed. We therefore used as our starting point the photographic survey of listed buildings in the borough which was carried out in 1980. This had included a 'condition of buildings' entry. We re-surveyed all those buildings described as derelict or run-down in 1980. Besides these, we looked at other buildings known by us to be at risk, or discovered by us in the course of the survey. In all, we ·looked at 150 buildings. Page 12 M~ny of the buildings not derived from the 1980 survey were locally listed or unlisted. These included buildings of considerable importance, such as a Passmore Edwards library, a factory dating from 1863, and a hospital featured in Pevsner and designed by T.L. Donaldson. When buildings of this calibre are unlisted, and therefore particularly vulnerable, it is essential that any proposed threatened building survey does not restrict itself entirely to listed buildings. Criteria for threatened buildings It is important to establish what criteria are to be used to decide what a 'threatened' building is. We interpreted the term in its widest sense, and included non-physical development threats as well as the more obvious physical decay. This, we found, gave a truer picture of the current state of historic buildings in the borough. More importantly, it also served to underline various probable future trends, and new development pressures in the area. The inbuilt historical and comparative element in our report,between the survey of 1980 and that of 1985, menat that we found ourselves dealing with renovation as well as demolition. We discovered that a 'buildings at risk' survey is not an altogether pessimistic affair. Of the 116 buildings drawn from the 1980 survey, 53 had been restored by 1985. However, the unsatisfactory nature of some of these restorations constituted, we decided, a form of risk in itself. Up-dating Hackney is undergoing substantial change at present. Even in the course of writing the report, we found that considerable changes had taken place, and parts of it had to be re-written. Our card index, within less than a year, is already incorrect on a surprisingly high proportion of entries - approximately 14%. In places changing rapidly it is hard to see how the survey can be of real value unl~s~ it is updated annually. For this reason, it is important to keep the system flexible, and to draw on as wide
a range of sources as possible. Computerisation and the incorporation of 'condition of building' information into the Sites and Monuments Records should help in this respect. This kind of survey emphasises individual buildings rather than historic areas or entities. We found that there were very marked differences in the types of buildings that were being threatened in different parts of the borough. Crossindexing, or cataloguing a register by area (ie parish or district), as well as using the more common alphabetical street entries, will probably be found to be worthwhile. We included buildings that had been demolished since 1980 in the survey. This, too, proved useful for gaining a wider perspective on development patterns, a usefulness which will increase as times and staff change. The survey as a whole should also assume growing importance with time, so long as it is expanded as new buildings come to light. Like most other existing surveys, ours is not comprehensive nor scientifically accurate. It has, nevertheless, been a worthwhile undertaking both in establishing the base for a 'buildings at risk' register, and in serving to emphasise the different problems and threats experienced by historic buildings in the area. NORTHWEST CIVIC TRUST The Manchester Society of Architects, North West Civic Trust and the Building Centre Ltd held a joint meeting on 6th November which attracted over 100 people, to mark the setting-up of a new 'home' for the MSA at the Building Centre in Portland St. This will enable Manchester architects to meet the public, commerce and industry through having a presence in the city centre. The meeting also opened an exhibition assembled by the North West Civic Trust, showing the concern of local authorities, professionals and the construction industry for the culture, economy and environment of the North West. SAVEBritain'sHeritage FARMBUILDINGS - A FUTURE? SAVE Britain's Heritage is preparing a report on the use of redundant farm buildings, and is looking for examples to use as illustrations or as case studies. Have you any excellent examples of re-use in your area? Any horrors (uncaptioned if necessary)? Any 'problems' for which we might draw up outline proposals? Any farm buildings adapted for continuing agricultural or related activities? We aim to cover all kinds of agricultural buildings, listed or not, in England, Scotland and Wales; from whole farmsteads to single isolated examples. If you can help, or wish to express your views, please contact KATE PUGH, c/o SAVE Britain's Heritage, 68 Battersea High St, London SWll 3HX. Tel. 01 228 3336 SAVE has drawn attention to the plight of St Mary's-in-the-Castle, HASTINGS, East Sussex. The church was built as the centrepiece of Pelham Crescent by the architect, Joseph Kay, between 1824 and 1828. "It is a grand and an exotic buil-· ding, with a most dramatic interior, a vast auditorium - inspired by Italian precedents - designed to seat 1,500. Church and terrace form the finest element on the Hastings seafront." The church was closed in 1970 and sold for use as a museum in 1980. The new owner resold to World War II (Museum) Trustees Ltd which has never been able to raise the funds for maintenance, let alone restoration or repair. Earlier this year Hastings B.C. finally decided to seek compulsory purchase powers, but in October changed its mind having been frightened by greatly exaggerated estimates of repair costs. Grants are on offer from various sources. This is surely a case where HBMCshould be pressing for use of reserve powers. Page 13
MEMBERS FORUM THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON HISTORICAL MONUMENTS The RCHM operates in a curious way; research is undertaken in great secrecy on an area or a subject until suddenly up pops another learned volume and we have a new "authority". Rather like the listing system, you might say, but while the discreetness of listing serves to minimise the threat of pre-emptive demolition, the RCHM can work the other way. the Commission have argued that their work depends upon the good-will of owners and ·occupiers to gain access and information, and that this good-will only operates if they are seen to be distanced from those who work in the real-as opposed to the academic - world; the listers, the planners, the conservation officers. Accordingly, the often extensive records have been regarded as confidential until publication. This view is, of course, naive; because listing and all that ensues is often the consequence of academic work, so there is little point in denying that there is a direct link; but more importantly, the eventual publication can simply be too late for the information to be used. In Calderdale we recently had a public inquiry into proposals to demolish a large and imposing cotton spinning mill. It became known that the RCHMwere holding evidence that proved this to be one of the few remaining works of the celebrated engineer William Fairbairn - but could we use this confidential information? It seemed outrageous that the Commission might sit on such crucial evidence when the building's fate was in question; and this added to the cynical view that, for them, their record is more important Page 14 than the building; one wonders how many others may have been lost in this way. In this case, after protests had been registered and debated at high level the Commission relented; the new information was sufficient for the building to be upgraded to II* and the Fairbairn involvement became the main issue at the inquiry. A decision on the Mill is not yet known, but the other outcome is that the RCHM has changed its policy, and confidentiality is no longer insisted upon. There is, however, one snag; to gain access to their survey information you first have to know what it is that they have that you want to know about. Eddie Booth Calderdale Borough Council THE DANGERS OF NEW BULLSEYE GLASS! Did any other Members hear a recent report on Radio 4's 'YOU & YOURS' describing the concern of the West Yorkshire Fire Brigade over the potential fire hazard caused by new 'bullseye' or 'bottle' glass? Apparently, in certain circumstances it creates a magnifying effect on the sun's rays and eventually can ignite carpets, furniture, etc. Although the major manufacturers naturally disputed this claim, and maintained that the glass had been incorrectly fitted, the Fire Brigade still expressed unease over its use. Our own Brigade in Essex has confirmed that they have recently dealt with fires to property caused by such glass. This could be a useful piece of information to pass on to those owners of historic buildings who insist on using these products. John Davey Essex County Council Editor's Note: Surely we can expand on this - do not other offensive pseudohistoric artefacts cause environmental hazards? Imaginative examples please!
N.H.B.R.C. DECISION ON RECLAIMED BLUE SLATE It has cometo my attention that the N.H.B.R.C. has recently made a decision not to register new property, particularly flat developments, which made use of reclaimed blue slate as a roofing material. They had had several major claims on property where this material had been used because the slate has been of poor quality, or not fixed in accordance with their approved code; or where the slate has been laid in such a way that rain could penetrate the roof through the original fixing holes in the slate. Their inspection system is apparently not sufficiently speedy or flexible for them to be able to guarantee inspection at the crucial stage in the erection of a new building, so that they can be certain that the material and the manner of use are satisfactory. In much of my authority's area, blue slate is the traditional roofing material. Even in areas of predominantly stone slates, there is normally a sizeable sample of blue slate, either original or as a later replacement for stone. In such areas, where infill sites have been developed, reclaimed blue slate has often been the preferred choice of developers, as being both cheaper and more easily obtainable than stone slate. This has normally been acceptable to the local planning authority. It causes me considerable concern that the use of such a material, particularly in conservation areas, may now be ruled out by the N.H.B.R.C. on purely practical grounds as seen from their specific viewpoint, without any real consideration of the aesthetic implications. I would hope that this would be a matter which the committee of ACO could consider, with a view to pursuing the matter on behalf of all members who work in areas where blue slate is a traditional and acceptable building material. Margaret Sanders Tameside MBC REGIONALNEWS EAST OF ENGLANDBRANCH CONFERENCE THIRD ANNUAL The winter conference of the East of England Branch of the Association of Conservation Officers is now becoming a regular event in the conservation calendar. This year the conference was held on 22nd November at the School of Pythagoras, St John's College, Cambridge. Under the chairmanship of Russ Craig, of Hertfordshire County Planning Dept, members listened to a series of viewpoints on the usefulness -or otherwise -of various pieces of legislation. Simon Crosse, of Fielden and Mawson, began the day with a slide show of the firm's work in the Isle of Dogs converting Grade 1 dock warehouses, showing the effect on interiors of compliance with fire and building regulations. Alan Parnell, President of the Institute of Fire Engineers (and incidentally the first architect to hold this post) then gave a most interesting presentation on the various ways of dealing with fire precautions in historic buildings, and cited Kenwood House as a first class example of a building where the fire officer's requirements had been met without serious detriment to the building. He also touched briefly on the scientific aspects of 'fire loading', and how this mathematical approach could be used in discussions with fire prevention officers to achieve a more reasonable level of fire protection. He described the new regualtions as being "superb" from the point of view of historic buildings. Mention was also made of a section of the Queen's Speech at the recent State Opening of Parliament promising a drastic revision of the fire precautions acts. The morning session was rounded off by a Page 15
lively talk from Jim Kelly, an EHO from Babergh District. During the following discussion, one of the points made concerned the inflexible requirement upon publicans to provide inside lavatories in public houses -many listed pubs had been threatened with closure unless they complied. John Weller, architect in private practice in Ipswich, gave several case studies on confontations he had had with bureauc~acy, particularly over building regulations. Another of his concerns is that architects appeared to be losing control of their resposibility for buildings to building control officers. He observed that building was the only industry in Britain where quality control was exercised by government authority during the process of manufacture. Simon Harn, wearing his hat as member of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, explained the new regulations in some detail, and pointed out how they were capable of a more flexible interpretation than their predecessors. He suggested that "the need to avoid damaging the character of a listed building" was a good reason for requesting this flexibility from building control officers. However, when questioned, he agreed that there was no longer provision for 'relaxations' at the local level. He advocated that we should take the opportunity to make ouE views known to the DoE when it issued draft papers on regulations for public comment. The day finished in a light-hearted vein, with Architect's Journal cartoonist Louis Hellman treating members to a strip cartoon telling the tale of a conservation officers posthumous trials with St. Peter and the inhabitants of Limbo, which concluded with a punch line involving the Secretary of State for the Environment which we will not repeat in case he wishes to use the joke again elsewhere. Hellman generously allowed the sheaf of drawings to be auctioned, thus raising over £100 for ACO funds. Page 16 Copies of the Conference papers will be available shortly,price £2.25 inc. p&p, from James Clifton, c/o Wycombe District Council, Bucks HPll lBB. West Midlands REPORTOF A MEETINGIN LUDLOW JULY 1986 David Sutton of South Shropshire District Council was host to fourteen ACOmembers at their July meeting in Ludlow. It was disturbing to learn that this hitherto unspoiled town had been discovered by the pension funds and institutional investors with all that implied for sensitive conservation work. This worrying news set the tone for a spirited morning session which considered, inter alia, how to control the unexpected after listed building consent had been granted; slavage and archaeological conditions t~ listed building consents; whether it was legal to condition 1962 Act grants; how to get the conservation message across to recalci•-ant environmental health officers; comprehensive interdepartmental property registers; and how to get builders to execute historicallycorrect pointing. This formed an appropriate prelude to a question-aadanswer session led by Mr. Benson of Treasure & Son, long-established local builders, on techniques of timber frame repair. After a splendid buffet lunch, laid on by the District Council, Mr. Benson led a walk round the town to see examples of rpeirs undertaken by his company and current work in progress in his joinery workshops. Many buildings in Ludlow, as elsewhere, were re-faced in later life; while on tour much thought was provoked on the legitimacy of 'scraping' these later accretions away to expose original fabric. All those present benefited from hearing Mr. Benson's lucid exposition of the philosophy and practice
1 I l of conservative repair; his generosity in giving up so much of his time to meet us was greatly appreciated. During the day, a number of members expressed the disadvantage they felt of lacking 'hands-on' experience of practical conservation. The region is to investigate the possibility of organising some workshop days to remedy this. Have other regions attempted anything similar? Alan Taylor NEWSOF MEMBERS Welcome to the following new members: MARKALCOCK PETER ARNOLD STANLEYCLAPHAM ADRIAN CRADDOCK JERRY CROOK RUTH GOODMAN LOUIS HELLMAN (Still not sure officer is, but like!) TIMOTHYKELLETT MICHAELLEA Sedgemoor DC Walsall MBC Surrey CC Suffolk Coastal DC Walsall MBC Student Honorary Member what a conservation knows what they look Nottinghamshire CC Peak Park Joint Planning Board BRIAN MADGE MERVYNMILLER WENDYMULLANEY DAVID PIGGOTT DAVID RHODES JANET SCHOLES ANITA SIMS London Bora' of Sutton North Herts DC DAVID STIRLING JOHN TOWNSEND JOHN WARBURTON LEGALAID Bury MBC Dudley MBC Oldham MBC Student Woddspring DC North Wiltshire DC Elmbridge DC Nottinghamshire CC Charles Mynors, previously the Conservation Officer with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, is now in private practice and is studying with the aim of being called to the Bar. He is continuing as an Associate Member of ACO, and has kindly Page 17 offered any assistance to members of ACOwith regard to the law. He can be contacted at 20 Devonshire Rd., London WS 4TP. LEGISLATION... AGAINST CONSERVATION? Following the ACO East of England Branch Conference at Cambridge, Derek Green of Wakefield MDCis researching legislative conflicts as a final year post-graduate disseratation towards a diploma in Town & Regional Planning at Leeds Polytecb~ic. Details of completed research will be made available to the membership, on request. His synopsis notes that the conversion of listed buildings is increasingly being seen as the best means for their preservation against the threat of redundancy and decay. The quality of a conversion in practice can often vary because of unsuitability for conversion, lack of money, ignorance, poor design, conflicting uses or various legislative interpretations. Building regulations have recently been re-cast in a more functional form, and should have eased at least some potential conflicts. The effects of these changes in legislation are to be examined in detail. To reduce the effect of those other factors which can also spoil conversions, only those to office use are to be studied. Such uses are claimed to be the least damaging and are often those which are most promoted. Members are asked wherher they would be kind enough to provide examples of office conversion projects spoiled by a too-rigid interpretation of building or other legislation, both before and after the 1985 Building Regulations. Projects where enlightened relaxations or waivers have been obtained, or where innovative design solutions have proved successful, will also be very useful. If you can help, contact DEREK GREEN at Wakefield MDC (0924 370211 ext 386)
Just imagine how you Decorative bricks are having a welcome revival. Shown here are two of the patterns available, made from red Leicestershire clay. Being the standard height of two brick courses they can readily be built in to give all kinds of decorative possibilities - on gable ends, for example, or as a fireplace feature. They are yet another example of how Ibstock can help you to add charader to your brickwork. In fact, their uses can be as varied as your own design ideas. could use bricks like these. For further information and samples please contad us at the address below. Ibstock Building Products Limited, Brickwork Design Centre, 35 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 lNT. Telephone: Cambridge IBSTOCK (0223) 316999. Page 18
CONFERENCES ACANTHUSCQij,fW~Cfn~~EVIVING OUROLD TOWNS" 164'~tf"~A'h7 ~tNUARY 1987 AT THE IMPERIAL HOTEL, TORQUAY The Environment Minister's recent directive against large-scale out-of-town shopping centres re-focuses attention on our town centres. This conference - the first to be held by the newlyformed Acanthus Associated Architectural Practices - seeks to examine some of the questions raised by the movement to inject new life into old town centres: speakers will include developers, planners, architects and representatives of amenity societi~s. Appropriately, the conference will be held in Torquay, which is currently in the grip of ~ontroversy overthe proposed re-development of its Victorian town centre. One of the principal speakers will be Charles Knevitt, director of the new Inner City Trust announced by the Prince of Wales at the 'Building Communities' conference held at the end of November. Acanthus Chairman George Ferguson believes that 'community architecture' can extend as much into the field of commercial centres, where a large proportion of peoples' lives is spent, as it does into the field of housing. Acanthus would like equal importance attached to both. The conference will set out to explore what makes towns tick, and what part the community, as well as good planning, good architecture and sensitive conservation, can play in urban regeneration. Further information can be obtained from Sasha Lubetkin, Acanthus, 8 Rosewarne Court, Hyde St, Winchester, Hampshire S023 7HL (tel 0962 66885/66945); or Vicky Maxwell, Acanthus, Veysey House, Barley Mow Passage, Chiswick, London W$ 4PN (tel. 01 995 1232). Apologies to Acanthus if this notice is too late for their conference. 'CONSERVATIONOF TIMBER FRAMEDBUILDINGS' ASSOCIATIONOF CONSERVATIONOFFICERS SOUTHERNBRANCH CONFERENCE 7TH FEBRUARY1987 AT WOKINGHAMTOWNHALL Speakers will include Richard Harris of the Weald and Downland Museum; Martin Robertson of HBMC("Lessons of the Resurvey"), Peter Richards of Essex County Planning Dept, and D.Mansfield-Thomas. Tickets cost £4.00, and further details can be obtained from Chris Brett or Anna Cronin on 0734 786833. 'THE RELEVANCEOF ARCHITECTURALHISTORY' 16TH ANNUALSYMPOSIUMOF THE SOCIETY OF ARCHITECTURALHISTORIANS OF GREATBRITAIN SATURDAY7TH MARCH1987, 10.00 - 5.30 AT THE ROYALINSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS, 66 PORTLANDPLACEWl Dr Hentie Louw of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain has written to invite ACOmembers to this year's symposium, the aim of which is to promote a dialogue about this important topical issue among those who share a special interest in the subject. An application form is enclosed with this issue of CONTEXT; further copies, if required, can be obtained from the Secretary, Frank Kelsall, Room 208, Chesham House, 30 Warwick St., London WlR 6AB. Members of ACO should note that they can buy tickets at the reduced price for SAH members, ie £12.00 rather than £13.50. ACO Easter Conference The ACO's Easter conference will be held in Bristol from 10th - 12th April 1981. Full details will be separately mailed soon, with 9 booking form. The organiser is Chris Smith, Avon County Council (tel. 0272 290777 ext 530) Page 19
Publications received GENIUS OF BATH: THE CITY ANDITS LANDSCAPE Christopher Pound Published by Millstream Books 7 Orange Grove, Bath BAI lLP: price £7.50 It is not often that conservation officers have their names on the covers of real books, as opposed to local plans, advisory leaflets on roofing materials and committee reports. It is therefore a pleasure to publicise Chris Pound's new book. From the vantage point of his day-job in the high attics of Bath City Council Dept of Environmental Services (Planning) he has observed the development of Bath's landscape from the earliest records to the present day. The account in the book developed from a lecture given in 1985. It semmed to the author when preparing his lecture that the very close relationship between the designs of buildings and their surroundings is often neglected today, and deserves further examination. The better understanding of this relationship would assist in the preparation of more sympathetic designs for new buildings, and ensure the care and conservation of Bath's unique landscape. This argument is supported by historical evidence demonstrating that over the last two or three centuries most development in Bath was in harmony with its landscape. The natural setting of the city was harnessed to special effect, and could always accommodate changing tastes in architecture and landscape use over the years. Bath retains and blends the flowering and maturing of the Palladian, the Romantic, the Picturesque, the Italianate; and the more humble development of the semi-detached villa and its garden, through to the influence of Unwin and Abercrombie. Page 20 THE VICTORIANHOUSE: Marshall & Willox Sidgwick & Jackson have published a well-illustrated history of the six million Victorian houses as a guide to owners as well as the general reader. The book is based on a six-part Channel Four television series due to be shown in the spring of 1987, and sells at £12.95 A number of AGOmembers are listed in the acknowledgements and other members are sure to find the book of value and interest. ENGLISHHERITAGEREPORT Since our last issue made mention of the Commission's difficulties in meeting increasing demands for grant aid, we have received a copy of the HBMCEReport and Accounts 1985-1986. In his introduction Lord Montagu says, "Much of our money was spent on Conservation, spending nearly £25~ on grants for historic buildings, historic areas, ancient monuments and rescue archaeology. When the cost of administering those grants is added, it represents well over half our resources." "We offered over 2,000 grants for conservation areas and town schemes, over 200 to secular buildings and over 400 to churches .. " "I have to record, however, that a great many grant applications had to be turned dmro, many of which would have qualified for grant had more money been available. We have no doubt that the need for grants .. is far greater than the amounts we were able to offer. Nor.were we able to offer any grants in respect of historic gardens. We were delighted that as a result of earning more money ourselves from visitors and sales at our monuments we were able to spend £0.5m more on grants than we expected." From 1985 to 1986 Grant-in-Aid increased by 3.9%, from £49.3m to £51.2m; operating income increased by 31.8%, from £2.6m to £3.4m; grants paid increased by 5.9%, from £23.6m to £25.0m; and operational and administrative costs increased by 24.8% from £24.7m to £30.9m. Michael Pearce I
ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=