GREEN RETROFIT What the government and industry are up to Thermography for traditional buildings How solid walls perform The retrofit process No 149 May 2017 Institute of Historic Building Conservation
The Purist Approach Specifying a roof window is one-time decision for a building. When it comes to choosing one that is in-keeping with the architecture, no other roof window fits the bill quite like ours. The original and most authentic Conservation Rooflight®. Because modern alternatives just don’t look right. Find out more 01993 833108 www.therooflightcompany.co.uk #GOLARGEdiscreetly Rooflight dimensions 1070mm x 1870mm
www.ihbc.org.uk @IHBCtweet Registered as a charity in England andWales number 1061593 and in Scotland number SC041945. Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England number 3333780. Registered Office: Jubilee House, High Street,Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA Officers President David McDonald, president@ihbc.org.uk Chair James Caird, chair@ihbc.org.uk Vice Chair Kathryn Davies, vchair@ihbc.org.uk Secretary Jo Evans, ihbcsecretary@ihbc.org.uk Treasurer Richard Morrice, treasurer@ihbc.org.uk National Office Director Seán O’Reilly, director@ihbc.org.uk Projects Officer Fiona Newton, projects@ihbc.org.uk Consultations Coordinator consultations@ihbc.org.uk Membership Services Officer Carmen Moran, membershipservices@ihbc.org.uk LETS Officer Kate Kendall, lets@ihbc.org.uk Branch & Events Support Officer Carla Pianese, support@ihbc.org.uk Administration Officer Lydia Porter, admin@ihbc.org.uk Committee Chairs Policy Roy Lewis, policy@ihbc.org.uk Membership & Ethics David Kincaid, membership@ihbc.org.uk Finance & Resources Richard Morrice, resources@ihbc.org.uk Education Bridget Turnbull, education@ihbc.org.uk Communications & Outreach Dave Chetwyn, communications@ihbc.org.uk Branch Officers North vacant NorthWest Crispin Edwards, 07768 502363 Yorkshire Matthew Bentley, 0113 247 8145 West Midlands vacant East Midlands Roy Lewis, 01623 756623 South Julia Foster, 01296 585888 SouthWest vacant East Anglia vacant South East Sanne Roberts, southeast@ihbc.org.uk London Sheila Stones, 01223 582716 Scotland Paul Zochowski, 01620 827264 Wales John Edwards, 07796 440934 Northern Ireland Jill Kerry, 028 9048 7395 Republic of Ireland Cormac O’Sullivan, 00353 5677 62907 GREENRETROFIT What thegovernmentand industryareup to Thermography for traditionalbuildings How solidwallsperform The retrofitprocess No149May2017 InstituteofHistoricBuildingConservation Cover: A detail of a thermographic image of a small house, see page 17 (Image: Jo Atkinson) 2 Briefing 4 Periodically 6 The writer’s voice 7 Legal briefing 11 The retrofit process John Edwards, guest commissioning editor 13 The government, the industry and green retrofit John Preston 15 Understanding dampness John Edwards and Peter Ward 17 Thermography for traditional buildings Jo Atkinson 19 A world perspective on retrofit Peter Cox 20 Improving the energy performance of historic buildings and urban areas Carsten Hermann 23 How to deal with retrofit risks Colin King 25 Understanding the performance of solid walls Caroline Rye and Cameron Scott 28 Energy efficiency for the National Trust Paul Southall 31 The Gardens Trust David Lambert 33 The Romani palaces of Soroca Dennis Rodwell 36 Hangzhou’s old and new heritages Sun Peifang 39 A pigsty’s hidden history Cyllene Griffiths 43 Notes from the chair 44 New members 45 Director’s cut 47 New member profile 48 Vox pop 50 Book reviews 53 Products and services 56 Advertisers index C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 1
Editor Rob Cowan Editorial Coordinator Michael Taylor, ihbceditorialboard@gmail.com Editorial Board Nigel Crowe Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Rebecca Madgin Fiona Newton Elizabeth Smith Gordon Sorensen Jonathan Taylor Michael Taylor (chair) Green retrofit guest commissioning editor John Edwards Cartoons by Rob Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2017 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA 01747 871717 context@cathcomm.co.uk www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions toContext Context is available to corporate bodies at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £60.00 Elsewhere £90.00 Context on-line archive Past editions of Context can be viewed on the IHBC website six months after publication. The archive provides a searchable database and reference for key articles. See www.ihbc.org.uk/page55/context_archive. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily held by the IHBC or the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. Briefing Context themes and copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. The next three themes and copy deadlines are: Urbanism and resources, July, issue 150 (15 May) IHBC Annual School, September, issue 151 (17 July) Floorscape, November, issue 152 (18 September) Please contact Michael Taylor at ihbceditorialboard@gmail.com to discuss any editorial submissions or for information about the Context editorial board. 2 C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 Brussels focus on retrofit The 2nd International Conference on Energy Efficiency and Comfort of Historic Buildings (EECHB 2016), organised by the Belgian Building Research Institute, took place in Brussels in October 2016. The conference was designed to consolidate research on boundaries and obstacles; using and improving energy models; training and education; systems and indoor climate, materials; monitoring and feedback; and governance. The conference findings are at www. eechb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ Proceedings_EECHB.pdf. The publication presents views, ideas and solutions for climate-sensitive heritage building adaptation that meets modern standards of energy efficiency while accommodating the needs of the building users. It highlights best practice methodologies for application and knowledge transfer. Its case studies cover, among other subjects, post-war buildings in Edinburgh, traditional English terraced houses, private homes, public buildings, Unesco-protected sites and wider city systems. Pat Graczyk, sustainability officer, EdinburghWorld Heritage Green retrofit’s human face Applying a numerical value as the main performance indicator to determine the success of green-retrofit projects seems logical. Setting up a monitoring system to capture improved U-values or reduced kWh use allows relatively straightforward progress reporting. While the green retrofitting solutions market is growing, the ability to justify reduced cost and carbon dioxide abatement is often a deciding factor in selecting a solution.Yet, at times, even the most bespoke improvements deliver less efficiency than anticipated. The reason, apart from faulty design, often relates to minimal (if any) involvement of the building’s end user. Problems revealed in post-occupancy evaluation can cause increased running costs and compromise people’s wellbeing.We rely on the standardised assessment methods that rarely, if ever, account for the needs and behaviour of the building users. Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation has achieved BREEAM outstanding certificate. Its work showcases how an A-listed, traditional property can be refurbished into a state-of-the-art, modern energy-efficient building without compromising its designation and architectural integrity. Yet when the attempt was made to monitor and analyse basic energy performance, the results were not as anticipated. Ventilation systems, mechanical shading and modern energy controls were not used to their full potential. This was due in part to faulty mechanisms, but to a large extent due to the fact that the building was handed over without proper engagement of the building users. The residential Leitch Street development had modern energy and ventilation systems installed in the shape of a combined-heat-andpower scheme and secondary boilers. Yet energy consumption after the improvements was much higher than anticipated, as tenants needed extensive training in how to use their heating effectively. EdinburghWorld Heritage (EWH) is currently researching green retrofitting options for the Sir Basil Spence-designed Canongate housing development. Instead of imposing solutions, it is working with the residents to assess options. Pat Graczyk Associations The Heritage Lottery Fund has provided £4 million for the renovation of the Fellowship Inn in Lewisham, south-east London, where the boxer Sir Henry Cooper lived and trained before his fight with Muhammad Ali, and where Fleetwood Mac and Eric Clapton played. The Grade II listed pub – the first-ever built on a London housing estate – dates from the 1920s. The restored Fellowship Inn will comprise a community pub, a cinema, a performance venue, a live music hub with rehearsal spaces, a coffee shop and a micro-brewery. Pellings is the project manager. Lewisham’s Fellowship Inn: thumping memories
C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 3 Heritage skills and services A working group of the Historic Environment Forum, led by CIfA (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists), has undertaken a research project to establish robust and reliable insight on present market conditions for suppliers of specialist heritage skills and services, including registered organisations and individual members of CIfA. The work was intended to establish how to stimulate informed demand for essential skills, recognising that creating demand may be an effective means of ensuring supply. Funded by Historic England, the research was conducted by Loud Marketing, led by Stephen O’Reilly, contracted through CIfA. It involved interviews with 38 respondents from professional, trade and craft bodies representing the supply side of the heritage skills landscape, and focus groups and depth interviews with 41 respondents representing different types of clients, including private homeowners. The research report, Market conditions for expert and specialist heritage skills and services 2017, concludes that clients appreciate the heritage assets in their care, and their responsibilities to them. The client landscape is complex: there is an appetite for independent and unbiased advice, but a lack of informed demand. Language does not help: many clients are confused and find little meaning in many heritage sector terms and phrases (including heritage sector and accreditation). Accreditation in some form is seen as a good thing, but clients are unaware of many schemes and are confused by others. They tend to find specialist suppliers based on previous contracts or by asking trusted contacts for a recommendation; searching websites is the next stage and the first stage where a recommendation is unavailable. The major factors affecting choice of supplier are previous work, a good personal connection, price, proximity and availability. Some clients then check references, recommendations, qualifications, memberships and accreditations, but the level of due diligence varies by client and project. In the report, Loud Marketing makes some recommendations to the Client Demand Task Group and Historic Environment Forum, relating to pan-sectoral collaboration to drive awareness and understanding among clients; education about the benefits of using specialist suppliers; and unbiased advice on sourcing suitably competent heritage practitioners. Walkable London David Harrison writes: The capitals of the UK and Czech Republic are both historic cities with architecture of the finest quality, but in Prague it is possible to enjoy the buildings, walking in car-free splendour fromWenceslas Square across the pedestrianised Charles Bridge to the medieval cathedral. London has equally magnificent structures, but how often do we linger to take delight in them? The Palace and the Abbey in the Westminster World Heritage Site, are divided by car-choked Abingdon Street, and have to be viewed from the roundabout which is Parliament Square. Motor traffic has priority at the successor to London’s renowned medieval bridge, and its north end is uncrossable because of guardrails. A new organisation, London Living Streets (the London branch of Living Streets), aims to encourage people to walk and enjoy public spaces, and to lobby for the creation of an environment where it is pleasant to do so. Its manifesto calls for the creation of a network of walking routes and public spaces across central London and beyond. A number of remarkable proposals already exist which could form part of the network. Covent Garden and the British Museum are a few minutes walk from each other, but they are separated by two large roads. Reduce the traffic, introduce clear signs and improve the streetscape, and the two places are joined. This link could be part of a north/south corridor from Euston/ King’s Cross to Gibbs’ St Mary le Strand and Chambers’ Somerset House. The distinguished church is currently marooned in a multi-lane highway. London Living Streets aims to assist pedestrians throughout London: redistributing road space to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport; road safety through Vision Zero; cleaner air through banning diesel vehicles; and reclaiming residential streets. New face for Appleton Tower Engineered stone has been used in a facade replacement scheme at the University of Edinburgh’s controversial Appleton Tower. Currently serving as part of the university’s School of Informatics, the modernist tower was designed by Alan Reiach, Eric Hall and Partners as part of the university’s George Square development in the 1960s. Opposition to the stark modernism of the George Square scheme was such that some of the proposed buildings were never constructed. Much of the building’s interior was refurbished in 2006. The latest scheme to upgrade it has involved complete renewal of its envelope, and the construction of an additional storey at roof level and a new entrance. Rather than replacing the building’s ceramic-tile-faced, precast concrete and aluminium frame glazed facades with a like-for-like system, LDN Architects, in consultation with Buro Happold Engineering, specified Shackerley’s SureClad engineered stone ventilated facade system. While tests to the concrete building envelope revealed that it was still structurally sound, it was coming to the end of its design life. The tiles have been removed and the precast concrete facades stripped out. On the north and south elevations, the concrete facade has been replaced by solid insulated panels that have been toggled into the new curtain wall, which is supported off the face of the existing concrete slab, and the windows have been replaced. On the east and west elevations, where there is little glazing, the facade has been infilled with insulated structural metal frame and board, which supports the engineered stone facade. Appleton Tower: new facade
4 C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 Periodically Some, perhaps many, readers of this column will be members of one or more of the invaluable voluntary third-sector heritage organisations whose publications it falls to me to review here. It seems appropriate in this issue of Context to say something about the publication bonuses that such affiliations provide, above and beyond supporting and informing their members from time to time about what they do. The bonuses I am thinking about are the annual or intermittent scholarly journals and transactions that add so much to our knowledge and understanding, and arrive together with or in lieu of printed newsletters. As an example, in recent years in addition to publishing its excellent magazine, the Twentieth Century Society has produced a series of substantial journals. The most recent (No 12) on Housing: regional practice and local character ran to 224 pages and appeared last year. As I covered it in my recent columns with others such as the Journal of Construction History, it is worth highlighting the specific benefits that stem from membership of three other heritage organisations. The annual Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society (2017) has now reached Volume 61. It runs to 164 pages and alone is worth the cost of the annual subscription. Like the remit of the society itself, the content is broad and always stimulates wide interest. It opens with a consideration by EurwynWiliam one of the towering figures in the study of Welsh vernacular architecture from the 1930s to the 1980s: Iorwerth Peate, Sir Cyril Fox and Peter Smith, whose work was significant not merely inWales but further afield. The paper assesses their respective contributions and influence, and explores the relationships and tensions between them. Peate is particularly known for his 1940 book TheWelsh House, and the establishment of theWelsh Folk Museum at St Fagan. Smith demonstrated the existence of distinct regional building cultures within the principality. Fox is known to many for his innovative in-depth study of the houses of Monmouthshire that formed a valuable analytical model for many other professional and amateur investigators to follow. Anthony Rossi looks at flint secular buildings from different periods in Norfolk, the fourth largest county in England but largely devoid of conventional building stone. He points out that the building types and period over which flint was a truly vernacular material were comparatively short, but highlights its arts and crafts revival, and more modern decorative uses such as the wonderful precast panels of knapped flint used on Norwich Central Library in 1960–62 (regrettable destroyed by fire in 1994). Rossi illustrates a splendid range of examples but concludes that while traditional use of flint has not died out, it is being kept artificially alive, particularly in new housing in north Norfolk as lip-service paid to local distinctiveness – often for dwellings as expensive second homes. Anthony Peers has used the analysis of a 19th-century dairy farmstead in North Shropshire to reflect on the thoroughness of the mid-Victorian quest to improve agricultural productivity in a golden era for farmers between 1840 and 1880. The resultant form of the buildings reflected the advanced scientific thinking of the time. Peers shows that a considerable amount of thought was given to the siting of the Whitegates Farm shippon (cattle shed), with a sophistication that could not have been imagined 50 years earlier. He notes that this type of building is under-represented in the statutory list, and if they fall into disuse they may be compromised by uninformed alteration. The author shows that the heritage significance of farmstead buildings extends beyond their visual appeal. In this instance careful and thorough assessment has led to the appropriate conversion to a new use. The AMS Transactions carry a longer version of Malcolm Airs’ discussion of the extraordinary, unbuilt 1966 Pier Luigi Nervi circular design for a new Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford that was also noted in my last column, and featured on the cover of the most recent issue of C20, the magazine of the Twentieth Century Society. Peter Guilly has produced a polemical essay entitled ‘Vernacular Revival and Ideology: what’s left?’ taken from a lecture he gave at the 2015 Vernacular Architecture Group conference on vernacular revivalism. He comments on how vernacular revival has gone hand in hand with leftist ideology since 1900. Penelope Harris describes hitherto unresearched connections between a major church project by JA Hansom in Plymouth and three churches in Boulogne-sur-Mer, Northern France, in the mid-19th-century. These involved a complex network of Roman Catholic aristocratic patronage and zealotry on both sides of the Channel. A particularly valuable benefit of membership of ASCHB (Association for Studies in the Conservation of Historic Buildings) is its excellent Transactions, which for 2017 has reached Volume 39 and runs to 68 pages. This issue commences with an explanation by Roger Bowdler, director of listing at Historic England, of the statutory protection now offered to commercial office buildings of the era 1965 to 1995 (a cut-off date, you will note, well within the 30-year rule).
C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 5 A helpful summary is given about the background to post-war commercial listing that commenced in 1987 with the listing of Bracken House (1955–59), the former Financial Times headquarters and printing works just to the south-east of St Paul’s Cathedral. Bowdler notes the pressure to keep the best of the recent past, and the importance of identifying the best when the function and design of offices has changed hugely in the70 years since 1945. Although post-war listing had swung into action in the 1990s and tackled different categories of buildings thematically (housing, education, transport and so on), the controversial Centre Point, completed in 1966, was listed back in 1995. Bowdler points out that tall buildings in London and other large cities remain a huge planning challenge. One of the ironies of conservation is that Historic England is responsible for recommending listing of some tall buildings while opposing the erection of others. Bowdler describes the twin challenges of the listing 2013–14 programme: first, bringing the coverage of the thematic survey on commercial buildings up to date by advancing the coverage to 1985; and, second, bringing the list descriptions more in line with modern practice. The reasons for the relatively recent selections are fascinating but require public acceptance if the process of protection is to have credibility. The author concedes that listing does cause concern among commercial owners as they see their freedom of options being reduced, but the rigour of the process had led commercial property managers to say how proud they are to see the heritage virtues of their buildings defined. The second essay of interest, by Helen Ensor, an architectural historian working for Donald Insall Associates, concerns an under-researched stylistic aspect of the Edwardian revival, the use of architectural fixtures from 18th-century buildings incorporated into either newly built Edwardian houses or those which received a makeover in the Edwardian period. This subject will be of interest to those faced with the evaluation of interiors that contain, for example, paneling that turns out on close inspection to be a mixture of genuine early 18th-century work and material from the early 20th century (and later) made up to match. Ensor looks at four broad categories of architectural approach: Queen Anne outside and inside; Queen Anne outside with a contemporary (for example art-deco) interior; the contemporary (often idiosyncratic) exterior with a Queen Anne interior; and ‘the mixture’ – a ‘real’ old building with a mixture of retained, imported and created 18th-century interior features. Ensor touches on the trade in architectural salvage, particularly in the early 20th century, before addressing the complex issue of identifying and analysing which parts of the building are ‘significant’.While the primary construction is very likely to be of high significance, later alterations may also contribute to significance, especially if these are themselves of some age and quality. The consent regime typically treats interiors created in the Edwardian period in a highly variable manner. Ensor poses some interesting questions regarding 18th century houses where relatively recent interventions have often been overlooked. She questions what fate should befall interiors that have already been moved from one (demolished) house and reused in another 100 years ago. This salvaged material can be significant both in its own right as historic fabric but also as part of a later insertion that adds another layer of interest to the building overall. This is a complex area and Ensor’s essay is well worth seeking out. Thorough careful conservation practice is exemplified in Eleni Makri’s detailed description of her repair, renovation and part re-modeling of a Grade II* 18th-century building at 12 Bedford Row, Holborn. Makri clearly explains the scope and nature of the works carried out first in 2008 and later in 2011–14 for the same client. Her aim was to achieve exemplary standards of reinstatement to the original Georgian facades. This is amply demonstrated by the illustrations and scaled drawings. Extensive repairs were required to the interior, including work to the historic paneling. Makri describes the underlying principles behind installing contemporary services that complemented the building’s historic fabric and internal layout. She demonstrates that the protected status of the building was never considered to be a hindrance but was instead a stimulus for good design, resulting in a contemporary and stylish outcome. Jacqueline Heath, a conservationaccredited engineer at Ramboll, describes the recent repairs to the iconic and elegant Iron Bridge, Shropshire, the world’s first cast-iron bridge. The history and construction from 1779 to 1780 are remarkably well documented, but throughout the lifetime of the bridge it seems that each generation caring for it has, perhaps unconsciously, been influenced by the engineering innovations and practices of its time. This has resulted in a chronology of distinct repair approaches that provide the framework for the recent programme of analysis and conservation. From the start this was a pioneering structure on a difficult site. There were initial design flaws, but fortunately the structure had inbuilt resilience, allowing it to withstand substantial ground movement and major cracking. Heath shows the importance of understanding the previous repairs (and recent discoveries and interpretations) within the context of contemporary conservation philosophy. The latest programme of repairs involves relatively minor work to retain historic fabric, prevent further damage and enhance durability related to the ironwork. This work includes interventions to cracked radials and repairs to the ends of deck plates, and repainting and masonry repairs and this represented more a case of good conservation maintenance than major intervention. The extent to which past observations and interventions have been documented has proved greatly beneficial, and appears to reveal more than an earlier writer or artist may have intended. Heath draws an interesting parallel with the principle that work to historic structures should be reversible in case future generations have better ideas, and that present-day records of work to historic structures should be thorough and detailed in case future generations can better interpret them. aschb transactions volume 39: 2017 ASSOCIATION FOR STUDIES IN THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS
6 C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 Repair issues associated with another fascinating historic building – St Judeon-the-Hill, Hampstead Garden Suburb by Sir Edwin Lutyens – are described in a paper by the architect Margaret Davies. Hampstead Garden Suburb was laid out to designs prepared by Sir Raymond Unwin around a formal park to be surrounded by monumental architecture. Lutyens was appointed as the consulting architect for this area, called Central Square, and the ‘houses of worship and learning’. His design included three dominant buildings on the scale of his government buildings for New Delhi rather than that of an English suburb: two major church buildings, the Free Church and St Jude-on-the-Hill, flanked by the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute, which was built in a series of phases between 1908 and 1930. Davies sets out the urgency and extent of the accumulated defects, and the need for repairs stemming from successive quinquennial inspections carried out in 2007 and 2013, and in the interim inspection undertaken in 2016. At the time of the article, the building had been the subject of an initially unsuccessful application for Heritage Lottery Funding for significant works to repair, the intended subsequent improvement to the provision for visitors and the creation of a new learning hub in the Lady Chapel, focusing on the history of Hampstead Garden Suburb. Also worthy of note in these Transactions is a well-argued and wellillustrated proposition by Colin Kerr, partner and co-founder of Molyneux Kerr Architects, that design and conservation are not antithetical and may be two sides of the same coin, but by being on different sides of that coin they may be being studied by what now seem to be oppositional factions. Kerr deprecates the fact that in schools of architecture, history is now relegated to the fringe, whereas many in conservation see contemporary design as of little worth and incapable of bringing critical faculties to bear on buildings old or new. His paper is a worthwhile move to reconcile the perceived division. The Victorian Society’s Studies in Victorian Architecture and Design has reached its sixth volume (of 162 pages), revisiting the work of William Butterfield, one of the first great gothic revivalists. This reassessment is timely as the last monograph on the architect was Paul Thompson’s celebrated study of 1971, which has long been out of print. The editors, Peter Howell and Andrew Saint, share a lifelong admiration for Butterfield’s work. The 10 contributions, hugely enlivened by the use of colour illustrations throughout, include papers on the perplexing character of the architect (Rosemary Hill); Butterfield’s place in the pantheon of High Anglicanism (Geoff Brantwood); the houses by the architect (Michael Hall); the influence of Butterfield abroad, particularly in Australia (Alex Bremner); the Cathedral of the Isles (Gavin Stamp); works in Oxford (Peter Howell); the 1895 restoration of All Saint’s Margaret Street (Andrew Saint) and the restorations since 1998 (Colin Kerr); and papers on researching and writing about Butterfield (Paul Thompson), and illustrating Butterfield (Andrew Saint, Helen Jones and Chris Redgrave). Past volumes of the Studies series have covered Pevsner’s attitude to Victorian architecture; the era of the 1840s; churches 1870 to 1914; and what the 20th century thought of 19th-century architecture. Bob Kindred MBE From the address at the 12th annual meeting of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings by William Morris (1889) People say… that men like Edington, Wickham, and the rest deal with the buildings according to the convenience and needs of the day. They restored, developed, and altered them, and why should not we? They certainly did so, and though we may sometimes regret that a Norman building was turned into a Perpendicular one, we cannot help feeling that these people had a right to do as they did. But why? Because we are perfectly conscious that when they took away something they left us a living thing in its place. It seems to me that the life of these buildings lay in the traditions of the human race handed down from generation to generation, and the architects of the later Middle Ages worked as the traditions of their own times compelled them to work. Tradition compelled them to set the mason and the carpenter to work on the buildings, according to their traditions. But as for us, the tradition of our times forbids us to pretend to do this, and to imitate them mechanically in their actions. We could not do so with a clear conscience; we should be masquerading in the past-master’s clothes. It seems to me that for us to pretend to be William of Wykeham and the like, would not be acknowledging the continuity of history, but ignoring it. In their time tradition was not only alive in the world at large, but it was alive in a very definite form, in the actual craftsmen themselves, the people who had to deal with the old buildings. In these days tradition is absolutely dead among them. Therefore we shall better carry on the continuity of history by gaining genuine knowledge of the past, by careful study of it, and by acting with conscious public spirit in the present than by imagining an unbroken mechanical connection between the present and the past, which does not exist.
C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 7 Reconciling infrastructure and heritage Legal briefing Mark Challis writes: Infrastructure schemes often affect the historic environment, frequently to its detriment. Occasionally, the requirements of new infrastructure and the significance of the built historic environment combine to the benefit of both, with spectacular results. Think of St Pancras or King’s Cross stations, for example. This article looks briefly at the ways in which heritage considerations are dealt with under the main ways in which infrastructure schemes, such as roads, railways, energy schemes and airports, are authorised. In the vast majority of cases, the effects of an infrastructure project on the historic environment will be a matter for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. Under this the effects, both negative and positive, can be identified and assessed. However, the effect of a project on the historic environment, while important, will usually not be determinative. In many cases it will be trumped by the benefits of the infrastructure scheme, provided that due consideration has been given to the historic environment, and that any intervention is reasonable and proportionate. Infrastructure projects are generally consented in one of four main ways: by Act of Parliament; by development consent order; by Transport and Works Act order; and under the conventional planning system. Heritage considerations are relevant whichever process is used, but how they are taken into account and how works affecting the historic environment are regulated differ under each process. Act of Parliament In a handful of cases, very large and usually linear schemes are authorised by Act of Parliament. The first phase of HS2 has now been authorised by the High Speed Rail (London toWest Midlands) Act 2017, following in the footsteps of the Crossrail Act 2008 and HS1, which was authorised by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. All these schemes had or will have substantial effects on the historic environment. These acts deal with the historic environment in much the same way. To take HS2 Phase 1 as the most recent example: • The act authorises the promoter to carry out the necessary works, including to listed buildings and scheduled monuments (including demolition). • Accordingly, the act dis-applies the need to obtain listed building consent or scheduled monument consent (there is no longer a need to obtain conservation area consent), or to meet various requirements that would otherwise apply to such heritage assets, where this would be inconsistent with the works authorised by the act. • The secretary of state has powers to dis-apply the dis-applications where he considers that appropriate. • The effects of the scheme on the historic environment were considered extensively in the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement under the heading of ‘cultural heritage’. The secretary of state has given numerous commitments as regards heritage and the historic environment in the so-called Environmental Minimum Requirements (see Annex 3, Heritage Memorandum). St Pancras station: new infrastructure meets heritage with spectacular results
8 C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 Development consent order The main way in which the largest infrastructure schemes are now authorised is by the secretary of state making a development consent order (DCO) under the 2008 Act. Fifty-nine DCOs have been made so far, covering different types of infrastructure, with more in the energy sector than any other. The DCO regime was put in place to address growing concerns that the conventional planning system was too slow and cumbersome, in too many cases, to deal with large infrastructure developments. Many large infrastructure schemes became bogged down in lengthy delays and long public inquiries, in some cases not assisted by uncertainty about relevant government policy. Even when planning permission was finally obtained, there was often still a need to obtain numerous other consents and powers, including compulsory purchase powers, under other processes. The 2008 Act cut through this by providing for the authorisation of infrastructure schemes in the transport, energy, water, waste and waste water sectors above a statutory threshold set out in the act (so-called ‘nationally significant infrastructure projects’, although not all of them are) in the form of a DCO. The DCO will usually give a promoter powers to build and operate the scheme, compulsory purchase powers to acquire land, and most of the other powers needed to construct and use the infrastructure. There is no public inquiry but instead a series of hearings which take place within a fixed sixmonth examination period that largely consists of written representations. As regards the historic environment, the authorisation given by the DCO obviates completely the need to obtain planning permission, listed building consent, scheduled monument consent and numerous other consents. With no requirement to obtain planning permission, the statutory tests in sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requiring special regard to be had to listed buildings and conservation areas are not engaged, but there are equivalent tests in regulations made under the 2008 Act. The effects of the scheme on the historic environment should still be dealt with in an environmental statement. They will be highly relevant to the recommendation of the examining authority and the decision of the secretary of state. Further, there will often still be detailed control over interventions in the historic environment, by way of requirements set out in the DCO itself – requirements being the DCO equivalent of planning conditions. Like planning conditions, requirements are enforceable by the local planning authority, not the secretary of state, with some DCO requirements providing for approvals to be deemed to have been given if applications are not decided within a certain time. Transport and Works Act order Some types of infrastructure, particularly railways not operated by Network Rail, light-rail systems, tram systems and infrastructure involving waterways, including flood-defence works, can be authorised by an order made under the Transport andWorks Act 1992, commonly called Transport andWorks Act orders (TWAOs). Unlike the DCO regime, which must be used for infrastructure prescribed by legislation to fall within it (unless an Act of Parliament is obtained), a developer can opt to use the TWAO process or not. Many do, particularly where compulsory purchase powers are needed. The TWAO regime, again unlike the DCO regime, does not displace the need to obtain planning permission, listed building consent or scheduled monument consent. However, the secretary of state has specific power to direct that planning permission be granted for the scheme that is the subject of the TWAO if the developer so requests (a so-called ‘deemed planning permission’). It is common practice to do this and rare for the secretary of state to grant one without the other. Listed building consents still need to be obtained by application to the local planning authority in the usual way and scheduled monument consents by application to the secretary of state. However, under the Transport andWorks Applications (Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Scheduled Monuments Procedure) Regulations 1992, the procedure for their determination is modified where the works in question relate to a TWAO application. In particular, under the 1992 Regulations, applications for listed building consent made within 10 weeks following the relevant TWAO application are automatically referred to the secretary of state. If made later than that and undetermined by the local planning authority, the secretary of state may direct that the application is referred to him for determination. An appeal against a refusal of listed building consent by the local planning authority (or nondetermination) would bring the matter before the secretary of state in any event. By these various means, it is highly likely that any listed building consent or scheduled monument application relating to a TWAO scheme will come before the same inquiry (technically concurrent inquiries) as the TWAO/ deemed planning permission application, if the timescales permit. Conventional planning system Many infrastructure schemes (and particularly social infrastructure schemes such as schools and hospitals) are consented under the conventional planning system by application to the local planning authority in the usual way. Accordingly, listed building consent and scheduled monument consent will need to be applied for in the usual way as well. For all of the advantages of the DCO and TWAO processes (the former being brought in to deal with the shortcomings of the conventional planning system and the latter as an alternative to obtaining Acts of Parliament), decision making at the local level under the conventional planning system still has many advantages. If all goes well, it is likely to deliver the relevant consents much more quickly and with far less expense. But if the local planning authority does not favour the scheme, or if landowners are unwilling to cooperate, or if there are numerous local planning authorities to deal with, it is likely to be a different story. Since most developments are not infrastructure schemes, most developers have no choice but to use the conventional planning system and to prevail on the local planning authority to use its own compulsory purchase powers if needed to assemble the land. With there being around 500,000 listed buildings, almost 10,000 conservation areas and almost 20,000 scheduled monuments in England, few infrastructure schemes will have no impact on the historic environment. A decision will often need to be made to sacrifice heritage for infrastructure where the national interest requires, irreplaceable though heritage may be, in view of the pressure to deliver infrastructure and the economic growth on which it depends. Mark Challis is a partner in Bircham Dyson Bell’s government and infrastructure team, which specialises in obtaining consents for infrastructure and many other kinds of development.
0207 686 0066 Heritage House, 73 Bredgar Road, London N19 5BS www.rosewoodltd.net CONTRACTORSHEALTH&SAFETYASSESSMENTSCHEME AccreditedContractor www.chas.co.uk Our significant client base is testament to our flexible approach and ability to consistently deliver a high quality service, whilst minimising inconvenience and disruption. Rosewood Ltd completes works to the entire building envelope, including; scaffolding, specialist cleaning, masonry, roofing, joinery and decoration works. Our passion for each project is only matched to that of the building’s splendour, which we are conserving and passing on to the next generation. For over 20years Rosewood Ltd has successfully been restoring London’s most historic and prestigious buildings.
10 C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 IHBC recognised historic environment service provider › Conservation area management › Article 4 Directions › Urban design and the public realm › Regeneration funding › Characterisation studies › Site evaluation › Listed building advice › Statements of significance › Buildings at risk and local lists › Conservation plans › Training and locum support › Expert witness 01730 816710| theconservationstudio.co.uk THE CONSERVATION STUDIO ARCHITECTS AND HERITAGE LEADERS AT THE FOREFRONT OF CONSERVATION FOR SEVEN DECADES. Winners of the RICS East of England Project of the Year Award 2016 for Sacrewell Watermill in Peterborough (pictured). _ @purcelluk www.purcelluk.com Old House Store is one of the UK’s leading manufacturers and suppliers for traditional building and decorating materials. Our extensive range of products are ideal for sympathetic restorations, major and minor repairs and decorating of period properties. We offer the highest quality products, all made using traditional techniques. Many products are hand made in our workshops. As well as being traditional, our products are sensitive to the environment. Our knowledgeable and friendly staff can help specify the right products for your project, large or small, and give guidance and advice for their application. All of our products can be delivered throughout the UK. Unit 2 Paddock Road Industrial Estate, Paddock Road, Caversham Reading, Berkshire RG4 5BY Tel: 0118 946 9146 Email: info@oldhousestore.co.uk Come and see us, call us, or visit our website: www.oldhousestore.co.uk CLAY ROOF TILES CAST IRON ROOF LIGHTS OAK TILE PEGS AND DOWELS HAND-RIVEN OAK & CHESTNUT ROOFING BATTENS CAST IRON GUTTERING HAND-RIVEN OAK & CHESTNUT LATHS FAT LIME FINE & COARSE PLASTERS HAND MADE BRICKS HAND FORGED IRONMONGERY PRE-MIXED HYDRAULIC LIME MORTAR OAK FLOORING LEDGED & PLANKED OAK DOORS SHEEP’S WOOL & HEMP INSULATIONS CLAY & WOODFIBRE BOARDS PRE-MIXED HYDRAULIC LIME RENDERS & PLASTERS LIMEWASH & SILICATE PAINTS BREATHABLE PAINTS OldHouseStore Ad - QuarterPage_OldHouseStore Ad - QuarterPage 27/04/
C O N T E X T 1 4 9 : M A Y 2 0 1 7 11 G R E E N R E T R O F I T The retrofit process Retrofitting traditional buildings depends on understanding how they differ from modern construction. John Edwards, guest commissioning editor, introduces the retrofit process and the theme of this issue of Context. Retrofit is often defined as adding something that a building did not have when it was constructed. This may seem like an odd place to start when there could be ways to make existing building fabric more energy efficient without adding anything to it. Unfortunately, jumping into retrofit as the first thing to do seems to be the most common approach. The Every Home Counts report on retrofit is indicative of this (see John Preston’s article, page 13). While that report mentions an holistic approach, that is not really what it is, otherwise it would not start with retrofit. There are some very important steps to take if one is contemplating retrofit of any building, and most certainly a traditional or historic one. This is because the onesize-fits-all approach treats all buildings as if they were modern. The first lesson must be that traditional buildings are very different and should be treated differently. In a nutshell, traditional buildings are permeable and modern buildings rely on vapour barriers. The need to retain vapour permeability and the risks we take when we do not are well explained in the article on dampness (page 15) and by Colin King on retrofit risks (page 23). It is essential to understand the location of the building and the weather exposure zone it is located in. For example, London and Swansea are only 200 miles apart, but Swansea receives four times as much rainfall as London. Understanding the type of building, its age and original construction, including the materials it is constructed from, is critically important. So are how the building has been altered and repaired, and its condition. A thorough survey is required, taking a building-pathological approach, as outlined in the article on dampness, and using the latest technology, as described by Jo Atkinson (page 17). The condition survey should include an analysis of how the building is used and the suitability of that use. For example, is proper use made of the existing ventilation? Is sufficient ventilation provided? Is a particular use prone to producing high levels of humidity? Married to data about its condition, this type of information can help us understand how a building performs. The next stage involves consideration of ‘works’ that should be undertaken to the building’s existing fabric. Putting the building into good repair and devising the means by which to manage moisture is essential. Damp building fabric can be up to 30 per cent less energy efficient than that which is dry. This points towards maintaining and repairing buildings properly, and not doing anything that will trap moisture. Only after ‘energy efficiency works’ have been carried out should ‘measures’ be considered. An energy performance certificate (EPC) will detail recommended measures. These should be considered critically. EPCs for dwellings are produced by a method known as RdSAP (Reduced Data Standard Assessment Procedure). Due to its relative simplicity, with standardised rather than real data being used, RdSAP is an inaccurate means of determining energy efficiency and so can produce unreliable recommendations. For example, RdSAP does not consider how a building is used or its condition, and its raw data on, for example, the thermal efficiency of solid walls is flawed, as Caroline Rye and Cameron Scott explain. A more robust approach is to use a BRE Domestic Energy Model (BREDEM) method such as the Home Energy Master Plan. Even with this, caution should be exercised. There can often be a conflict between energy advice and advice based on building pathology. As Carsten Hermann implies (page 20), this may be because The holistic retrofit process following BS 7913: 2013 up to the advice and design stage: Dealing with existing fabric first Condition survey Work to existing fabric, making it more energy efficient Energy efficiency assessment Test proposals with heritage impact assessments Advise, then design ‘works’ and ‘measures’ Consider and evaluate mix of possible ‘works’ to existing fabric and retrofit ‘measures’, using the STBA Guidance Wheel Determine which proposals are likely to work. Carry out cost benefit analysis, which may result in reconsideration Consider use Building pathology The heritage impact assessment process considers all types of issue Influence and list List of recommended measures Amended proposals
www.ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=