Context 162 - November 2019

C O N T E X T 1 6 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 9 43 Initial works, which were expected to cost around £128,000, included some demolition, re-roofing of the 15th-century Great Hall and extensive restoration of the Oriel window. In 1977 the new museum was officially opened by the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon. By 1985 it was clear that another large pro- gramme of works would be required. At this point the Charles practice was approved as consultant to oversee restoration works to the Georgian re-fronted, 15th-century solar wing. During these works Freddie was able to cor- roborate previous research by Nick Molyneux that the solar wing and Great Hall were not just broadly contemporary but had been the subject of a single construction event. The new works were completed with a good deal of timber replacement, and with the removal of a 16th- or 17th-century ceiling, although the latter seems to have predated the Charles practice’s involvement. There was controversy over the recommendation by Freddie to install 15th- century style windows as a replacement for the Georgian sashes. This proposal was rejected in order to retain more of the historic development of the building. In 1988 a detailed structural survey report was produced relating to the reconditioning of the Canal Range, including Sidbury shop, workshop and warehouse. This was submitted in support of a listed building consent application, which stated that the existing building was currently unsafe. Indeed, local councillor Geoff Carpenter later commented that ‘the whole building was resting on a jar of dolly mixtures in a sweet shop’. This new phase of works was to bring the shops fronting on to Sidbury into use by the museum, giving the complex much more of a public presence. The canal range and shops had been structur- ally compromised in the early 19th century with the building of the canal, which runs parallel to the site. The long range of buildings running north from the street frontage had been rapidly shored up and infilled with cheap brick, while the south-west corner of the shop frontage took on a rather slumped appearance that was never fully rectified. By the 1980s, it was clear that radical intervention was required. Freddie’s proposals for this phase were broadly met with approval and passed by the local con- servation team and English Heritage inspectors. Proposals for the shops fronting on to Sidbury however, were less popular. Extensive works were required to secure the building, which was in danger of collapse. Freddie applied his distinctive style to the design, proposing that the 19th-century alterations be taken out in favour of a return to the predominantly 16th-century nature of the building. Comments from the director of Avoncroft Museum of Buildings echoed the sentiments of many: ‘While accepting that the structural implications are considerable, we find the pro- posed loss of the present appearance of the shop is to be deplored. The way in which the building has been altered at various times with the incorporation of sash windows and hipped roofs gives it a charming if somewhat quirky appear- ance. The proposed reconstruction is charmless and uncompromising.’The Ancient Monuments Society merely commented: ‘Another model FWB Charles scheme!’ It is during this period that Freddie came in to particular conflict with the head of planning at Worcester City Council, Stuart McNidder. A series of letters flowed back and forth. In one such letter to McNidder in 1988 Freddie firmly lays out his stall: ‘We should not alter its design… for the sake of architectural embel- lishment… That would be wholly against our method and principle, which is to allow the historical structure to speak and suppress all architectural whims, whether ours or anybody else’s.’ Letters from English Heritage’s historic buildings architect urged that they ‘resolve the difference of opinion’. Unfortunately the disagreement continued,and the demolition of a chimney stack on Freddie’s order (without listed building consent) caused particular bad feeling. Freddie insisted that this was necessary to repair the joists to Bay 1 (the workshop). English Heritage demanded that this must be reinstated, something which he was very loathe to do.The situation dragged out for many months, until finally further research undertaken by the Charles practice provided them with the evidence to ensure that they would not after all be compromising their principles, and the stack was rebuilt. The resulting work, while controversial to many, has ensured that the Commandery muse- um has remained as a well-used and well-loved landmark of the city, and should continue to be so for many years to come. It is clear that Freddie Charles was an uncom- promising and passionate individual.While some of his renovations might be thought harsh in the present day, there is no doubt that Freddie’s and Mary’s passion and commitment saved much of Worcestershire’s heritage from demolition. The Charles Archive is a fantastic record of both the conservation of individual structures, and the story of the development of conservation prin- ciples. Having this archive digitally catalogued, with at least part of it available online, is a valuable addition to that story. More information about the project can be found at www.explorethepast.co.uk/project/ Charles-archive. Emily Hathaway, historic landscape officer at Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service, managed the Charles Archive project; TimCornah is a project officer and buildings archaeologist with Worcestershire Archaeology, with a particular interest in medieval and later timber- framed buildings; Sheena Payne-Lunn has managed the Worcester City historic environment record since 2003; and Tegan Cornah, a historic environment record assistant atWorcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service, was responsible for integrating the Charles Archive data into the county HER.