40 CONTEXT 176 : JUNE 2023 John Preston had many dealings with King’s College during his 22 years with Cambridge City Council. He engaged with this proposal as Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance heritage chair (and raised it at IHBC policy committee), and as a local professional, resident and artist. He is very grateful for the input of Oliver Caroe, the college’s architect, Christian Brady of Cambridge City Council, and Historic England. 4 http://bc-url.com/ ctx176jp5 5 http://bc-url.com/ ctx176jp6 6 Savings according to updated figures on amendment sheet 27. See http://bc-url.com/ ctx176jp7 and http:// bc-url.com/ctx176jp8 another letter in support; objections from IHBC member Robin Uff and me; and updated performance projections, reflecting technological improvements to the proposed panels. At the planning committee meeting, the committee’s only architect member (and executive councillor for planning policy) left the meeting before the King’s College item. Objectors, including Historic England, were heard before supporters of the application: the Provost of King’s, and four ward councillors (not members of the committee). The debate turned on balances between public benefit (both as an exemplar seen by millions of people, and from any carbon saving) and ‘less than substantial harm’ to the listed building. The officer recommendation was overturned, and planning permission granted, by six votes to nil. The committee’s decision⁴ delegated approval of conditions to the chair, vice-chair and opposition spokesperson. Historic England had no formal locus in this, as no listed building application was involved for this Grade I building (unlike the similarly controversial one regarding Trinity College New Court – see my article in the 2022 IHBC Yearbook). The decision notice⁵ includes a condition requiring the panels to be removed within 30 years, and an informative covering maintenance and fire safety. How many Context readers have seen this decision quoted as a precedent for all historic roofs, anywhere? Does it set any form of precedent? In the absence of a clear anchor, such as BS EN 16883:2017, the Cambridge councillors’ politically simple message, and view of public benefit, were almost bound to trump professional complexities. The public consultation was inadequate because the trial panels were invisible throughout the consideration of both applications. The annual carbon savings to which the councillors attached great weight are comparable to the carbon cost of just 28 people flying from London to New York⁶, a point not put to the committee. ‘Less than substantial harm’ to the internationally outstanding significance of the chapel, with minimal impact on historic fabric, provides no general justification for solar PV on other historic buildings, whose roofs form a substantial part of their significance, and whose fabric may in some cases require alteration to carry the weight of PV. What may (just) work in terms of visual impact on the uniform, part-concealed roof slopes of King’s College Chapel, certainly will not on the irregular profiles and rich textures of old tiles or thatch. So, no precedent: each case has to be considered on its merits. No general conclusions should be drawn from this highly individual and flawed case. Historic England’s recommendation left it to the council to determine the balance between the public benefit of the renewables and the harm to the listed building. The Cambridge councillors have done just that, determined to be radical in the fight against climate change. Their message is out. The heritage sector must face up to the implications. Views from the north (Castle Hill) in 2020. The rhythm of the pierced parapets against the lead roof is significant in views, and changes according to light conditions. Reflective panels would stand out in contrast. (Photos: John Preston)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=