24 Carol Ryan looks at the conservation problems of rural non-domestic buildings ATIMETOTHINKAND PLAN This is the first part of a two part article. The second part will appear in the next issue. In May 1995 English Heritage and the RCHM(E)ranajointintemalseminar, the purpose of which was to address the issues raised by farm buildings as far as they relate to the functions of the two organisations. A contribution was requested on the conservation offarm buildings from the point of view of a Conservation Officer/Planning Officer. The nature of the problem, the need for policies and what would help in their formulation, together with ways in which the two organisations could contribute was addressed. (The views expressed here in no way purport to represent the opinions of either English Heritage or the RCHME.) In addition, the author has supervised an undergraduate dissertation which investigated the policies and has drawn guidelines for conversion in use over the country as a whole. Finally a useful opportunity to work with the Rural Development Commission and Local Authorities in Dorset on the survey of under-used non domestic buildings, largely of the farm building variety has stimulated the bringing together of a body of information on the subject of conversion in the rural context at a time when there is something of a lull in formal applications. PART 1: AN ASSESSMENTOF THE SITUATIONTO-DATE While we may all be breathing a sigh of relief, the reverse side of the coin is that Conservation/ Planning Officers will in the future have to deal with an even more derelict and under-used countryside with a vast wealth of history encapsulated within the built environment. That this has managed to escape the ravages of the 1970s grants for portal framed sheds (these too are now joining the ranks of the under-used) and the 1980s domesticconversion purge is something of a miracle. The current vogue of' Set aside' isnot designed to encourage reuse but neither is it resulting in mass demolition, the scourge or the 1970s, while the collapse of the housing market means that there is time to think and plan. There is still a trickle of domestic conversions, especiallyin tourist areas such as Dorset; it still provides a massive capital boost to the vendor, and it is difficult to put forward options which make this less attractive. Conversion to less nondestructive uses, a different type of farming or workshops/ light industry is still far too slow to catch on; hence the campaign to survey all rural non-domestic buildings in parts of Dorset, funded by the Rural Development Commission which the author has co-ordinated via district councils, community councils and the RDC itself. The aim is identify rural buildings which measure up to a range of criteria including planning requirements, and that most important of commodities, owner good will, as well as collecting valuable data on building types and materialsto enable good designcriteriatobeusedinanymodifications. Such modifications can be just as damaging as domestic conversion if care is not taken. Residential conversions continue to be a problem in relation to design. Some substantial buildings, i.e. those constructed in brick, ashlar or coursed squared mbble stonework, can withstand conversion, particularly if the local authority has made a conscious decision only to encourage those schemes which retain existing openings. Success is also possible if, in addition, it has encouraged the retention ofexistingjoinery, and the replication of missing joinery in the traditional pegged heavy wood frame with bead moulded plank doors. Insubstantial buildings such as timber frame and random uncoursed mbble have considerably more problems inwithstanding the exigencies of residential conversion; they are frequently rebuilt to satisfybuilding society surveyors, resulting in what can best be described as a sham, especially if finished with standard joineryinenlarged/newopenings.However good the conversion externally, there isthe inevitable loss of internal features such as storage bay dividers, which are invariably regional, and other more portable features such as cattle bay divisions,cobble flooring, corn bins, tack rooms and kickboards. There is always the problem of the building which has been converted many times from one farming use to another. The countryside islitteredwith barns and stables converted to stock rearing sheds in the late 19th century corn slump. To which phase do we return in our endeavour to portray some semblance of its function in the domestic conversion, assuming that the planningauthorityisendeavouringto pursue this objective? Some buildings simply defy conversion, such as long low cowhouses, pigsties, hay barns and shelter sheds, yet these humble buildings are essential to the understandingofhowacompletefarmstead functioned. Thelatterwith tl1eirsouth-facing yards appear to merit no recognition in developer-led schemes seen in Wiltshire recently, yet they were fundamental to the setting of the other fam1 buildings and provide reallygood storage facilities.Ideally they are best reused forstock, ashappens on the major Norfolk estates, but fam1 smells and migrants from the towns make for nonharmonious neighbourly relations. Other valuable buildings are often found on farmsteads or in villages: malthouses, millswitl1tl1eirattendant machinery, both easilyrecognisable by their hoist (taking in) doors, and smithies, many of which retain their raised hearth and sometimes a full complementoftools. Theirmachinery, corn bins,kilnsandhearthsaredoubtfulsurvivors in any domestic-conversion scheme although hoist doors can survive if used as internal shutters to a glazed panel. There is no doubt that such doors should survive; theyalonearevitalindicatorsofthefunction of such buildings, a clear indication that the processes within began on the upper floors where the corn for milling or malting was unloaded to pass its way down the building through the floors. Is there then such a thing as a tmly successfuldomestic conversion, particularly for farm buildings? Rugged substantial buildings, which retain or emulate their heavy scantling joinery, and which retain around them a number of subsidiary buildings untouched apart from modest repair, retaining their 'pleasing decay', can and should benefit from domestic conversion, but they do tend to be of the laterdaterange,eglatel9thcentury,andare often not listable. In addition they must retain their setting, and the greater the landscape value the more uncluttered with domestic paraphernalia it has to be. Agreat dealofthoughtneedstobegiventowhether domestic conversions in settings of high landscape value are going to be deleterious to those landscaps. Needless to say, in all instances, listed or unlisted, the conversion must be based on sound historical understanding of the structure and development of the building, and must involve a recording of what is going to be lost, however seemingly humble - easier said than done in a hectic development control schedule. The time to record is now before the next spate of conversions and the opportunity provided to identify those buildings which are capable of reuse in a nondestructive way. Carole Ryan is Senior Lecturer - Conservation at the School of Conservation Sciences, University of Bournemouth. CONTEXT49
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=