CONSERVATION AS A CATALYST IHBC Annual School at Norwich Institute of Historic Building Conservation No 81 September 2003
S t r u c t u r a l P e r s p e c t i v e s T H E L E A D I N G E U R O P E A N S P E C I A L I S T I N D U S T R I A L A R C H A E O L O G Y S E R V I C E E X P E R T I S E Comprehensive recording of civil engineering structures, buildings, industrial sites and machinery to the highest standards available in the U.K. Hand drawing and computer aided survey and drawing facilities available. Field recording and documentary research based assessment and interpretation by the leading experts in the field of Industrial Archaeology. Compliance with the requirements of PPG 15 and PPG 16 and historic building input in the preparation of conservation plans. Field record and interpretation of opencast mining operations to PPG 16 and 15 requirements. Specialist consultancy on historic structural materials, cast iron, wrought iron, early steel, masonry and concrete. Site investigation prior to remediation and redevelopment, desk studies to locate abandoned mining, contamination sources and historic subsurface foundation features. C U R R E N T C L I E N T S English Her i tage • Histor ic Scot land • Dean Clough Indust r ial Park • Railtrack plc. • Quarry Bank Mill Trust • W. Lancaster and Co. • CVA Grimley • H. J. Banks Ltd. • Alfred McAlpine Homes plc. • AIG Consultants • ASDA Stores • Nottinghamshire County Council 48 Holdsworth Road, Holmfield, Halifax HX2 9SZ Telephone 01422 240789 Fax 01422 248785 Email ron.fitzgerald@btconnect.com
C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 1 Context THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORIC BUILDING CONSERVATION www.ihbc.org.uk Registered as a Charity Number 1061593. Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England Number 3333780. Registered Office: 3 Stafford Road,TunbridgeWells, Kent TN2 4QZ. IHBC Officers President: Malcolm Airs email president@ihbc.org.uk Chairman: Eddie Booth email chair@ihbc.org.uk Vice Chair: Ronnie Robertson email vvcmembership@ihbc.org.uk Vice Chair: JohnYates email vcpolicy@ihbc.org.uk Secretary: Richard Morrice email secretary@ihbc.org.uk Treasurer: Michael Knights email treasurer@ihbc.org.uk Membership Secretary: Vacant email membership@ihbc.org.uk Branches Coordinator: Julia Smith email branches@ihbc.org.uk Consultations Secretary: Dave Chetwyn email consultations@ihbc.org.uk Law & Practice Coordinator: Frank Kelsall email law@ihbc.org.uk Education Secretary: John Preston email education@ihbc.org.uk Publicity Secretary: Sarah Buckingham email publicity@ihbc.org.uk Branch Officers North: John Pendlebury Tel 0191 284 2119 NorthWest: Graham Arnold Tel 0151 733 9357 Yorkshire: Stephen Bateman Tel 01274 754551 West Midlands: Karen Holyoake Tel 01384 826891 East Midlands: Fiona Newton Tel 01507 601111 South: Gill Butter Tel 02380 285324 SouthWest: David Stirling Tel 01249 706502 East Anglia: Mike McConnell Tel 01284 735057 South East: Paul Barker Tel 0825 760705 London: Jon Finney Tel 01895 250536 Scotland: Jim McDonald Tel 01236 616242 Wales: Trefor Thorpe Tel 01267 231568 N Ireland: Laurence ManogueTel 028 9146 9707 Republic of Ireland: Bernard Dee Tel +353 1 473 7721 Business Office Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA England Tel 01747 873133 Fax 01747 871718 email admin@ihbc.org.uk Cover:The IHBC Annual School welcome reception atThe Forum, Norwich, by Michael Hopkins and Partners. This issue focuses on the 2003 School held at the University of East Anglia. Annual School: Conservation as a Catalyst Editorial and to move out proactively to engage with local communities, whether they are preparing their ‘Healthcheck’ for Countryside Agency funding, a village design statement to feed into local development frameworks, or interpretation of their existing environment as part of a tourism or education strategy. A catalyst initiates or alters a process, generally for the better. If conservation is to be a catalyst transforming the old enclosed world into the new it will need to bring to the process commitment, which we have in abundance and partnership. But it is clear that it will also need resources. The recent Restoration series (p9) has demonstrated that there is an abiding interest in the historic environment, but the runaway winner had a clear element of strong community support. The historic environment was seen in the case of the Victoria Baths to be relevant and able to continue to meet the needs of local people. To move successfully from being seen as part of a system that is complex and difficult to negotiate to the brave new world of, transparency, efficiency and relevance, in other words to be a successful catalyst ‘Conservation’ needs resources every bit as much as the Restoration winner. Nigel Barker This, my first Annual School for a few years, amply demonstrated that the world of conservation is evolving rapidly from the previously often enclosed realm of the ‘specialist’ into the more open world of partnership and community. This new world brings with it the excitement of new challenges and opportunities. The challenge is to keep abreast of these changes and to take the opportunities as they arise. To do this new skills have to be acquired, working with partners, listening and enabling, above all communicating and this message was at the heart of the Norwich School. Most conservation practitioners both in the public and private sectors will say that they already have these skills. After all, in private practice they are needed to acquire clients and deliver on their behalf, whilst in the public sector it is important to be able to influence and manage change to the historic environment to sustain it. But what the Annual School demonstrated was that there is another world out there of interested, motivated and enthusiastic people and communities who are willing to become involved directly in what they regard as their heritage. The traditional conservation practitioner is going to have to evolve to meet this challenge Briefing 2 Out of Context 3 Letters 4 Periodically 5 Designation and guidance in a disconnected world John Preston 7 Restoration drama Judith Martin 9 Section 55 appeals Bob Kindred 12 Annual School 2003 Report Sue Elliott 13 Heritage review Jonathan Taylor 18 Real action for market towns Martin Blackwell 20 Planning threat to local heritage Mike Brown 23 Conservation area character appraisals Jack Gillon 27 Reflections of an architectural tourist David Heath 31 IHBC news: Notes from the chair 33 Obituary, Gus Astley 34 Book reviews 35 Products and services 37
2 C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 Context Editor Robert Cowan Editorial Coordinator Nigel Barker, 65Worplesdon Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9RT. Tel 01483 562 851 email nigel57uk@yahoo.co.uk Editorial Board Nigel Barker (chair) Susan Brooks (treasurer and IT) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Julia Smith (IHBC branches) Michael Taylor (main features) Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2003 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Published for the Institute of Historic Building Conservation by Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA Tel 01747 871717 Fax 01747 871718 email context@cathcomm.demon.co.uk www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to non-members of the IHBC at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £50.00 Elsewhere £75.00 Subscription orders, together with remittances payable to Institute of Historic Building Conservation, should be sent to the IHBC Business Office at Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily those held by the IHBC nor 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 Copy deadlines Copy deadlines for Context in 2004: Issue Date March, Issue 83 15 January May, Issue 84 15 March July, Issue 85 17 May September, Issue 86 12 July November, Issue 87 13 September Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. Essex county service under threat The joint survey conducted by English Heritage and the IHBC in 2002 (published in February this year) revealed the sorry state of conservation stewardship throughout England. Conservation officers are under-resourced and over-worked, with little time for proactive work. The survey found that, due to a lack of resources, nearly a third of authorities did not compile buildings-at-risk registers, 88 per cent of authorities served no repairs notices, and 82 per cent of authorities served no urgent works notices in 2001. Those results are unsurprising to many practitioners in the field. Since they were published, a review of services within Essex by the county council, combined with the council’s desire to cut costs, has led to the conservation section being under threat. The county conservation team was set up in 1967. It has provided conservation advice to all 11 of the district councils since then (although some districts now have their own conservation officers). Partial advice is still given in most cases. Over the years the section has played an important role in recognising and conserving Essex’s heritage. It has provided specialist advice to districts and the public, publications, seminars, practical courses and seminal work in the dating of timberframe structures, with nationally recognised experts such as MikeWadhams, Cecil Hewett and Dave Stenning. Although Essex County Council has recently published seven goals, of which one is to improve the environment, a £1million cut in funding for the environment branch has been announced. This means that, without full funding provided from the district councils, conservation advice at county level will cease. This causes something of a predicament, given the financial pressures at district level. Many county conservation teams across the country have suffered similar fates, as the emphasis on district-level advice grows.With each local authority having an average of 1.7 conservation specialists, the need for a well-informed, diverse, multi-skilled and multi-disciplinary team of experts is paramount for good quality conservation advice. This is difficult to achieve with a single district officer or small team, as the DCMS consultation on the review of statutory designation recognises. Following Essex County Council budget planning for the next financial year, the future of the conservation section will be announced in November. Information on the Essex County Council conservation section and details of courses can be viewed at www.essexcc.gov.uk. The best clay roofs The Clay Roof Tile Council is inviting entries for the Clay Roofing Awards by the closing date of 31 October 2003. Awards will be presented for new build, self build and refurbishment projects. Details from crtc@golleyslater.co.uk Open and educational Ben Bergonzi has been appointed as the Civic Trust’s new head of programmes. The trust runs three major programmes: the Civic Trust Awards (architectural awards which emphasise community benefit); Heritage Open Days (England’s contribution to European Heritage Days and the UK’s largest volunteering event); and the Green Flag Awards (the standard mark for well-managed community parks and green spaces in England andWales). Bergonzi’s role will include the development of Heritage Open Days as an educational opportunity. Accreditation for engineers The Institution of Civil Engineers’ (ICE) conservation accreditation for engineers under CARE (the Conservation Accreditation Register for Engineers) is soon to be implemented. CARE, a joint initiative between the Institution of Structural Engineers and the ICE, is being established to identify engineers skilled in the conservation of historical works and sites. Peter Barnes at Sandtoft Roof Tiles making tiles to match historic originals
C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 3 while interested in conservation, often lack some of the necessary background understanding. Out of something like 4,000 students who have attended a postgraduate course in building conservation, only around 20 have been engineers. The course ‘Conservation and refurbishment: keeping buildings alive’ is organised annually by the Institution of Structural Engineers. This year it had to be cancelled due to lack of support. According to the DTI’s Annual Construction Statistics for 2002, of an annual budget of £60 billion (at 1995 prices), half was related to maintenance and repair. It has also been reported that more than 90 per cent of the urban fabric that will exist in 30 years time has already been built. A great deal of the work of engineers relates to existing structures, and a considerable proportion of this will involve conservation. To be considered for accreditation under the CARE scheme, engineers will be asked to show that they have experience of and/or understand topics outlined in five units. These are based on A framework description of competence for a shared approach to built environment conservation accreditation schemes in the UK (2002). This document was commissioned by Historic Scotland in cooperation with the Department of Building Engineering and Surveying of Heriot-Watt University and the School of Architecture at the Edinburgh College of Art. Engineers were represented on the committee which oversaw the production of the framework document. It is intended that conservation accreditation schemes for a diverse range of conservation related professions should achieve a level of parity by all being based on this framework document. It is planned that each application for accreditation will be assessed by a panel of three. Two members of the panel will be engineers; the other will be drawn from another conservation profession. Applicants may be called to an interview. The scheme is designed to accredit engineers experienced in conservation work. Members without conservation experience will need to undertake suitable training and gain experience by working with an accredited professional. Ian Hume IHBC, chair of the CARE Panel The initiative was initially prompted by English Heritage, Historic Scotland and the Heritage Lottery Fund announcing that a future condition for applications for grant aid would be for the work to be led by a consultant accredited in conservation. Notwithstanding this condition (in practice only a small proportion of projects are led by engineers), the merits of accrediting engineers in conservation will have a much wider impact. CARE will provide a register that potential clients will be able to use as a first filter when choosing the right consultant for work on historic structures. Just as important, it hopes to raise engineers’ awareness and standards by pursuing their continuing professional development in this specialist field. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has had an accreditation scheme running for a number of years. ‘THISWORSHIP of ancient piles and unspoilt countryside that conjures up the image of Scotland seen on biscuit tins has its drawbacks…While restoration is often commendable, … if it determines how a country is seen through television, it helps fix an image based on the past. And if it ranks high in a country’s architectural undertakings, it dampens the need/desire for new buildings. ‘Hence the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow and the National Gallery of Modern Art in Edinburgh... are all housed in buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries and, as structures, say nothing about Scotland today. Opportunities have been lost to commission contemporary buildings that talk about the future and not about the past.’ ArtWork (published in Ellon, Aberdeenshire) commenting on the BBC Restoration series. ‘I DON’T believe you should restore buildings.You can stabilise them, but without all the skills to hand, the original plans and people, then you’re only producing a facsimile of a building.’ Architect Richard Murphy in the Sunday Herald (Glasgow) on the BBC Restoration series. ‘MARIANNE Shur comes across as the steady, feet-on-the-ground, goodhousekeeping foil to Ptolemy Dean’s absurdist young-fogey character, sketchbook in hand. He rambles on in a laughably posh accent about romantic ruins… interjected with plenty of “goshes”, “good Gods”, “lovely stuff”, and a few slightly patronising comments directed towards the “little woman” at his side.’ Claire Melhuish in the Architects’ Journal on the two presenters of the BBC Restoration series. ‘THE PRINCIPAL local resource of a city is its connection with the past.’ Thomas Bender inThe Invisible City: NewYork and the metropolitan idea,The New Press, 2002. More recently, architects have been able to join the register of the AABC (Architects Accredited in Building Conservation). Engineers working in conservation must have an appreciation of disciplines and interests extending well beyond their normal professional training. They need to understand the philosophy of conservation and matters such as social significance, archaeology, recording, dating of structures and historic building legislation as well as the more obvious requirements of survey and investigation, understanding decay mechanisms and the technicalities of repair methods. Experience suggests that engineers,
4 C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 Letters Using conservation charters From Murray G Miller Having recently become an overseas associate of the IHBC, I am enticed by Jonathan Taylor’s (‘Calculated to alienate’, Context 80, July 2003) invitation to join the discussion on how conservation charters are used, following Robert Adam’s article (‘Does heritage dogma destroy living history?’ Context 79, May 2003) and the subsequent contribution by Dennis Rodwell (‘Philosophy and practice’, Context 80, July 2003). I agree with the sentiment expressed by Rodwell, that the Venice and Krakow Charters are certainly not exclusive in setting down the principles that guide the management of the historic environment; and with Taylor on the Krakow Charter’s relative obscurity. Having worked with conservation charters in Canada, United States, and New Zealand, and being familiar with Australia’s Burra Charter, I am unclear as to what form of subscription these countries made to the Charter of Krakow. In Canada, for example, Krakow is not cited among the internationally recognised charters that shaped the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. In most of North America the most widely used set of conservation principles is the US’s Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995). This provides practical opportunities that are not otherwise fully considered in ‘conservation-based’ charters such as the Venice Charter, ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural HeritageValue and the recently unveiled Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China. Although Adam appears concerned about mission creep, consider that charters and standards are constantly evolving to reflect changing values, the need for clarification and definition – a process of continual change, which is also acknowledged in Krakow. There are ample provisions for identifying a community’s heritage, which need not be included in a charter but are perhaps more appropriately reflected in local authority policies. Given my training as an architect, planner and heritage conservation professional, I view as unfortunate Adam’s perception that conservation administration is dominated by archaeological and historically trained bureaucrats, whose careers are seemingly assured by continued identification of a community’s heritage. With regard to the issue of authenticity, the identification of the authentic is essential in order to assess the effects of future change on heritage values. Several charters refer to matters of compatibility and distinguishability. These principles are particularly relevant where new construction might set out to pretend to be something that it is clearly not. Clarification might be sought fromThe Nara Document on Authenticity (Japan, 1994). From an overseas perspective, authenticity is also known as ‘integrity’, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or pre-historic period. It may be prudent simply to offer clarity for any given site based on the evidence, an assessment and resulting interpretation. To simplify this even further, as James Semple Kerr has done in The Conservation Plan: a guide to the preparation of conservation plans for places of European cultural significance (1996), one could choose to omit such slippery references altogether. The issue of authenticity may be sure to raise discussion in countries such as Japan and China, where monuments are periodically dismantled and reconstructed so that they look as they did when first constructed. Williamsburg, USA; Fortress Louisburg, Canada; and the National Trust’s Uppark in West Sussex all serve specific purposes in their depiction of vanished or non-surviving portions of a property – where documentary and physical evidence is available to permit an accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and where such intervention is essential to the public understanding of the place. Some charters make provision for reconstruction under limited circumstances, whereas replication for the sake of responding to popular appeal or reconstruction that is dominated by conjecture is not considered appropriate by many conservation charters. Conservation charters may be fair game for criticism and raising issues for discussion can have positive outcomes. Nonetheless, I would agree with Taylor’s suggestion that ‘most conservation practitioners value the ethics and philosophical approaches to conservation outlined in the charters’. The rigorous consideration of a much wider range of charters, standards and principles that allow for a more comprehensive assessment of site-specific conditions is often essential. Rothwell’s reference to the 1999 edition of the Burra Charter as the clearest and most practical of the general conservation charters is well taken. Others may wish to consider the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Having evolved since 1977, they remain a model of clarity and practicality that has stood the test of time. Murray G Miller, New Zealand
C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 5 Periodically… By the time you read this everyone will have been able to assess whether the BBC2 series Restoration has given a much higher and positive profile to historic buildings; and whether this has done anything to raise it in the Government’s consciousness with regard to resources. It is one of the two key issues which dominate the SPAB Newsletter (Summer 2003, Vol 24 No 2); the other, ironically being ‘the greatest single peacetime threat to historic buildings since the war’ – the Government’s proposal for a massive expansion in airport capacity. A comprehensive guide to what is at stake illustrates many of the buildings under threat. Elsewhere, Philip Venning explains why the society believes St Paul’s Cathedral should not be cleaned; and intriguingly, in the series ‘Key Reads: books that mattered’, Gillian Darley explains why ‘The Roly-Poly Pudding/ The Tale of Samuel Whiskers’ of 1908 by Beatrix Potter is an important conservation text.You will have to read it to find out why. The RICS Building Conservation Group Journal (No 33, Spring 2003) gives some useful advice and a sevenpoint checklist to use when specifying repointing, as required under the recommendations of a survey report. It urges a conservative approach, arguing that poorly executed work and/or a change of mortar composition affecting the character of a listed building will require listed building consent. Stephen Boniface provides a useful guide to the relationship between the PartyWall Act and archaeology. The Act not only regulates works to boundary structures, but also provides protection for buildings where the stability may potentially be threatened by excavation on adjacent land. Boniface points out that although the word ‘excavation’ is not defined, an excavation for archaeology might fall under the Act for consideration. The issue brings the wide-ranging work of the RICS Conservation Forum up to date; deals with the new RICS accreditation scheme for surveyors; and describes one surveyor’s experiences for which no amount of accreditation could prepare him – a property condition inspection of a Soho brothel. Conservation professionals in London will be aware of proposals to demolish theWestminster Theatre, to lose the Mermaid, and to destroy the interior of the Hippodrome. In all these cases the Theatres Trust has sided with the developers, causing some people to wonder whether it has changed its policy or abandoned the principles of those who caused it to be set up. Such decisions might also set unfortunate precedents. In the Newsletter of the Theatres Trust (June 2003, No 68) Peter Longman, director of the trust, explains the detailed background to these decisions. He points out that the trust as a statutory body must consider applications put to them whether they like it or not. Although their role is advisory, that advice will be ignored if it is seen to be unreasonable or legally unsound. The newsletter often raises thoughtprovoking issues beyond its remit of theatres. A short piece questioning the authentic ‘restoration’ of a Frank Matcham colour scheme raises matters of the changing perceptions of an interior under modern lighting and operational conditions. An item on Scottish theatres highlights how much better than LondonWest End theatres they are in encouraging patrons, and thus viability throughout the day, not just during performances. Another item argues, in the context of the Duchess Playhouse,Westminster (1929) by Ewen Barr, that listing is not always good for theatres because the constraints can be detrimental. The latest edition of the Journal of Architectural Conservation (July 2003, Vol 9, No 2) carries the second part of Gerard Lynch and Dr Sara Pavia’s article on the characteristics and decay of gauged brickwork (part one having been described briefly in the May issue of Context). Having undertaken a detailed mineralogical analysis and characterisation of both historic and modern rubbing bricks, the authors conclude that, although they may be low fired, this has been to a sufficiently high temperature for sintering to take place. It is this and the presence of reactive temper, inducing localised cementation, that are the main contributors to the observed durability of the rubbers. The temper acts in a similar way to a pozzolan in a hydraulic lime mortar, giving rise to mineral cements through hydraulic reaction. It is probably activated when the bricks are soaked prior to being laid on site. The properties relating to the presence and movement of water are largely similar to those of historic handmade bricks. Rubbing bricks tend to show a high effective porosity, similar
6 C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 to that of the historic hand-made bricks, but they are more efficient in transporting moisture and solutions than conventional clay bricks. The rapid development of computer technology and computer-aided design has led to advances in measured survey techniques for historic buildings. Ross Dallas explains recent technical progress; heightened client expectations when sophisticated analysis is required for complex schemes; and alternative approaches to procurement. European perspectives are often a valuable mirror in which to reflect on UK practice. Dennis Rodwell concludes his recent series of pieces with a review of approaches to urban conservation in Central and Eastern Europe by evaluating the remarkable survival of historic buildings in the post-war socialist period, largely unaffected by the commercial market forces of theWest. In the post-socialist era this presents responsibilities and opportunities for achieving exemplary practice and a point of reference in our own UK debate about defining the historic environment. A Risk Map of Italian Cultural Heritage is a current major project, starting with GIS to plot the distribution of 62,526 historic monuments within 8,100 Italian municipal districts. It will also coordinate concerns about air pollution, climate change, earthquake, depopulation, tourism pressures and cultural theft. Thematic issues of TheVictorian (July 2003, No 13) continue with articles about South Kensington. Subjects include Prince Albert’s legacy of ‘Albertopolis’ by Hermione Hobhouse; the promotion of architectural tourism in the 1840s by Henry Cole, founding director of the Victoria and Albert Museum; and the ‘exporting of South Kensington’ to Bombay, with an exploration of the rich legacy of terracotta in Bombay, now almost entirely hidden by a century of decay and alteration. Natural Stone Specialist (May 2003) reports on the conservation skills and the work of the National Heritage Skills Training Group, established in June. The July issue reports at length on the conflict between English Heritage, wanting to open up quarries for the small-scale extraction of stone roofing, and opposition by English Nature. It is argued that the balance has moved too far in favour of the latter. The July issue also answers the question: ‘Is it OK to jet-wash my stone paving’? Answer: it all depends... Civic Focus, the newsletter of the Civic Trust (Summer 2003, Issue 43) asks what we can learn from Letchworth, the world’s first garden city, which is celebrating its centenary. The answer may lie in the successful formation in 1979 of a unique Heritage Foundation as an alternative to dispersing the town’s assets on the dissolution of the new town’s organisation. The issue New guidance from English Heritage The whole business of adapting and extending historic churches is particularly difficult, but members of IHBC will be pleased to learn that updated advice from English Heritage is now available. English Heritage’s latest advisory leaflet, entitled NewWork in Historic Places ofWorship, seeks to ensure that alterations to historic churches are carried out with care and understanding, balancing the needs of conservation with those of worship and mission. This is not always easy! English Heritage recognises that the future of these buildings is best assured through continued use, and that continued use sometimes means change. Equally, their special interest can of course be damaged just as much by unsympathetic alteration as by works of demolition. The document sets out the principles we apply when we consider proposals for change. It also provides general guidance on major proposals for re-ordering and extension (which might have come in useful in those Hampshire cases), and more specific advice on matters of everyday concern, such as heating. Free copies of this leaflet can be obtained from English Heritage Customer Services, PO Box 569, Swindon SN2 2YP, tel 0870 333 1181 (email customers@english-heritage.org.uk), quoting product code 50810. It can also be downloaded from www.englishheritage.org.uk, click on publications. Andrew Derrick, IHBC, co-ordinator English Heritage Places ofWorship Panel also answers the question of what a park needs to win a coveted Green Flag award, and it features small-scale projects funded under the HLF Local Heritage Initiative. The research awards announced in the Newsletter of the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art (June 2003, Issue 16) may lead to future publications which readers may wish to look out for. These include awards to Gavin Stamp to complete his book on British Architecture Between theWars; to Carol Fry to research the dissemination of Palladian architecture in England; to Melanie Hall to carry out research on Thomas Carlyle’s house andWilliam Shakespeare’s birthplace; to Professor Linda Halpern to research the Durham garden designs of Joseph Spence; and to Dr Jill Pearlman to research the Isokon Flats, London. Bob Kindred MBE
C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 7 John Preston Designation and guidance in a disconnected world John Preston reports on the Oxford conference on ‘Planning and the Historic Environment: designation and guidance in a changing world’, held in May. This very topical conference featured key players in the current reviews. It highlighted considerable scepticism about the DCMS-led heritage protection review, and inadequacies of the ODPM unification of consents review. There were some very interesting ideas developing in terms of a more coherent approach to managing sites of environmental importance (with the draft Code of Practice for SSSIs being cited as a possible precedent for the historic environment) but there was scepticism about the possibility of management agreements being any form of substitute for designation. The lack of joined-up government was all too obvious, with the reviews of PPGs 15 and 16, of heritage protection, and of consents proceeding without any systematic linkages. It was claimed that the heritage protection review would reach out to all of government, but little evidence was provided that DCMS was either fully committed or would be able to achieve real influence over other departments. The issues of resourcing and regional government were mentioned only in passing. Some of the conference papers are already available in full on the IHBC website (at www.ihbc.org.uk/ Papers/papers_list.html). This report concentrates on papers not yet available on the website, and on the issues which were raised. Heritage Link Chris Catling outlined issues arising from the setting up of Heritage Link (the new non-governmental umbrella body intended to be a historic environment counterpart to Wildlife and Countryside Link). The original conception had been for Heritage Link to coordinate the bodies in the sector. Instead it is now likely to concentrate on outreach and developing wider awareness of the historic environment. Disconnections A National Heritage Act for the 21st century? George Lambrick, director of the Council for British Archaeology, criticised the current disconnected reviews and set out issues to be considered in reforming heritage legislation. Heritage protection review Peter Beacham, English Heritage’s head of designation, introduced the heritage protection review. He gave mixed signals about its aims, saying that it was a debate, and that ‘the politicians are seeking a better system’ – but that no one had challenged the achievements of the present system, which in his view was ‘the best system in the world’. He said that the chair of the review thought that ‘the aim is not to water down legislation, but to create a new system’. Beacham noted flaws in the current system: 1) Point-specific designation was inappropriate for larger and more complex sites 2) The process was not transparent 3) The process needed be statutory, but at different levels – national, regional and local. He thought that the document should say that we needed a fully integrated and unified designation system, applicable within and without the sector. The whole review would come to nothing at all unless there was a realistic migration and resourcing strategy. ‘The Government writes the paper’ but ‘English Heritage will say that resourcing is the central issue’. Beacham’s paper concluded: ‘English Heritage would like to persuade the sector, our partners and client groups, that this represents a genuine opportunity to create a better legislative framework which, while safeguarding existing protection, will enable our role in managing environmental change to flourish.’ Beacham was speaking to a largely sceptical audience, myself among them.We found it difficult to see logic in the timing of a review of heritage protection which is following, rather than preceding, the review of the planning system which delivers the protection in practice, and which was initiated without any coordination with the review of PPGs 15 and 16 delivering the relevant policy guidance. Points noted in questions included: Q:What about preventing pre-emptive action? A: A default mechanism is needed. Q:What about ecclesiastical exemption? A: To be considered after the review. Q: Poor implementation of the Ancient Monuments Act allows sanctioned damage.What about resources for positive management? A:Who is the review for? It should be for posterity, but government timescales are short.Who is responsible? Everybody, but there is very piecemeaI recognition across Government (eg DEFRA). Heritage is nowhere in the public spending round, and local government does not have a statutory duty. Q: Heritage is still in a cultural box, and the brief for the review does not include whether the whole sector is being led by the right part of Government. A: If we get the review right, it will provide a much bigger stick for someone to wield. I noted that the DCMS’s apparent lack of influence across government appeared to be compounded by the low importance DCMS itself attaches to the review – on the evidence that it is not mentioned in the department’s Annual Report 2003, Business Plan 2003-4, or Strategic Plan 2003-6 (all published just before the conference). I reiterated Sir Neil Cossons’ call (at last year’s Oxford conference) for the Government to recognise the historic environment as a sustainability indicator in its own right. Management guidelines Paul Drury and Anna McPherson introduced the study on management guidelines originally commissioned to follow up the 1995 English Heritage leaflet, and now part of the ‘streamlining government’ agenda. The full study and summary have been published by English Heritage and the ODPM. The study considers ‘schedules of consent’; the ODPM’s draft code of guidance for SSSIs was cited as a potential model. Points noted in response to questions included: • The scope for sellers’ packs (compare a car’s service history) • The need for special architectural interest to be defined in listings – so owners know what they are expected to preserve. All the review focus groups and interviewees had highlighted the need for a statement of significance.
8 C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 • Support for a more joined-up approach, with land agents feeling that there are incentives for owners to put money into management agreements. The integration of control regimes Reuben Bellamy of Halcrows is part of the team of consultants working for the ODPM on the review of the integration of control regimes. The brief is to consider the extent to which planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent can be integrated, with a range of other legislation including the building regulations also being considered. Bellamy cited a range of possible models, including the unified consent regime in the Republic of Ireland; the Society of Advanced Legal Studies’ suggestion for s55 of the Town and Country Planning Act to redefine development to include works to listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments etc; householder consents; and continuing the current system but with harmonised procedures. He said that ‘restricting the rights of people by requiring the consent of a competent authority embodies a value judgement. Unifying regimes won’t dilute the value judgement’. He asked: ‘Who is making the decisions. What are they taking into account?’ He asked for the conference’s views on the consultation. This presentation was extremely worrying. In Bob Kindred’s words, Bellamy seemed ‘unaware of the requirement to have special regard to historic environment considerations when considering planning proposals; he had no views on enforcement/ compliance/ quality assurance or reconciling the planning fees versus free listed building consent issue; and possibly most worrying of all he gave particular weight to the largely discredited Camden Consultants report with which we had so much difficulty back in 1996’. Bob reminded the speaker that breach of listed building consent was a criminal offence, not a matter for valued judgement. David Birkett, an architect in private practice, made the point that a consent regime was not a one-sided process, and an agent must do his or her duty. ‘It is the duty of an architect to investigate all constraints, and preapplication discussions are very useful,’ he said. I queried the exclusion of environmental health and housing acts from the review, citing the close linkages between them and building regulations. My wife (a former councillor) commented that unification of consent regimes would make it more difficult for elected members to deal with proposals which were acceptable in most respects but needed re-thinking in others. The omission of sites on the Register of Parks and Gardens was queried, and Jan Wills of ALGAO asked how conflicts between different regulatory measures would be resolved. How did the reviews sit together, and who would lead the solutions? The speaker said that this review was concurrent with but totally separate from the heritage protection review. At that point David McLoughlin asked, in tones reminiscent of John McEnroe, words to the effect of ‘have I just woken up? I can’t believe I’m hearing this – this is unbelievable. No, it’s much worse, it’s unforgivable.’ That comment was greeted with applause. Review of PPGs 15 and 16 Helen Smith of the ODPM set out the wider context, including the review of heritage policy, planning reform, and the designation review, and the key principles of ‘better, simpler, faster, and more accessible’ embodied in the review of PPGs 15 and 16, the unification of consents review, and the Planning Green Paper. She gave an overview of other current initiatives, including the review of statutory consultees; prescribed application forms; the review of the General Planning Development Order; the standardisation and unification regime; and items in the Planning Bill. In the concluding panel session, calls were made for a third draft of the PPS to be circulated, and for this to include guidance on professionally accredited skilled people. Asked about resources and delivery mechanisms, Helen Smith said that application fees were to be reviewed sometime soon. She said that the skills area was to be reviewed. I voiced concern that neither the IHBC nor the IFA had been notified of the skills review, and that the employerdominated Sector Skills Council framework had no clear locus for the historic environment. Other issues raised included the need for planning authorities to provide statutory consultees with full information; the critical need for explicit best value performance indicators for the historic environment (planning delivery grant is going to BVPI targets: ‘if there ain’t no BVPI, there ain’t no funding’); and the need for proper archiving with guidance on both records and public access. JohnYates raised the R word: regions. The current government agenda to establish a regional tier of power and responsibility will take powers and responsibilities from local or national level, or both. There are issues of democracy: should all designations other than conservation areas be up to the judgement of people sitting in London? Yates noted that regional assemblies were already in operation, as were local designations and village design statements. Concerns were voiced at the lack of quality control through monitoring of outcomes. Planning quality indicators needed measurable ways of determining whether quality had been improved. Edith Gollnast explained Oxford City Council’s approach. Sites were inspected, and approvals included a condition asking applicants to specify when the contract was due to begin, the duration of the contract, and its likely completion date (‘without checking, how do you know?’). Previously, the council had been criticised by the public, architects and amenity groups for not dealing with applications in the way that it should. They had a protocol to applicants – if you receive pre-application advice and do not take it, you will not get further advice from officers. Thinking over this very significant conference, I was left with an ominous feeling that the Government does not have a holistic view of – and, most particularly, commitment to – the historic environment for which Alan Howarth’s launch of the heritage Policy Review in 1999 had raised hopes. As I write this, the heritage protection review is imminent, and the draft planning policy statement appears to have receded into the distance.We still await any sign that the unification of consents review and GPDO review (and what about conservation areas post-Shimizu?) will be effectively coordinated with and address the issues raised in the other reviews. John Preston, IHBC education secretary
C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 9 Judith Martin Restoration drama Whew – after all the fanfares and fireworks, its over. Thirty buildings, more than three million viewers, scores of celebs, and nearly £3.5 million for the thoroughly deserving winner, Manchester’s Victoria Baths. You could deconstruct BBC2’s Restoration in a number of ways – if that’s not an unfortunate term when some many of the buildings are so nearly totally deconstructed – and doubtless Endemol, the producers, are doing just that. Audience profiles, building types, peaks and troughs of interest. The programme’s internet notice board carries a number of grumbles about how the British public will always opt for the stately home – and yet, despite the extraordinary magnificence of in their blood, I imagine, I have decidedly mixed feelings. Endemol’s Big Brother format seems a little undignified in this context. Are the three million viewers really new converts to ‘heritage’, or are they the same people who rush to Heritage Open Days and Open House weekends? After all, the National Trust now has over three million members, and they don’t all join just for the teas. Griff Rhys Jones exhorted viewers to dial the voting hotline with all the manic insistence of the latest ad for a service that is not 192 – could that have turned some people off? It was certainly more entertainment than education. There was no suggestion Victoria Baths. Photograph © MarkWatson that this dereliction is a recent malaise, but equally there was little indication of just how wilful some of the neglect, and the failure to act by some of the statutory bodies, had been. The odd property ‘goes on fire’ as they say in Scotland, but on the whole the impression is given that this is just the ravages of time. William Adam’s enchanting Mavisbank, in Midlothian, won its regional heat. Thinking it looked familiar, I turned to SAVE’s publication. There it is, in the 1982 ‘The Country House, To Be or Not To Be’, then, going back, in ‘Tomorrow’s Ruins?’ of 1978, even in the 1974 ‘Destruction Victoria Baths. Photograph © MarkWatson Kinloch Castle, and the charming and eccentric owner of Lissan House, who has given her entire property to a buildings preservation trust, the winner is a spectacular example of municipal Victoriana. It seems that, as museums were the answer to every redundant building in the 1990s, until the Heritage Lottery Fund cried ‘enough’, so the solution for the 21st century is the Arts Centre. Griff Rhys Jones did his best to point out that any restored building needs a proper use, yet often the proponents of a candidate seemed vague and overoptimistic.What if one of these had won? Would HLF still have stumped up its £3 million contribution? Was there wrangling behind the scenes? Like many people with conservation
10 C O N T E X T 8 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 of the Country House’ which could be said to have triggered the whole restoration business. Marcus Binney, in the BBC’s published supplement to the programme, lists the culprits, but the show failed to touch on the fundamental changes that are really required; a flat rate of five per cent VAT for newbuild and repairs, and streamlined CPO procedures. Newman Brothers’ remarkably complete coffin works, which failed to grab the public vote (perhaps because of the number of times Ptolemy Dean said ‘Oh no!’ when confronted with the impedimenta of death), has now been taken on by the RDA, in conjunction with Birmingham Conservation Trust. Gateshead’s skeletal Ravensworth Castle should surely be an RDA project, especially as it is planned to use it for public offices. This is what statutory bodies should be about, rather than Yorkshire Forward, another RDA, inhabiting shiny new accountancyarchitecture offices while surrounded by sunning 18th and 19th century industrial buildings desperate for a new use. But perhaps that’s too serious for what after all is really only a slightly grown up Big Brother. From a buildings preservation trust point of view, the programme could have tried harder. The Association of Preservation Trusts and its sister organisation the Architectural Heritage Fund worked with Endemol from the outset to find suitable projects. The two bodies are listed in the supplement, but otherwise are largely invisible. In fact, no less than 18 of the 30 contenders, including Victoria Baths, have had help from the AHF, the majority of them as BPTs. And yet it was left to Prince Charles on the last night to mention them and the civic societies. The AHF and APT have now employed a PR consultant to make the most of the sudden upswing in public interest in decayed buildings, and Maria Perks, AHF’s Projects Development Manager, has been on numerous local radio shows – as well as being at the rather more glamorous last night party. So, the verdict? Maria is unequivocal, ‘A bloody good thing’. Me? Well, just The sham castle atWentworth, another runner-up pass me the tweed jacket with the suede elbow patches and that bust of Lord Reith, would you? Judith Martin is project organiser for the Industrial Buildings Preservation Trust.These are her own opinions and not necessarily those of IBPT. judithmartin@lycos.co.uk The Architectural Heritage Fund ahf@ahfund.org.uk www.ahfund.org.uk Tel 020 7925 0199 The Association of Preservation Trusts apt@ahfund.org.uk www.heritage.co.uk/heritage/apt Tel 020 7930 1629 Funding sources for restoration work are now available online at www.ffhb.org.uk. Staircase at Lissan House, Cookstown,Tyrone, one of the finalists in the recent Restoration programme The conservatory atWentworth
www.ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=