~,~~~ ~ -~,Jft, ·•c Association of Conservation Officers Quarterly Newsletter No 9 • June 1985 Context
Context Contributions from any member are welcome -indeed, essential! Please send copy to your Regional Contact, or direct to the Editor -addresses in next column. If possible, please type contributions in 85mmcolumns. If you have a choice of type,please use this one~ which is Pica Elite 12. FORMATas this issue. Published quarterly in March, June, September, and December. DEADLINESfor copy at the end of February, May, August and November respectively. ILLUSTRATIONS should be 85mmor 180mm finished width. Photographs should be ready screened. POST all information and copy to the Editor, Jenny Birkett, at 130 Bouverie Avenue South, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP2 8EA; tel. 0722 336272 ext. 387 (office), or 0722 334129 (home). COVER:LOOKBEFOREYOUCHANGE Cover illustrations are from the Oxford Preservation Trust's 'Look before you Change: Guidelines on keeping Oxford's older houses in character'. LEFT: two traditional Oxford house types .. RIGHT: and how not to do it! The booklet is reviewed on page 21, and is available from the Oxford Preservation Trust, 10 Turn Again Lane, St.Ebbe's, Oxford OXl lQL Page 2 ACOREGIONALCONTACTS NORTH: Biian Jobling: 0632 816144 (Tyne and Wear County Council) NORTHWEST: Mike King: 0704 33133 x 121 (Sefton Borough Council) YORKSHIRE:Robert Scriven: 0924 370211 (Wakefield Metropolitan DC) x417 W.MIDLANDS:Carole Ryan: 0743 222332 (Shropshire County Council) E.MIDLANDS:Tony Jenkins: 0629 3411 x 7182 (Derbyshire County Council) SOUTHWEST: Chris Smith: 0272 290777 x530 (Avon County Council) SOUTH:Roger Evans: 0296 5000 (Buckinghamshire County Council) EASTANGLIA: Peter Richards: 0245 352232 (Essex County Council). SOUTHEAST: Geoff Pink: 01 546 1050 (Surrey County Council) LONDON:Rosemarie MacQueen: 01 253 8455 (London Borough of Hackney) SCOTLAND: Nie Allen: 031 343 1911 (Conservation Bureau, SDA) WALES:Trevor Thorpe: 0267 4567 (tarma~then District Council) NORTHERNIRELAND: Colin Hatrick (DoE, NI: ex-directory!) ACOOFFICERS CHAIRMAN:Mike Pearce: 09'62 54411 x670 (Hampshire County CouQcil) 52 Hollows Close, Salisbury,Wilts. SECRETARY:Tony Jenkins: 0629 3411 x7182 (Derbyshire County Council) 17 Crimicar Lane, Fulwood, Sheffield SlO 4FA TREASURER:Peter Richards: 0245 352232 (Essex County Council) 139 Lifstan Way Thorpe Bay, Essex SSl 2XG MEMBERSHIPSECRETARY:John Davey:0245 (Essex County Council) 352232 c/o Globe House, New Street, Chelmsford, Essex PUBLICITY: John Fidler: 01 734 6010 x721 (HBMC)or mess~ges on 01 741 7297 36 Ravenscourt Rd, London W6 OUG EDITOR"CONTEXT":Mrs Jenny Birkett (Salisbury District) 0722 336272 130 Bouverie Avenue South, x387 Salisbury, Wilts. SP2 8EA
In thisContext... This issue of CONTEXTcontains reports of the two days' proceedings at the joint seminar 'Working Together for Conservation' held by ACO and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission at Norwich on April 12th and 13th. We think it is important that the talks and discussions should be recorded as fully as possible, both to inform those who did not attend, and to remind those who did of the importance of some of the issues raised. Mike Pearce, Chairman of ACO, has written a brief account of the conference with an analysis of the significance of what was said - and what wasn't said! This is followed by the full conference summary which has been prepared by Mrs Phillips of HBMCfrom the notes taken by the HBMC members. The Commission have contributed to the cost of inclusion of this report in the Newsletter. The report of the AGMon Saturday has been written by Tony Jenkins, the Hon. Secretary; and a precis of Gordon Michell's address ~o the AGMwhich follows was edited by the Editor from his own notes. It was agreed at the conferenee that the points raised in the seminar groups which were not full answered by the panel could be discussed at a follow-up meeting at the HBMC. This took place in early June and a report follows the conference summary. Talking business= ACO meets HBMC The conference at Norwich in April was attended by just over 200 people, of whom over 30 were from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission - both top brass and front-line troops. The remaining majority were conservation officers from all over the country. The main business on Friday was arranged by the Commission; a fuller account of the day is contained in their report in this issue. Conservation Officers were given a good aacount of the work of the Commission, and Page 3 were able to meet many of the people they had first met over the phone, but they were, perhaps, disapp9inted thatmore of their practical questions and appeals for help appeared to pass unanswered. Peter Rumble and Mrs Phillips, recognising this, have allowed us a further opportunity for discussion - a note of the relevant meet~ ... ing follows. However, we clearly suffer at the moment, perhaps inevitably, from differences in perception of our res-pective roles. We, in the local authorities, see the Commission as a central and national focus, providing support and leadership - not just for the conservation of buildings monuments, sites, and landscapes; but for action against apathy on the part of individuals, public bodies or local authorities. The Commission sees itself constrained by funds and manpower to dealing with case work and limited grants for "outstanding" buildings. The rest is seen as a local problem for the local authority. That historic attitude has the effect of tying up staff time in areas where the local authority is quite competent, and could be relied on to ask for help when needed, at the expense of areas which have little time or staff for conservation work. It also limits a great proportion of the grant funds of the Commission to Grade I or some Grade II* buildings -less than 10% of the buildings, and not those generally under threat. We would rather they put their influence, advice and, if necessary, grant funds where the damage is really happening -amongst the Grade II buildings in modest Conservation Areas, eroded by illegal or careless alteration or demolition; especially in local authority areas with a long record of above average numbers of demolition applications and no conservation officer. This is not to deny that buildings and monuments of national importance should continue to receive the Commission's attention; of course they should, but today they are less threatened than they were 30 years ago when the Historic Buildings Council was created. Much has been done, but circumstances have changed and some fundamental policies conceived after 1953 are in need of adjustment. Mike Pearce
a English Heritage Historic Buildings &Monuments Commission for England WORKINGTOGETHERFOR CONSERVATION NOTESOF PROCEEDINGSAT A SEMINARORGANISEDJOINTLY BY THE HISTORIC BUILDINGSANDMONUMENTSCOMMISSIONFOR ENGLAND, NORWICHCITY COUNCILANDTHE ASSOCIATIONOF CONSERVATIONOFFICERS Introduction by Mr Peter Rumble, Chief Executive of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (English Heritage) Welcoming participants to the seminar, Mr Rumble recalled that he had first addressed members of the Association of Conservation Officers (ACO) in 1982 when he had been engaged in the preparation of the legislation which led to the Commission's creation. One of the arguments in favour of setting up the Commission had been that it would provide a coherent voice for the protection of the built heritage and enable staff engaged on that work to commit themselves to .the work of conservation. He believed that these objectives had been fulfilled. In the first year of its existence, Commissioners, members of the Advisory Committees and the staff had put a great deal of effort into establishing the Commission on the right footing. Both the ACO and the Commission were committed.to the cause of conservation and the two bodies had complementary interests. Many of the conservation officers present worked for authorities with whom the Commission had joint responsibilities; only good could come from such co-operation. Commenting on. the remarkable growth of interest in conservation over the last twenty-five years, Mr Rumble,wondered whether there might be an eventual reaction against the conservation movement. However vigilant the Commission, local authorities and their conservation officers, and local groups might be, the pressures for ill-advised schemes would continue. It was always going to be difficult to know when to stand firm against any change, and when to accept it in the best interests of conservation and of the community. Mr Rumble described the Commission's work, whic fell into tw_o main categories. First, care of some 400 monuments where there was a greater emphasis than before on increasing visitors' understanding and enjoyment. Secondly, the general work of conservation - grants (over £20 million in the current year), the advisory role•on scheduling and listing; advice, research, educat1on and comment, including giving evidence at public inquiries. With the aid of a report by management consultants, the Commission was considerin•g how its own organisation might be improved. Looking to the future, Mr Rumble hoped that the Commission would be able to tackle a systematic programme of scheduling of ancient monuments at a greater pace than in the past; that grants for historic buildings and conservation areas would continue at least at previous levels; and that, if money became available, grants could be extended to historic gardens. If Parliament enacted the legislation before it. the ~ommission would be enlarging the scope of its activities by taking_over the GLC Historic Buildings Division. The Commission was also aware of the risk to conservation in the Metropolitan counties unless co-ordinating organisations could be formed to replace what existed at present. Like local authorities, the Commission was constrained PagP. 4
the historic areas. Bristol Docks were a successful illustration of this. Nor was it necessary for conservation to be tackled only by specialist conservation staff within the local authority. Given the political will, much could and should be achieved by planners of all grades in the course of their normal duties. When specialised help was needed, in particularly run-down areas, it was best to hire consultants. Conservation policies would command support only as part of the normal planning Drocess, and public support could too easily oe lost by "over-kill". Th~y must not be seen as an expensive luxury but as a well-thought out and targetted effort to preserve the sort of environment and quality of life that people want. Syndicates Central to the conference was a series of seven syndicates to discuss and formulate questions on topics of particular significance in the field of conservation. Each syndicate was invited to high-light four questions or points for a brief panel discussion and for further consideration by the Commission. The syndicates' topics were: buildings at risk, chaired by John Fidler, HBMC learning from disasters, chaired by Mike Pearce, Hampshire CC public inqui,ries and the planning system, chaired by Robert Chitham, HBM.:: urban renewal, chaired by Jim Read, HBMC redundant agricultural buildings, chaired by Peter Richards, Essex CC packages of grants, chaired by David McLaughlin, Bath CC ancient monuments, chaired by Andrew Saunders, HBMC Their lists of questions are attached as an annex to this note. The discussion panel comprised Mr Rumble, Mr Patterson, Mr Wood and Mrs Phillips, together with vigorous questions and comments from the floor. Among points high-lighted were: 1 2 3 the need to find ways of stimulating action on buildings at risk by local authorities who were ·uninterested in conservation; gaps in legislation protecting listed buildings, especially section 101 which does not apply to partiall.}_' occupied buildings; the importance of an organised sharing of experience of lbc legislation, its enforcement, Article 4 directions etc. among local authorities generally. Conservation Officers agreed that they would gladly complete a questionnaire on their own experiences; 4 a pressing demand from Conservatio~ Officers for guidance on the use of existing legislation, since they thought neither DOE Circulars nor other published information contained enough practical detail; 5 the hope that cnnsArvation offi.cers could look to HBMCfor support at controversial planning and lbc inquiries. (Mr Rumble confirmed that the Commission had already given evidence to a number of inquiries, and would continue to do so though, because of the Page 6
the historic areas. Bristol Docks were a successful illustration of this. Nor was it necessary for conservation to be tackled only by specialist conservation staff within the local authority. Given the political will, much could and should be achieved by planners of all grades in the course of their normal duties. When specialised help was needed, in particularly run-down areas, it was best to hire consultants. Conservation policies would command support only as part of the normal planning ryrocess, and public support could too easily· oe lost by "over-kill". Th~y must not be seen as an expensive luxury but as a well-thought out and targetted effort to preserve the sort of environment and quality of life that people want. Syndicates Central to the conference was a series of seven syndicates to discuss and formulate questions on topics of particular significance in the field of conservation. Each syndicate was invited to high-light four questions or points for a brief panel discussion and for further consideration by the Commission. The syndicates' topics were: buildings at risk, chaired by John Fidler, HBMC learning from disasters, chaired by Mike Pearce, Hampshire CC public inqui~ies and the planning system, chaired by Robert Chitham, HBNC urban renewal, chaired by Jim Read, HBMC redundant agricultural buildings, chaired by Peter Richards, Essex CC packages of grants, chaired by David McLaughlin, Bath CC ancient monuments, chaired by Andrew Saunders, HBMC Their lists of questions are attached as an annex to this note. The discussion panel comprised Mr Rumble, Mr Patterson, Mr Wood and Mrs Phillips, together with vigorous questions and comments from the floor. Among points high-lighted were: 1 2 3 4 5 the need to find ways of stimulating action on buildings at risk by local authorities who were ·uninterested in conservation; gaps in legislation protecting listed buildings, especially section 101 which does not apply to partiall:y occupied buildings; the importance of an organised sharing of experience of lbc legislation, its enforcement, Article 4 directions etc. among local authorities generally. Conservation Officers agreed that they would gladly complete a questionnaire on their own experiences; a pressing demand from Conservatio~ Officers for guidance on the use of existing legislation, since they thought neither DOE Circulars nor other published information contained enough practical detail; the hope that cnnsArvation offi.cers cnuld look to HBMCfor support at controversial planning and lbc inquiries. (Mr Rumble confirmed that the Commission had already given evidence to a number of inquiries, and would continue to do so though, because of the Page 6
strain on 1'esou~:::.:;;, i:J~'i cten evidence was the norm with oral evidence only in exceptional cases); 6 pressure should be exerted by the Commission on MAFF, the NFU etc. for conservation of farm buildings. (Present financial incentives positively discouraged conservation). Some members expressed disquiet about conversions of agricultural buildings for residential use, while others saw no other way of preserving some of the many buildings important to the landscape; 7 concern that lesser listed buildings, whose number was greatly increasing through the listing resurvey, were eligible neither for Commission grants nor for tax concessions (apart only from the recent VAT concession obtained by the Commission for alterations); 8 the suggestion that English Heritage might have a strengthened regional presence; 9 an urgent need for a comprehensive resurvey of ancient monuments, combined with more effective protection after scheduling. Conclusion of th~ formal sessions Mr Rumble said that the seminar had produced a lively discussion_. One ~essage was th~t there was room for improved communication betwe~n the Commission and conservation officers. There were areas of work where conservation officers clearly thought that the Commission could do more. This would be discussed in more detail with Mr Mike Pearce and other representatives of the ACO. It had to be remembered, however, that the c~mmission's freedom of action was limited by its resources. Mrs Phillips thanked Mr Geoffrey Lane (Norwich City Conservation Officer), Mr Pearce (ACO) and the University of East Anglia for their excellent work in helping to organise the seminar. Mr Pearce replied offering the ACO's thanks to the Commission and the City of Norwich for hosting the conference. The Association looked forward to continued close co-operation with English Heritage. City Reception at Norwich and City Tours In the evening a reception was held in Norwich Castle. Guests were welcomed by the Deputy Lord Mayor, and in reply Lord Montagu congratulated conservation officers generally, and Norwich in.particular, on their fine record in conserving the heritage. He looked forward to continuing close co-operation between the Commission and conservation officers. The evening concluding with a coach tour (in the rain) of floodlit Norwich. Next morning -mercifully in dryer weather -Norwich City arranged a series of very interesting visits to its historic buildings and conservation areas. HBMC/UCHB 22 May 1985 Page 7
The Annual General Meeting= 13th April 1985 Report by Tony Jenkins, Hon. Secretary of the Association of Conservation Officers Seventy-five members attended the AGM, which after the preliminaries was addressed by the Chairman, Michael Pearce. He reported on progress with the Association; although there are now nearly three hundred members, which is half of all conservation officers, there is stilla job to be done in persuading 'the rest' to join! There are two aspects of our job which need emphasisputting over our collective view, and helping each other. The framework for communication is our Newsletter, CONTEXT,and its success is dependent upon contributions from members. The dialogue with the HBMCis continuing, but more information is needed on the views of members for this to proceed effectively. Membership John Davey, the Membership Secretary, showed us amap of the country which indicated large gaps in the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire areas. He made a request for members keep him informed of changes of address and/or job, as correspondence was often returned undelivered. The meeting agreed to a student membership category at £2.00 a year. Publicity John Fidler, Publicity Officer, reported on the year's work. He noted that of 20 letters to the Times, only one was published! He hoped for more success from contacts in progress with editors of publications in the conservation, building and planning fields. Contacts with HBMC were now good, not least because ACO members were now working there. Address by Gordon Michell Gordon Michell, formerly architect to the Civic Trust and now in private practice, gave a talk reviewing the progress of the Page 8 conservation mov,~ment since Architectural Heritage Year in 1975. A shortened version of his talk follows this report. Debate After a vote of thanks to Gordon,a lively discus·sion followed, the main points of which were as follows: -Closer contacts with the Association of County Archaeologists are to be made, including exchanges of information and literature and joint meetings. - Metropolitan Counties: Peter Rumbles offer to discuss the position regarding historic buildings and conservation matters during and after the changeover is to be taken up. - The question of the production of leaflets and other information is to be taken up with the HBMC.A written respose is to be requested from HBMCto specific queries now that the 'new' Commission ndb had time to find its feet. -Telephone kiosks: a lengthy discussion threw up a good many problems related to the preservation of the traditional type. In general, it was thought that the Thirties Society lett~r seemed a good basis for deciding which of the original designs should be kept. It was agreed that ACO should write to British Telecom to ensure the preservation of the best examples, get them listed and review the position regarding demolition consent. -Staff shortages at HBMC: David Warren of HBMCdrew attention to shortage of staff and requested that the Commission should not be aske4 to carry out too many tasks, at least while staffing levels were barely sufficient for present work loads. Considerable concern was, however, expressed by the meeting at the failure to produce reports; per-__hpasACOcould assist by forming joint working groups, which could use the Commission's resources for production. The same route could be used for producing statistics, perhaps in cooperation with groupd such as SAVE. - The meeting finally wished to register
its particular thanks to Jennifer Jenkins who has retired from the Commission. Her special blend of ability and enthusiasm for historic buildings work and conservation, coupled with her belief in maintaining personal contact at all levels is irreplaceable; and we hope she will' continue to keep in touch with ACO in the future. Good times, bad times GORDONMICHELL'S ADDRESSTO THE ASSOCIATIONOF CONSERVATION OFFICERS AGM: APRIL 13TH 1985 Gordon began by saying how pleased he was to attend this joint conference with the HBMC- particulatly since he felt he had played a small part in bringing ACO into being, as a result of the Civic Trust's interest in craft skills which had later been taken on by the Crafts Council. He was also pleased that the present meeting was taking place exactly 10 yeirs afier European Architectural Heritage Year. Looking back, it was possib~e to pick out two important objectives of that year which had been achieved: firstly the establishment of the Heritage Education Group with help from DoE; and secondly the establishment of the Architectural Heritage Fund in a partnership between the DoE and the private sector. These were important achievements, but he wanted to look back over the last 10 years in more detail, and examine in particular areas of negligence as well as achievements. He also wanted to look to the future, which was always more important than anything else! Areas of negligence We, as a nation, had been negligant in a number of areas: - we had designated some 5000 conservation areas but had failed to keep an upto-date record of these areas, of their character, of the number of listed buildings within them, of the amount of grant aid injected into them through Town PagE. 9 Schemes, slO and s4 grants; - we had listed over 3000,000 buildings as b£ing of special architectural or historic interest, and - although there is a central register of these describing. their merits - we made no demands on local authorities to maintain a register, of those offered grant, of condition, or of those at risk. - we had established a number of Town Schemes across the cou.ntry but, again, we had pot maintained any central _~S,Jister or record, nor had we been able to publish a general booklet describing how they are set up, what the criteria are, and what excellent work had been achieved; - we had failed to do anything about setting up a centre to deal specifically with New Uses for Old Buildings. The problem of finding a new use for old buildings came up at every conference as 1~ had at this one. Lord Montague had pr0uuced a first-rate report on the subject and. all his papers and files had gone to the Civic Trust Library, where they gathered dust. A splendid opportunity to keep the record up to date had been lost; - we had allowed the work of the Historic Buildings Bureau to slip into the hands of a private company who presumably thought they could make some money out of it; -we had failed to establish a comprehensive system of communications between central government who, up to the moment of the Commission's birth ' had been responsible for conservation and for those actually working in the field. There was a real need to publish information about conservation in order to inform people what had been achieved and how problems had been overcome, to give advice generally and to·encourage the fainthearted. -we had failed to create in the new Commission the climate and conditions which would have retained Jennifer
Jenkins as a Commissioner. It had been a long time since we had had a conservationist with her energy and sense of ~ommitment; her departure would be k~~nly felt for a long time to come. Our job as conservationists required the sort of commitment we had received from Mrs JenRins. It was possible to recognise that same commitment during the conference emanating from Iain Patterson·and his team in Bristol, for instance. Achievements It was much more satisfying to talk positively about what had been gained rather than carp about what we had not done. Here in Norwich, dating back to 1975, was the evidence of a splendid achievement in the Colegate area, in which seven different county and city organisations had come together to repair, restore, enhance and inject new life into a run-down area. There were other e~amples, too; the continuing commitment to conservation shown by the City of Chester, the perseverence of those working in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the sensitive restoration and new work carried out in York and Newark. A great deal had been d~ne with the aid of slO and Town Scheme grants (which was why he so much regretted the fact that nobody did anything to publicise it). The future Five points seemed worth mentioning: - he rejected the idea that seemed to be going around concerning some sort of financial m·oratorium on money available for conservation. It was up to us to show what an injection of funds can do to restore and give new life, to say nothing of attracting funding from the private sector and charitable trusts. We should also draw attention to the way in.which job opportunities were thereby created. - we cannot reject the implications of the re-survey of listed buildings now under way. This would impose a responsibility on us to ensure that there are funds with which to help owners to keep their buildings in good repair. It ought to make us determined to create some form of register at local level, and it was clear that it would increase the number of buildings for which a new use would have to be found. - it was clear from the conference that communications between the Commission and those 'in the field' haci to be improved. - it was essential to broaden the base of our work. It is an essential aspect of planning, but somehow we had to get our message ~nto and understood b~ schools, the Rotary Clubs, the Chambers of Trade, and Chief Officers of authorities as well as elected members. the growth in the work of the voluntary sector over the last ten years had been very encouraging. There is now a tremendous interest in conservation in the widest sense of the word and it was important to funnel more of it towards buildings and urban conservation. The work of SAVE had been outstanding. The growth of Historic Buildings Trusts was encouraging, but there were still too many Trusts registered with the Architectural Heritage Fund who were not activ'e in any way at all. He thought the formation of the Groundwork Foundation, helped by funds from the Countryside Commission, would be seen to be a major force in actually doing somethi to improve our environment in town and country over the next d~cade -they were already achieving interesting results from which we could learn. He had two suggestions for the venue for next year's AGM- the Birchcliffe Centre at Hebden Bridge, or the Palace Hotel at Buxton. At any rate, avoid the garden city universi~y! Page 10
Tying the loose ends: the follow-up with the Commission As requested at the AGM, we went to 25 Savile Row to try to find answers to the questions summarised in the HBMCnote of the conference. The questions generally resolve themselves into three main areas - procedures, the law, and the use of grant. Mrs Phfillips' answers to the questions, and ourcomments, are as follows: (the numbers refer to the HBMCnote) 1. John Fidler was about to report on Historic ~uildings at Risk, which should help to generate interest in areas other than the 20% which already produced lists locally. 2. Both we and the Commission have responded to the recent DoE consultation on possible changes to the planning Acts. There has been no further news from the DoE! A controversial proposal had been to leave the question of the demolition of Grade II buildings to the local authorities - but many conservation officers,or sympathetic members, relied on the possible intervention of the HBMCor the Secretary of State to d:muade ownersfrom demolition proposals. Another controversial suggestion was for a form of outline listed building consent -which, of course, might prejudice consideration of actual detailed proposals for alterations at a later stage. There did not seem to us to be much aduantage over the present system which would allow a local authority to grant planning permission for a change of use, whilst reserving all matters relating to a listed building consent. One could not be implemented without the other. So far as SlOl was concerned, there had been "bottom drawer" drafts of an amendment for some time to bring in the partially occupied building, and the proposals which had appeared in Lord Vaizey's Bill which, in any case, could have been improved. 3. There were no plans by the HBMCor, so far as was known, the DoE, to make it any easier to establish a central catalogue of case law or Ministerial decisions affecting listed buildings. The Journal of Planning ~aw was still the best source, but only covered cases reported to it. It was thought that it would be undesirable to change the nature of planning inquiries towards that of a court of law where endless precedents were quoted by either side. Each case should continue to be determined on its merits. In any case, a search for precedents or case· history might just as likely uncover decisions contrary to the conservation case as supporting it. Better to leave well alone. Mrs Phillips produced a draft questionnaire on the use of various sections of the planning acts, which would be circulated when finalised. It was hoped that conservation officers would complete it. The difficulty, as with all questionnaires, would be fn obtaining a good response. Another difficulty would be that many sections were little used, but were most useful by reason of their existence. Proof of low use might fuel pressure for abolition. A false argument, but one commonly advanced. 4. The HBMCdid not feel it had the resources to be able to offer further h~lp in interpreting the legislation. Informal advice was always available, not from any particularly expert solicitor (there apparently wasn't one) but from Commission staff in the ordinary way. Whilst understanding the problem, we were disappointed knowing what a struggle it is for the conservation officer faced with an unenthusiastic local authority solicitor and a listed building owner bent on destruction. . 5. In the last year, the Commission had given written evidence on some twenty cases, mostly called-in cases; and had appeared at three or four local i~quiries. Their intervention was either in major cases or where points were not being made by amenity societies. Considering the number of demolition applications, apart from controversial development proposals, that seemed to us a fairly low level of involvement, but things may improve! 6. There was an opportunity, in considering the question of farm buildings, for the designation of more rural conservation areas, allowing the possibility of establishing SlO schemes for grants. 7. One of our principal points to the Commission is that it should review its Page 11
priorities and look more to areas where damage is occuring, whilst still being properly concerned for the "outstanding". That does not necessarily just mean "more money", it is as much a question of how available money or staff is used. We understand that the Commission's grant in aid is unlikely to increase, and may actually decrease slightly in real terms next year. However, Mrs Phillips was able to say that SlO grants may be increased this year, as Town Scheme grants were ncreased last year - and as that will help to assist more Grade II buildings, it is an improvement. 8. The internal staffing review of the Commission, by IMBUCOM,is at a late stage, and we believe may be with the Do~ which has an interest in any financial implications for the HBMC. One of the proposals is likely to favour multi-disciplinary teams with integral administration for the regional areas - more on the local government model -which sounds promising to us. Whether or not that might lead to some staff working out of regional offices, say of the DoE, we do not know. 9. We are not sure who asked this quest~ ion~ but it is true that the process of scheduling ancient monuments is slow and has a back-log of work, and the legislative and organisational provision for care needs developing. Mrs Phillips expects that we shall want to press the point. We believe the IMBUCOMreport may well have suggested ttat rescheduling 'should follow relisting, making use of some of the experience and staff of one to do the other. We agree. We expect to meet some of the Association of County Archaeological Officers and will lend our support. Two other matters were mentioned. First~ ly, the Commission has concluded that it does not feel able to take on responsibility for a central Crafts Skills Register. It is difficult to imagine the National Heritage Memorial Fund doing the job, as envisaged by the Crafts Council. Who, then will help? We asked, secondly, for a clearer answer as to whether one could, at least, see the minutes of the Commission, if not its reports, other than the annual report the first of which may appear in September. The answer is "NO". We had hoped that as the Commission is now "not the Civil Service" or a Department of government, that there could have been a freer flow of information to allow a more constructive and timely debate of current issues between the Commission, the local authorities and, indeed, the public. As it is, anyone 1 wishing to offer comstructive comment must ' wait for the annual report_covering a period between five and seventeen months in arrears for an authoratitive source of information. What can be so secret? Finally, we were very grateful to Mrs Phillips and her colleagues for being prepared to spare the time to talk to us, to be patient with us on occasion. We hope they will allow themselves to be influenced by what we were able to say; we share a common cause. Note: the meeting was held on June 4th., and was attended by (from ACO), Mike Pearce, John Fidler, John Davey and Jenny Birkett. STATUTORYLISTING The Heritage Sponsorship Division of the DoE at Lambeth Bridge House, which is responsible for the statutory listing process, has now been advised by its lawyers that the existence of a planning permission in respect of a building is no bar in itself to its listing. If the Secretary of State is advised of a buildings listable quality, he must list it. This means that items on the draft list will no longer automattcally be removed if a planning application is received. However, if works are carried out subseqent to inspection, the DoE may wish the building to be reinspected. In cases of urgency, requiring spot listing, it may be sufficient if the local (Phase I orII) Inspectorwrites to confirm that the listable quality remains, enclosing an amended list description if necessary, and if at all possible, up to date photographs. All this is good news and removes a recent headache! The HSD has a very helpful principal, Paul Bristow. In case of panic, phone 01 211 7334 - but not too often! Page 12
ANCIENTMONUMENTOR LISTED BUILDING? A letter from Essex brings the following news of a case -which is causing much concern. "The summary of the event is: 1. Without any permission owner installs massive straw burning appliance with brick flue on a 900mm concrete base in one of the remaining buildings of Coggeshall Abbey. The building is of outstanding importance, dating from Cl2OO and contains some of the earliest brickwork in England. Grade I and Scheduled Ancient Monument. 2. District Council (Braintree D.C.) erupts in fury. 3. English Heritage decides that when a building .. is both listed and scheduled .. it is the legislation covering the latter that should prevail, citing Circular 23/77 as their authority. 4. Secretary of State announces that he is unempowered to grant scheduled monument consent retrospectively. English Heritage decide that as archaeological damage could not be proven (there is 900mm of concrete mrer the floor!) prosecution would not be justified and therefore PROPOSETO TAKENO ACTION ! ! II COMMENT: It is, of course, S56 of the T&CP Act 1971 which rules out SSS in respect of Ancient Monuments. The enforcement powers under S92 also seem to fail. We must look to the Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Areas Act 1979 where the only sanction would be prosecution under S2(2) -the boiler appearing to be "any works ,. of alteration or addition" executed without consent. The question of "archaeological damage" is not relevant. Archaeological interest is but one of five criteria for scheduling given at para.2O of Circular 23/77. Damage does not have to be proved, in anyrcase, the phrase is "any works". We understand from the Commission's administrators that they are not entirely happy with the legal advice that has been given them and intend to look again to see if they should initiate a prosecution - the DoE now looks to them to take the initiative - and why should it be left to the SPAB or SAVE? LETTERS From Mr David Wright, University of Sheffield. Dear Editor, I am a post-graduate student in the final year of the MAcourse in the Dept of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield. As part of this course, I am engaged in a study of the effects of demolition and development on the character and appearance of conservation areas. I would be most grateful if you could find space in your Newsletter to include the following request for information from your members. I would welcome local authority officers writing to me , at the address below, advising me if they consider that conservation areas with which they are professionally acquainted, are being detrimentally affected by one or more of the following changes; and if so,to what extent: demolitionauthorised by local authorities or the Secretary of State (including listed buildings) demolition exempted from control new development authorised by planning permission new permitted development not requiring planning permission. I am especially interested in any views you members may have on the effects of permitted developemt , and the willingness of local authorities to make Article 4 Directions , and the inclination of the Secretary of State to approve such directions in conservation areas. Thanking you in anticipation of your help, David Wright 4 Broomsdale Rd Soot hill, Batley, WF17 6NL PS: Unfortunately my time to complete t?e work is very limited, and a response from your members at their earliest convenience would be very much appreciated. Page 13
Legalaction A NEWINITIATIVE FOR ACO: JOINT WORKING PARTY ON LEGAL ADVICE The idea of a working party, set up by ACO, with the objective of producing legal guidance for conservation officers, was first mooted at the AGMin Oxford in 1984; and was discussed again at this year's AGM. During this last year, John Fidler has been exploring thepossibilitiesfirst of setting up a joint working party under the auspices of HBMCand then, when the HBMCexpressed its inability to provide resources or manpower for this, of ACO setting up a working party on its own account; possibly with the assistance of other bodies such as SAVE and charitable funding for publications. The problems which led to this suggestion are familiar enough. Chief ~lanning officers and district solicitors are generally unfamiliar with the procedural aspects of planning law affecting historic buildings. This applies in particular to the rarely-used repairs notice powers, slOl and sll4-117; and prosecutions under s55 for illegal works and listed building enforcements under s96-99. Conservation Officers wishing to persuade chief officers, district solicitors and councillors to take action against recalcitrant or simply absent owners have little in the way of encouraging printed matter to reinforce their recommendations, Whilst there are at least three.published guides to historic buildings law, and DoE circulars,to identify critical parts of the Acts and offer some degree of interpretation, the procedural aspects of operating planning law are not covered to anywhere near sufficient standard. Also, no advice is given in these guides to procedural activities guides by Acts other than Planning Acts. For example, the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Pro'cedure) Act 1946 - service of formal notices; the Land Registration Act 1925 - powers for the Land Registry to disclose the boundaries and identity of ownership relating to service of notices; the Local Government(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 - powers for local authorities to enquire into ownership of land; the Compulsory Purchase of Land Regulations 1976 - procedural notes to be included within a CPO; etc. , etc. Whilst local authorities can gain appropriate legal advice to interpret whether Acts~nrl Regulations apply in a particular case, there is.no useful check list or flow diagram which specifically sets out to guide planning officers on the technicalities. Often conservation officers know more about planning law than their council's own solicitors, but thei~ advice advice is often ignored for want of written proof of their opinions which can then be checked by qualified legal minds. The working party would aim to produce an occasional but regular series of technical pamphlets on subjects such as prosecutions under s55, listed building enforcement under s96-99, the use of injunctions and stop notices, repairs powers under slOl, repairs powers under sll4-117. John Fidler has approached a number of people familiar to members for their specialist knowledge, (Rob Walker, Charles Myno»s, George Allen, Peter Robshaw, Matthew Saunders, Roger Suddards) It is likely that most of these would be willing to participate. It is envisaged that the group would work in much the same way as the British Standards Institution, for example. Individual parts of the historic buildings legislation would be tackled in series. Working party members would bring case law examples with them to illustrate particular technicalities, and individual members would be asked to produce draft notes to an ·agreed formula. The draft would be vetted by the committee and possibly put out for comment. Publication would be under the 'imprint' of ACO if funds could be found for printing and distribution costs. The idea is still at an embryonic stage. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. However, many people clearly feel that as well as being a tremendous help to conservation staff, such .a venture would help to increase the credibility of ACO and reinforce its existing influence. Page 14
MEMBERS' FORUM GRADEII DEMOLITIONS- PASSING THE BUCK The big silence between the first proposals to amend the planning system, and subsequent paper and legislation, can be a false comfort. Last year's consultation about the proposal to make the demolition of Grade II listed buildings a district matter is a case in point. The negative comments of this Asso~iation and many other bodies may not outweigh the Commission's advice that staff shortages make such a move inevitable; and this despite the fact that, under Circular 23/84 procedure, the Commission will rarely see Grade II applications. In the delegated re-survey many Grade III buildings, to which local authorities were directed to have regard, are not being upgraded because they have been altered or demolished. Nonetheless, the lists continue to grow and, with them, the attraction to the DoE of a system which relieves them of responsibility for Grade II buildings. Such a system will put the harrassed conservation officer in a terrible position. When committees waver, when applicants press for permission and development control officers press for quick decisions, the conservation officer's hand is strengthened by reference to the views of the higher authority. Without this, we may be sure that many of the long-awaited newly-listed buildings will have a short stay on the statutory lists. The Grade II* and Grade I will continue to attract tourists and Lord Montagu's approval, but the great part of our built heritage will be.under far more immediate threat. We must take every opportunity to ensure that elected representatives and the public are aware of the implications of this proposal, and combine to have it withdrawn. Chris Smith Avon County Council Page 15 BUILDINGSAT RISK As part of the Commission's initiatives under the heading of Buildings at Risk, I am writing to seek the help of Conservation Officers in compiling a national register of developers and financiers who are interested in the re-habilitation of historic buildings as part of their folio of investments. Through the medium of your Newsletter, please could you ask Conservation Officers to give me the names and addresses of any developers who have implemented schemes for the refurbishment of redundant buildings in their areas. I am interested, not only in the type and scale of their projects, but also in the geographical boundaries of their area of interest; for example, some developers work on a national basis, while others are only interested in a particular town, district, county or region. I intend to hold centrally a list of developers who can be recommendea by Conservation Officers around the country. By sharing contacts with good developers, we can collectively hope to entice them to work on more of our problem buildings for their profit, for the welfare of the buildings, and for our peace of mind. Naturally, I am conscious that even enthusiastic developers need to be handled correctly, and given appropriate advice by the best designers and historic buildings experts. Where successful 'double acts exist, it.would be useful to know so that they can be encouraged to flourish. For my own part, I am attempting to assemble the major part of the register and by writing in appropriate journals, and lecturing ex~ensively, to encourage developers and finance companies to become interested in the refurbishment of historic buildings. I am also keen to en~ourage the Royal Institute of British Architects to take a more active role in finding sites and buildings for refurbishment, in packaging grants, in collecting finance either corporately or through individual members as developer-architects, instead of waiting for clients and sites to come to them.
In a fee-hungry world, this may be tne only way for small architectural practices to survive and, in the process, assist local planning authorities and the local community in stopping the rot of historic buildings. The above-mentioned register forms part of the Commission's Buildings at Risk initiative, which will, I hope, be more fully described in a future issue of CONTEXT. All contributions, therefore, to the Commission's national register of developers interested in conservation projects will be gratefully received by me at the address below. John Fidler Consewation Officer for Buildings at Risk, Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, Room 2/07, 25 Savile Row London WlX 2BT VAT: FURTHERIMPROVEMENTSOUGHT (CONTEXTNO 8) The efforts by Jeremy Benson are to be welcomed and supported. His approach is compatible with the priciple of directing relief to repairs and maintenance rather than alterations and extensions. There is usually the opportunity of choice whether or not to proceed with alterations and extensions, whereas for the resposible owner repairs and maintenance are a necessity to ensure the preservation of the building. Key parts of the building can be lost through neglect and irretrievable dilapidation. The exception to this possible change in emphasis could be where extensions and alterations are proved to be very necessary to a new use for the building, thus giving a guarantee for its immediate future in good condition. The categories identified, primarily suggesting restriction to the main elements of a listing, appear reasonable. However, there is sometimes a need to encourage positive preservation of those aspects, concerning setting or curtilage, that contribute to~ listed building's character whatever the grade. Bob Scriven Regional contact, Yorkshire and Humberside. SPAB DOMESDAYSURVEY SPAB are still looking for some County Organisers as well as parish surveyors for their Barns Survey, There is no organiser for Suffolk, for example, and parish surveyors are wanted from Yorkshire to Somerset; only Surrey is fully allocated! Prospective volunteers should contact Sarah Dennison, 37 Spital Square, London El 6DY; telephone 01 377 1644. Just bear in mind that the results of this survey will be of enormous help to us, and local authority planning staff are better placed than anyone to help organise and manage part of the survey. Peter Richards Esssex County Council ABBEYNATIONALBUILDING SOCIETY CASH DISPENSERS In the Essex area, we have received a number of planning applications from the Abbey National Building Society for cash dispensers or 'teller machines' in the shop-fronts· of their High Street branches. Usually this type of application presents few problems, as the machine sits conveniently in a redundant doorway, or in a panel to one side of a display window. However, the Abbey National's new marketing strategy dictates that the cash dispenser be a prominent part of the window display. The console is set within a brilliant red metal diamond, flush with the glass of the display window, and is surrounded by an illu~inated halo of psychedelically-coloured perspex. The effect is to 'zap' the passing motorist Page 16
in the eye, and is unrelated to the pedestrian scale of the street scene. It goes without saying that in Essex we regard these proposals as incompatible with listed buildings or conservation areas. After initial rebuff, Abbey National offers as a compromise a silver-finish diamond with a red stripe and without the illuminated perspex, which they will then try to introduce later without consent, as they have legal advice that, being behind the glass it does not require permission. Be warned - have nothing to do with these proposals! John Davey Essex County Council MALADMINISTRATIO-N GRANTSFOR HISTORIC BUILDINGREPAIR A recent decision of the Ombudsman (the Commission for Local Administration)found maladministration by a District Council when its Planning Dept, in dealing with an Historic Building Grant, failed to inform the owner of the building of the possible Housing Act Repair Grant from that authority's Environmental Health Dept. As a result, the owner started work with the benefit of a Historic Building Grant and a loan, but when he discovered about Housing Act Grants it was too late to apply as the work had been done. The Ombudsman found the owner had suffered financial injustice, and the District Council has as a result made a substantial retrospective offer of Repair Grant under the Housing Act. Lessons for us all here; in particular, application forms for Historic Building Grants should refer to the possibility of Housing Act grants being available, and the need to consult Environmental Health or other relevant departments at the outset. Conservation and other historic buildings literature referring to grants should also make the same point. I have ensured that my literature covers the relevant points; you should check yours too! Full details of the Ombudsman's findings Page 17 are in the Journal of Planning and Environment Law for March 1985, page 191, Tony Jenkins Derbyshire County ACOREVIEWOF TECHNICAL/DESIGNPUBLICATIONS BY LOCALAUTHORITIES At the Norwich AGMI volunteered to put together a list of conservation documents. I now have the list compiled for Liverpool University's Town Planning Review, documents sent to them up to March 1983. However, this is not complete because there were some authorities who did not respond. I would like to have a letter from members stating what has been produced in their offices by way of design guides, and technical notes about specific conservation subjects (excluding policy documents, of course, which would only be relevant to their own district or conservation area.)If we were to include these, the index would be gigantic; my impression was that something practical and technical was wanted, such as could be useful in other districts also. Could any mem~er who writes to me please use my office address, marking the letter 'Personal', ie: Assistant Conservation officer, Cheltenham Borough Council, Department of Architecture and Planning, Municipal Offices, The Promenade, Cheltenham, Gloucs. Royston Edge Cheltenham Borough. HISTORIC TIMBERFRAMEVERSUS THERMALINSULATION Peter Richards, in expressing his concern over the appearance of dampand even saturated - conditions within timber framed buildings (CONTEXTNo 7) refers to the presence of vapour barriers. I find this particularly interesting because it may be just this element of
ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=