Institute of Historic Building Conservation No 97 November 2006 International themes from Japan, Romania and Russia
Here at Charlestown Workshops, home of the Scottish Lime Centre, we have been providing training for over 13 years in building conservation. Our unique practical training and education programme is continually developed and informed by our building advisory service, Charlestown Consultants. To find out more please visit www.scotlime.org ‘Joined-up’ thinking for building conservation…
C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Context Cover: The turrets of Solovki Monastery. See p30. The first two thousand years of globalisation Editorial Briefing 2 Out of Context 3 TheWriter’s Voice 4 Periodically 5 Conservation staffing survey 7 Legal Briefing Charles Mynors 8 Supporting Columns Brian Morton 14 Heritage Under Threat inquiry Bob Kindred 16 Urban conservation in an age of globalisation Dennis Rodwell 18 The lime spectrum Ian Brocklebank 21 Japan and its industrial heritage John Hinchcliffe 25 Conservation in the north of Russia Mike Clarke 30 Time for Perm to discover its heritage Robert Parkinson 33 Conservation training at Banffy Castle David Baxter 37 Notes from the chair 40 Director’s cut 41 Membership notes 42 Vox pop 42 Book reviews 44 Products and services 45 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 David Lovie email president@ihbc.org.uk Chairman JohnYates email chairman@ihbc.org.uk Vice Chair Dave Chetwyn email vcpolicy@ihbc.org.uk Secretary Richard Morrice email secretary@ihbc.org.uk Treasurer Michael Knights email treasurer@ihbc.org.uk Membership Secretary Mike Lea email membership@ihbc.org.uk Consultations Secretary Karen Holyoake email consultations@ihbc.org.uk Education Secretary John Preston email education@ihbc.org.uk Publicity Secretary vacant email publicity@ihbc.org.uk Law & Practice Coordinator vacant email law@ihbc.org.uk Director Seán O’Reilly email director@ihbc.org.uk Projects Officer Fiona newton email projects@ihbc.org.uk IHBC Committee Chairs Policy Dave Chetwyn email vcpolicy@ihbc.org.uk Membership & Ethics Mike Lea email membership@ihbc.org.uk Finance & Resources Richard Morrice email resources@ihbc.org.uk Education John Preston email education@ihbc.org.uk Communications & Outreach Mike Brown email communications@ihbc.org.uk Branch Officers North John Pendlebury Tel 0191 284 2119 NorthWest Anthony Blacklay Tel 01270 610050 Yorkshire Keith Knight Tel 01904 658482 West Midlands Karen Holyoake Tel 01384 826891 East Midlands vacant South Gill Butter Tel 02380 285324 SouthWest Colin Ellis Tel 01305 838334 East Anglia Pippa Colchester Tel 01245 437337 South East David Kincaid Tel 01227 862185 London David McDonald Tel 020 8881 6724 Scotland Charles Strang Tel 01835 822560 Wales Nathan Blanchard Tel 01285 642428 Northern Ireland Sharon BrownTel 028 9754 3087 Republic of Ireland Bernard DeeTel 00353 1 873 7226 Business Office Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA England Tel 01747 873133 Fax 01747 871718 email admin@ihbc.org.uk The press greeted the Prince of Wales’ decision to buy a house in a remote Transylvanian village (p4) with a variety of interpretations.Was he treating rural poverty as a game, like Marie Antoinette? Was he escaping to the last place in Europe where a prince is treated with deference? Or was he celebrating – and preparing to learn from – older, more sustainable ways of living and building? For the IHBC, working in that corner of Romania offers (in addition to the chance to step back in history) an opportunity to share skills and promote conservation in a place whose twentiethcentury history reflected politics very different to ours. (David Baxter describes the IHBC’s work with the Built Heritage Conservation Training Centre in Transylvania on p37). But above all, international experience gives us a wider perspective. Yes, there really is a world beyond THIs, SDDs and LDFs, however much the immediate pressures of work may encourage us to forget it.We can learn from working with people who have very different experience, but who seem destined to share a globalised future with us. This issue of Context highlights some of that experience. John Hinchcliffe (p25) finds a cultural exchange visit to Japan to be an opportunity to promote the conservation of industrial heritage and to strengthen a network of contacts. Mike Clarke (p30) follows in the steps of monks and prisoners to the north of Russia, where archives can tell us some things we have forgotten about our own history. Robert Parkinson (p33) sees lessons for the historic Russian city of Perm – facing pressures to modernise itself – in the experience of its English twin city. As JohnYates notes (p40), the lack of connections in policy and practice in this country does not reflect the nature of the historic environment itself. European culture is very much joined up, and no part of it more so than our buildings. That has been the case ever since the process of globalisation began – when, a couple of thousand years ago, the first travellers brought with them experience of how people in other places built. Institute ofHistoricBuildingConservation No 97 November 2006 International themes from Japan, Romania and Russia
C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Context Briefing Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. Copy deadlines in 2007 are: Issue Deadline March, Issue 98 12 January May, Issue 99 16 March July, Issue 100 18 May September, Issue 101 13 July November, Issue 102 14 September Editor Robert Cowan Editorial Coordinator Fiona Newton 21 George Street, Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9JU Tel 01507 602567 email editorial@ihbc.org.uk Editorial Board Fiona Newton (chair) Susan Brook (treasurer) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Michael Taylor (main features) Cartoons by Robert Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2006 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 held by the IHBC or 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. Cathedral crafts A Fellowship of Cathedral Workshops is being planned to offer cathedrals a range of benefits. These might include standardising training of workshop apprentices and craftsmen; influencing the training provided by educational/examining boards to meet the particular needs of cathedrals; encouraging sponsorship from government departments and other interested agencies to preserve the very specialised skills of the craftsmen working on such buildings; and arranging exchange schemes between workshops. The fellowship’s roles might also include bringing a greater understanding of the problems encountered in the conservation, repair and maintenance of cathedrals to the attention of government agencies and others; lobbying and bringing influence to bear on funding and government agencies to recognise the work undertaken by works departments; establishing a system of self-help and cooperation between cathedrals where skills of participating members can be called upon to advise or undertake work for other cathedrals; and arranging festivals where the skills of all cathedral craftsmen can be displayed and appreciated. The sincerest form The IHBC London Branch has been flattered to see the Architectural Review organising a conference on ‘Mending Modernism’, which seems to mirror the London Branch’s own 2005 conference on ‘Twentieth Century Buildings: conservation solutions’. The same venue, the same topic and even some of the same speakers. All that is different was the AR’s wildly inflated price of £400. Gillespie, Kidd and Coia The contribution to modernism of the Scottish architects Andy MacMillan and Isi Metzstein is to be celebrated in a project led by the Lighthouse, Scotland’s national architecture and design centre. A £342,000 grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund has been awarded to the initiative, which will see an exhibition, ‘Gillespie, Kidd and Coia: Architecture 1956–1987’ open at the Lighthouse in the autumn of 2007. This will be complemented by an authoritative publication, a web-based resource, a documentary film and an education and outreach programme. The award will also enable the Gillespie, Kidd and Coia archive, held at the Glasgow School of Art, to be catalogued, conserved and made more widely accessible. The firm of Gillespie, Kidd and Coia was created in 1927 when Jack Coia (1898–1981) joined the architectural practice set up in 1911 by John Gaff Gillespie (1870–1926) andWilliam Kidd (1879–1928). Although known for some notable pre-war churches, it is the distinctive character of its post-secondworld-war buildings for which it has become renowned. The reputation of the practice is due largely to the contribution of Isi Metzstein and Andy MacMillan (both born 1928), who assumed design control of the practice in 1956. Vanishing Britain New research reveals the extent to which people in the UK fear losing countryside, heritage and local shops. ‘Vanishing Britain’, conducted by ICM, tracks British concerns for both people and places, and urges people to take action through volunteering. The survey reveals which places they were most concerned about losing. Nearly half (46 per cent) of the population is concerned about losing countryside and green spaces. Forty‑one per cent say they are worried about losing local amenities, including shops and post offices. Eleven per cent are concerned about losing historical buildings. People aged 18 to 24 seem to treasure the heritage most. Nearly one in five is concerned about losing historical buildings. Glass scholar Tracy Holmes, a stained glass conservator fromYork, has won an £8,000 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship to study for an MA in conservation studies at York University. Holmes, who became a trainee Andy MacMillan outside Our Lady of Good Counsel Church, Dennistoun, a Gillespie, Kidd and Coia building (Photo: Epic)
C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 conservator at theYork Glaziers’ Trust two years ago, works on the stained glass of York Minster as well as outside projects. She believes the skills she gains on the course will be of value in future projects planned by the Dean and Chapter, particularly conservation of the Great East Window, for which funding is currently being raised. QEST, the charitable arm of the Royal Warrant Holders Association, has made cash awards to 160 craftsmen and women since 1991. The closing date for spring 2007 scholarships is 19 January 2007. Application forms can be downloaded from www.qest.org.uk. up in 1999 by Unilever to be responsible for the conservation of the village. Turbulent times As conservationists worry about the visual impact of the predicted rash of wind turbines on the UK’s domestic rooftops, environmental campaigner George Monbiot comments (Building Design, 13 October 2006): ‘The figures I’ve seen suggest that in most urban settings [installing a mini wind turbine] is a complete waste of time and money, and has been wildly over hyped.’ Planning delivery grant An extract from the IHBC’s response to the Department of Communities and Local Government’s consultation document on Planning Delivery Grant 2007/08: proposed allocations criteria. See www.ihbc.org.uk for the full text. The IHBC is concerned that the planning delivery grant (PDG) allocation still does not recognise the importance of the efforts being made by many local planning authorities and their conservation staff to meet the requirements of Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI 219) (Conservation Areas). Aside from their intrinsic value to the delivery of the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the documents that are the focus of the BVPI have a key role to play in the local development framework (LDF) process. The character appraisals demanded by 219 part b will form key supporting evidence for LDF core strategy policies on historic areas. Similarly, the conservation area management proposals required under part c of the BVPI will inform and underpin many regeneration projects up and down the country and, of particular importance here, LDF development plan document area action plans. They will also form the cornerstone of many heritage and design supplementary planning documents. Without these key supporting conservation documents, many LDF policies and documents are likely to be found ‘unsound’ at examination, causing considerable delay in the implementation of the LDF system. Much evidence has already been placed before the government that demonstrates the chronic underresourcing of conservation work and staffing levels within local planning authorities. The IHBC believes it is vital at this key stage of the LDF process that the government gives proper support to the delivery of this BVPI. The planning development grant system can and should be used to incentivise enhanced performance in this area. While the institute recognises that it is perhaps not appropriate to include supplementary planning guidance (SPGs) in the assessment of performance, statements of community involvement (SCIs) should be included and planning development grant awarded for meeting milestones in their preparation. SCIs have been key documents on which local authorities have focused resources and sought to deliver against LDF milestones. Consideration should therefore be given to recognising and rewarding this performance. Regarding development plan documents (DPDs), it would seem that the proposals would reward those local authorities which concentrate their resources on a few DPDs, rather than those which have been ambitious in the number they are progressing and delivering. This is where the proposals should take into account workload, and those authorities which are trying to secure extensive and up-to-date plan coverage. A voice for garden suburbs GrahamTite’s proposal for a national forum for garden suburbs and cottage estates (Context 96, September 2006, p3) has received positive responses from a number of IHBC colleagues. Tite is now looking for help in compiling a register of these estates and their representatives and conservation panels, spreading the word more widely, and identifying garden suburbs throughout the UK and Ireland. Apologies for giving an incorrect email address for GrahamTite in our previous issue. Please contact him at 16 Bepton Close, Midhurst,West Sussex GU29 9QR. Tel 01730 816363. paolatite@clara.co.uk Tracy Holmes: future projects may include York Minster’s Great East Window. New round of THI awards The rundown centres of 13 towns and cities across the UK are to receive a total of £13 million in grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). This latest round of awards brings the total awarded through the HLF’s Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) over the past nine years to over £150 million. Towns to benefit from this new investment include those which have suffered decline and decay since the closure of traditional industries: Long Eaton, a former centre of lace-making in the east midlands;Wansbeck in the north east, once reliant on coal and iron production; and the west midlands’ town of Willenhall, famous for lockmaking. The multicultural community of Chapeltown in Leeds, home of the UK’s second biggest carnival, will also benefit. Sunlighters The Port Sunlight Village Trust has opened a new museum, Sunlight Vision. It introduces the social history of the 19th century garden village and the story of its founding byWilliam Hesketh Lever. The museum itself is based in the original Grade II Girls Club building. It contains a mix of memorabilia, artefacts, graphic and audio-visual displays about life as a Sunlighter. Sunlight Vision is managed by the Port Sunlight Village Trust, a charity set
C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 From Joseph Rykwert’s 1972 book On Adam’s House in Paradise THE RETURN to origins is a constant of human development and in this matter architecture conforms to all other human activities. The primitive hut – the home of the first man – is therefore no incidental concern of theorists, no casual ingredient of myth or ritual. The return to origins always implies a rethinking of what you do customarily, an attempt to renew the validity of your everyday actions, or simply a recall of the natural (or even divine) sanction for your repeating them for a season. In the present rethinking of why we build and what we build for, the primitive hut will, I suggest, retain its validity as a reminder of the original and therefore essential meaning of all building for people: that is, of architecture. It remains the underlying statement, the irreducible, intentional core, which I have attempted to show transformed through the tensions between various historical forces. The desire for renewal is perennial and inescapable. The very continued existence of social and intellectual tensions guarantees its recurrence. And renewal was always sought for in the rituals of seasonal change and initiation, much as the reform of corrupt custom and practice was renewed by theorists in their appeal to a primitive hut. I believe, therefore, that it will continue to offer a pattern to anyone concerned with building, a primitive hut situated permanently perhaps beyond the reach of the historian or archaeologist, in some place I must call Paradise. And Paradise is a promise as well as a memory. courtyard and pens for chickens, pigs and goats. It will be let out to tourists for most of the year… ‘The prince, who has visited the region four times since 2002, is working with a charity dedicated to preserving the special nature of the area. The Mihai Eminescu Trust (MET) has already blocked the construction of a Draculaland theme park, complete with blood-red candyfloss and garlic‑flavoured ice cream, at the town of Sighisoara... ‘On a previous visit [the prince] was having a picnic when a horseman galloped up through a clearing and threw himself at the prince’s feet. Charles’s bodyguards leapt to protect him but the man was just a villager who had come to pay homage in medieval style… ‘Jessica Douglas-Home, chairwoman of MET, said: “We try to restore the houses more or less as they were but we will make a concession for Prince Charles. He can have a bath and an inside lavatory.”’Maurice Chittenden writing in the Times ‘On one level Charles’s decision to buy this piece of an existing central Romanian village seems to mark a departure from the Poundbury model: a man who has lavished so much of his attention on creating yesterworlds from scratch… moves into a hamlet that has evolved organically. ‘In another sense, though, his getting a foot on the Transylvanian property ladder can be seen as a disturbing mutation of the Poundbury experiment, smacking of the kind of romanticism of rural poverty that can infect those who have never lived in it.’ Marina Hyde commenting in the Guardian on the same story ‘I began to understand just how remote this area is – and how its ancient way of life has been preserved – as the night train from Budapest (the original Orient Express) crossed the endless dark Hungarian Plain towards the Transylvanian plateau. Ringed by the Carpathian mountains, this was Christian Europe’s final outpost; beyond it lie the Russian steppes and Asia. ‘Half-expecting to hear howling wolves, we left the train in Sighisoara, the region’s capital, not long after dawn. Although this is where Vlad the Impaler (on whomDracula was based) was born, its author Bram Stoker would have been surprised had he visited this idyllic countryside; we walked through ancient flowering meadows of pinks and orchids, poppies, larkspur, ox‑eye daisies, cuckoos, butterflies and crickets. ‘Stopping to drink beer and listen to old German songs beside the church in Richis, we travelled to the village of Malancrav, where the trust has a guest house. Most houses have a cow that returns at dusk of its own accord. The street was filled with horse-drawn carts, dogs, geese and ducks, and the scent and sound of cattle returning from their hillside pastures in the evening light.’ Catherine Palmer setting the scene in the Telegraph magazine for the work of the Mihai Eminescu Trust in conserving the Saxon villages of Transylvania, following the mass emigration of the Saxon inhabitants to Germany in 1990.The villages – farmers’ houses and barns built around fortified churches, substantially unchanged since the middle ages – lie in spectacularly beautiful surroundings. See p37 for David Baxter’s report on the IHBC’s work in Transylvania. ‘THE Prince of Wales is buying a retreat in Transylvania, the region of Romania famous as the home of Count Dracula. The prince hopes to inject new life into a historic village listed as a world heritage site…When Charles visits his new home he will be able to live in almost medieval isolation in a single-storey building behind wooden gates, complete with a cobbled
C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Periodically… In a few years time will we look back on the controversy surrounding the preservation of the Commonwealth Institute and see this as turning point for the heritage movement in the way we now view the 1960s destruction of the Euston Arch? This was certainly the view of Deyan Sudjic, writing in the Observer. He was one of many architectural critics in the national newspapers who sensed foul play in Tessa Jowell’s clandestine manoeuvrings. The views of leading commentators were gathered together in the excellent Autumn 2006 issue of the Twentieth Century Society Newsletter. Catherine Croft explains how the issue emerged, why it is so important for the broader protection of the listing regime, and the campaign to halt it. This seems to be a moment when the secretary of state finally revealed her true feelings about heritage, that weakest and sickly member of her departmental brood. This is a cause célèbre with some mileage in it yet. The next move of the DCMS will be watched with fatal fascination. The newsletter is a cornucopia of material, both domestic and foreign, which promotes the cause of the architectural worth of the last century really effectively. The regeneration of the listed Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury, London (Patrick Hodgkinson, 1967–72) is explained. This complex includes listed council housing, so there are significant tensions over management policy. The article explains the residents’ response to the architecture, which will be of interest to anyone facing this issue elsewhere. The issue also features the 60th anniversary of Ove Arup and Partners and promotes theWorld Congress of Art Deco in 2007 (unfortunately it’s in Melbourne).While considering the international aspect of the newsletter, there are features on Eindhoven (home of electrical giant Philips) and why this striking city is worth visiting for its architecture; and references to Atomium at the 1958 Brussels Expo, which so impressed a young John Allan (architect and biographer of Berthold Lubetkin) and explains his subsequent fascination with modern architecture. There is a feature on the current demolition of the monumental and short-lived Palace of the Republic in former East Berlin, and what this says about the reunified Germany’s attitude towards the former GDR. The latest issue of the technical publication of the Association of Preservation Technology, APT Bulletin (Vol 37, Nos 2–3), has arrived from the United States. The eight well-illustrated articles all have significant interest. Many people will be familiar with Frank Lloyd-Wright’s dramatically located domestic masterpiece Falling Water, voted by the American Institute of Architects in 1991 the ‘best all-time work of architecture’ and donated by its former owner’s son to a trust. The article details the five-year long, $11.5 million restoration. This in turn had been preceded by a 13-year investigation of deterioration mechanisms resulting, perhaps unsurprisingly, from moisture penetration, some dating back to the time of the original completion in 1937. Those concerned about global warming point out that our latitude, if not our climate, is similar to Newfoundland. The heritage of this remote easterly extremity of Canada is a response to both its sub-arctic climate and its traditional family-based inshore fishing industry. An article by Robert Mellin, chair of the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador, explains the cultural landscape and architecture, the distinctive wooden building traditions, the recent local heritage designations at provincial and national level and, as the recent full impact of the dramatic decline of fishing has become apparent, the importance of heritage tourism and the need for strategic conservation planning. It would be helpful if those working in conservation could benefit from standardisation in recording and presenting existing-condition information. One of the unintended but useful consequences of a broad acceptance of Tablet PC Annotation Systems (TPAS) is the possibility of a universally understood glossary of faults and conditions to make this process easier. How this can be done on a Pocket CAD/Compaq iPAQ is well illustrated by authors fromVertical Access, a company specialising in this type of survey. Two articles move into the realm of the conservator but will be helpful for those building conservation professionals who need to appreciate and understand the possibilities of repair techniques. The first article looks at a practical technique for injecting consolidants behind wall and ceiling paintings as an alternative to plaster consolidation, and the performance of injection adhesives for reattaching plaster ceilings (a method in use for the past 25 years using acrylic adhesives often with only a limited understanding of the physical properties of the formulations used). The reliance on non-traditional use of traditional materials and methods often proved invasive and added considerable weight to the ceiling. They were largely irreversible and encumbered future treatment. The second article describes in detail the protocols for testing adhesives and formulations involved. A simple three-part forensic investigation methodology for dealing with deformed timber-buildings using structural, soil and groundwater assessments on 18th century houses in North Carolina is also explained. The centre eight pages are given over
C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 to a new (presumably) pull-out section of what one suspects will be a series, similar to the former green pages in the RICS Building Conservation Newsletter. It deals with ensuring successful implementation of projects by a planned approach to risk management. It is a very valuable addition to the literature. Last year, controversy stalked Stratford upon Avon, where opinion was sharply divided about the merits of refurbishment or redevelopment of the listed Shakespeare Memorial Theatre. Theatres, the magazine of the Theatres Trust (Issue 9, Autumn 2006) looks at the original international architectural competition of 1928, won by Elizabeth Scott, and illustrates five of the shortlisted designs (out of 74 submissions). They were divided between those in the gothic or Tudor manner, and those that were distinctly modern. The article describes Scott’s incorporation of continental technical innovations and the close match between her vision and wider hopes for the theatre. But it points out that the competition assessors, with the exception of Robert Atkinson (who had designed the Regent at Brighton), knew little about theatre design and so applied generalised architectural preconceptions in making their choice, perhaps favouring the functionalism and efficiency generally popular with architects at the time. The issue also discusses the recent £15 million redevelopment of the listed Royal and Derngate Theatre in Northampton. The theatre’s chief executive describes the listed building consent process as ‘frightening’ and the complexities and some of the requirements as ‘baffling to understand, and sometimes impossible to deliver’. But he acknowledges the close working with the local authority’s listed buildings officer and with the Heritage Lottery Fund. ‘The detailed and painstaking analysis which is required had actually resulted in a more credible scheme,’ he says. The Theatres Trust’s role as a statutory consultee is well known. This issue also sets out how the trust intends to ensure that local development frameworks include policies to protect theatres. If you have concerns about this issue, track down this helpful article. The latest issue of the RICS Building Conservation Group Journal (No 43, September 2006) devotes space to an interview with Bob Bennett, driving force behind the Lime Centre in Winchester. He explains how a house was erected in a day following the 17th century custom of erecting a dwelling on common land (to take possession before sunset and become the owner), using the clothes and tools, and fortified by the food and drink of the era. Thirty volunteers organised into four teams began at 4.40am and completed the task in 16 hours 40 minutes, with the help of some rush-light illumination. A further pair of articles explains the practical management of the £11 million, recently refurbished Cardiff Castle, both by John Edwards, surveyor to the fabric. The second examines the works in relation to conservation philosophy, conservation management plans and the Burra Charter. Also of note is a response by Ronnie Clifford, managing director of Pudseybased fibrous plasterer Ornate Interiors, to the extensive BRE sustainability research into the technical, economic, environmental and social implications of retaining houses of the period 1840– 1914. Clifford bemoans the sacrifice of quality for cost in refurbishment that is condemning many such dwellings to unsuitable alteration and modernisation or demolition. Cornerstone, the newsletter of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) (Volume 27, No 3, 2006), celebrates the HLF’s grant support of £645,000 for training volunteer churchwardens about maintenance. This will begin in 2007 and run throughout England andWales for five years. The issue is devoted mainly to celebrating 75 years of campaigning by the society’s mills section to save windmills and watermills. One outrageous, illustrated news story concerns the recent internet auction of an entire historic, probably Georgian house (in apparently good condition) in north Essex close to the Suffolk border by owners wishing to demolish it and build a new one ‘designed to mirror the old, using some of the old materials and details’. The house was unlisted, not uncommon even now in rural parts of East Anglia, and the Georgian Group was considering a request for urgent spot-listing. The advert on the net had been met by derision and anger by some. ‘For your next project, how about selling off one-square-inch pieces of a Gainsborough painting?’ wrote one, but the vendor was unmoved.Watch this space. Finally, restoration projects continue to feature prominently in Natural Stone Specialist. In the August 2006 issue there is a description of the repairs to the Corinthian Arch at Stowe Landscape Gardens in Buckinghamshire by E Bowman and Sons of Stamford for the National Trust. The stone industry and heritage training groups presented an exposition of progress on clearer career paths, including introducing an NVQ Level 1 for a mason’s mate and the designation of master masons outside the NVQ system. The article also identifies the ten practical stonemasonry higher education courses currently available. The September issue highlights the securing of supplies of Great Tew stone in north-west Oxfordshire (actually called the Marlstone Rock Bed in geological terms) following an extension to the quarry on the Great Tew Estate, and the huge lion and unicorn sculptures reinstated on the stepped pyramidal steeple of Nicholas Hawksmoor’s St George’s Church, Bloomsbury. Bob Kindred MBE
C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Local authority services Survey highlights councils’ conservation staffing straightforward where it involved contacting an IHBC member.They were almost all friendly, cooperative and helpful. It became most difficult in those authorities where there was little or no conservation provision, and where there seemed uncertainty about who actually dealt with conservation. Preliminary assessment of the figures indicates that of the 362 local planning authorities surveyed: • Seven authorities take no conservation advice of any form.They have neither in-house advice nor a service level agreement, and they do not use consultants. • Thirty-nine authorities have no internal conservation provision of any type. They do not have any in‑house advisor – neither a specialist conservation officer nor a non-specialist planning officer or similar with some conservation responsibility. Twenty-two of these 39 authorities without in-house advice had a service level agreement for conservation with another authority. • Twenty-one authorities have only a minimum service, using a non-specialist member of staff.This is often a junior planner who handles a limited amount of conservation work for a few hours a week. In 12 of these authorities the officer responsible spends less than two days a week on conservation work. • Sixty-two local authorities have no specialist in-house conservation adviser, either permanent or temporary. • Three hundred authorities have permanent specialist conservation staff. Fifty-four per cent of all authorities surveyed have fewer than two permanent specialist conservation staff, and only 9.6 per cent have more than four. • Fifty-seven local authorities were using consultants on a regular basis to cover day-to-day workload. A very substantial number of authorities (140 authorities or 39%), including those with specialist conservation provision, claimed to use consultants on a project basis.While this can include one-off reports on single buildings or areas, the two most common projects were townscape heritage initiative applications, which are often complicated and time consuming, and conservation area appraisals, which are linked into completion of BVPI 219. A total of 159 authorities (44%) claimed never to use consultants as part of their service delivery. While this is extremely useful base-line data, the figures of conservation provision are difficult to interpret meaningfully at this early stage. How can one define the appropriate staff requirements? To what extent does it matter if they are permanent or temporary? If the work gets done, does it matter if the authority uses consultants or other councils? These figures do not attempt to answer these questions and so perhaps should not be used to inform discussion on staffing.You may have a large authority with many historic assets, and the six conservation officers in your team may work exceptionally hard; or you might be working part-time for an authority with a handful of listed buildings. Comparisons can be dangerous. Another interesting aspect of the work was the picture it gives of IHBC membership in local authorities. Sixty‑seven per cent of local authorities in England have an IHBC member on their staff. And 81 per cent of authorities that have a specialist conservation service have at least one IHBC member within it. This figure should of course be higher. The institute hopes that the direct contact made during this survey with potential members will reap dividends. The IHBC’s new capacity and more integrated long-term planning means that it is able to examine a range of funding sources and partners such as, in this case, English Heritage and consider what research, guidance and training it could provide for different sectors of the membership. The survey provided an opportunity to talk to members in local authorities about what the institute can provide them with. The feedback on the work of the IHBC was very positive and has produced suggestions to further improve the institute’s services. Above all, the exercise provided a great opportunity for Fiona Newton to speak to so many members. She is grateful to those who took the time to talk about their work and the IHBC. Many IHBC members in English local authorities had their concentration disturbed in October by yet another telephone survey. This was not the usual planning consultant asking about the status of your local development framework or the market researchers working on Heritage Lottery Fund monitoring. This was a call from the IHBC asking about the work of its members. The person at the end of the phone was not a call centre automaton who does not know lime putty from lime pickle, but the institute’s newly appointed project officer Fiona Newton. Her appointment as an additional staff member will allow the institute to take on new projects, to provide information for members, and expand the IHBC’s presence in the conservation world and beyond. The phone call was to collect information for a project (a partnership between the IHBC and English Heritage, and funded through English Heritage’s Historic Environment Enabling Programme) called Mapping Conservation Services in Local Planning Authorities. This data-gathering exercise forms the first stage in a potentially larger programme of investigating how planning authorities approach conservation.The institute used its membership contacts (including information supplied by local volunteers) as a starting point, with additional information collected through the telephone interviews. The intention at this stage was to collect contact details for local authority conservation staff and answers to a few quick questions. This would give a snap shot of current conservation provision and provide providing a database of contacts that can be used for future research projects. Newton contacted 362 local authorities throughout October 2006. As an experienced conservation officer, she understood the issues and the workload that were being discussed.The planning authorities contacted included two‑tier councils (128 district, 99 borough and 12 city councils), 114 unitary authorities, eight national parks and one development corporation.The work did not at this stage include county councils or authorities outside England. A good level of information was obtained from every one of the planning authorities.This was fairly
C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 LEGAL BRIEFING The extent of listing (3) In the third and final extract from his new book, Charles Mynors looks at cases relating to the extent of a building’s curtilage and summarises the position on the extent of a listed building. Objects and structures in the curtilage It is not surprising that, as noted in the previous article (Context 96, September 2006), a listed building is defined to include objects and structures fixed to the building. They are, after all, very obviously part of the building. It is perhaps less immediately apparent that the listing extends to any object (such as a statue or birdbath) or structure (such as a garden pavilion or wall) in the vicinity of the building. This protection obviously makes sense in the case of, for example, a large country house whose grounds contain numerous temples, statues, grottoes and so on; they may indeed in some cases be one of the reasons, or indeed the principal reason, why the building was listed. On the other hand, they are still affected by the restrictions involved in the listing process even if they are of no interest whatever (such as a decaying garden shed). As with fixtures, it should be borne in mind that listed building consent would be needed for their alteration or removal only if the proposed works would affect the character of the listed building as a whole. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Particularly in the countryside, listed buildings may be associated with large landholdings, sometimes extending to many hundreds of hectares. It would be ridiculous if all objects and structures within them were to be theoretically protected. The planning Acts accordingly have (since 1968) granted protection to ‘any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before July 1, 1948’. The listing thus extends to pre-1948 objects and structures within the curtilage of the building actually included in the list. In principle, the dictionary definition of ‘curtilage’ is ‘an area of land attached to a house and forming one enclosure with it’. It derives from the Old French word courtil, meaning ‘small court’. It is a conveyancing term often used in property transactions; and it turns up in various modern statutes. Although the use of the word is thus relatively widespread (at least in legal contexts), it may in practice sometimes be far from straightforward to determine what is the curtilage of a particular building – or, of greater significance, whether one structure is in the curtilage of another. Although much is sometimes made of this, when considering whether an ancillary object or structure is to be taken as being protected by the listing of a nearby building, it is often more important to consider whether the associated structure is ‘ancillary’ to the listed building (considered in the first of these three articles, Context 95, July 2006). This is certainly what emerges from the decision of the House of Lords in Debenhams and those of the High Court in Watts, ex parte Bellamy and Morris (considered in the second article, Context 96, September 2006). Nevertheless, it is in some instances necessary to consider the definition of curtilage.There are numerous decided cases dealing with this, some in contexts other than specifically relating to listed buildings, and those referred to here are only a selection. This discussion below accordingly considers, first, the cases specifically relating to the curtilage of listed buildings, then the decisions relating to the extent of a curtilage, decided in the context of permitted development rights and under other statutes. Finally, there is a brief look at some of the decisions from other areas of law, referred to in the statutory cases. The extent of curtilage: listed buildings cases The principal case dealing explicitly with the definition of curtilage in the context of listed buildings isAttorneyGeneral v Calderdale BC, relating to Nutclough Mill at Hebden Bridge in West Yorkshire (see the first article for a diagram showing the facts of this case). It had been conceded that buildings in different ownerships might be within the same curtilage; but he had contended (rightly, in the view of the court) that they fell less easily within the same curtilage if they were in different ownerships. It had also been submitted that less attention should be paid to title and division of ownership, otherwise listed building control could easily be evaded by colourable transfers of title; and more weight should be given to historical association and proximity. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal referred to a number of decisions (including Methuen-Campbell v Walters, Pilbrow v Vestry of the Parish of St Leonard, Shoreditch andVestry of St Martin’s in the Fields v Bird), showing that different facts might lead to different conclusions, and indeed that the same facts might lead to different judicial opinions. However, there was at the end of the argument before the court agreement that: ‘three factors had to be taken into account in deciding whether a structure (or object) was within the meaning of [s 1(5)], whatever might be the strict conveyancing interpretation of the ancient and somewhat obscure word ‘curtilage’. They are: 1) the physical ‘layout’ of the listed building and the structure 2) their ownership, past and present’, and 3) their use or function, past and present.’ Stephenson LJ thus held that the terrace had definitely been within the curtilage of the mill when they were
C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 both built in 1870, and therefore came ultimately to the conclusion, not without doubt, that: ‘the terrace has not been taken out of the curtilage by the changes which had taken place, and remained so closely related physically or geographically to the mill as to constitute with it a single unit and to be comprised within its curtilage in the sense that those words were used in this subsection.’ The threefold test set out in Calderdale remains the key to analysing this issue, and has been applied by the court in a number of subsequent cases that have explored particular aspects of this problem. The extent of curtilage in the case of structures such as ice houses, garden temples and ha-has in the grounds of a country house was considered by Sir Frank Layfield, sitting as deputy judge inWatson-Smyth v Secretary of State (see Figure 8). He concluded, first, that where one structure that is clearly ancillary to a listed principal building is listed in its own right, that does not of itself mean that the ancillary structure is outside the curtilage of the principal building. Many such structures are listed because of their own merit, but are clearly within the curtilage of listed buildings. Second, it can not be assumed that each structure in such a group has its own, distinct curtilage, for that might lead to the splitting up of a single, clearly defined curtilage into indefinable parcels. As to the situation that sometimes occurs where there are within a single area of land a number of buildings, some but not all of which are listed, and none of which is more significant than the others, this was considered in Re West Norwood Cemetery, in the context of a large municipal cemetery. It was held that ‘the effect of listing 67 buildings and monuments within a clearly defined area means that... the whole of the cemetery is effectively within the listing’.That may have been correct on the particular facts of that case, but the approach should not be pushed too far. On the other hand, it has been confirmed that not every building has or is capable of having a curtilage. At the Bishopsgate Goods Yard, in East London, the secretary of state had listed, some while earlier, the entrance to an older structure, of which most of the remainder had perished; and more recently a historic viaduct running through the middle. In relation to the former, Ouseley J (in Hammerton v LUL) held that ‘it seems odd to suppose the gates and walls themselves had a curtilage and that those other parts lay within the curtilage’. The same would no doubt apply to features such as gate lodges, boundary walls, bollards, and monuments that have been listed in their own right. Frequently they will be within the curtilage of other buildings that have also been listed, but where they are not, the listing of a bollard does not give rise to protection for the unremarkable building in the forecourt of which it is standing. Visual matters may occasionally be significant. This has not yet been tested in the courts, but was the subject of an appeal decision, relating to a group of buildings surrounding a farmyard in Chipping Campden in Gloucestershire. The farmhouse on one side was included in the list in 1960. The other buildings surrounding the yard were by that date probably no longer in agricultural use, and were by the date of the appeal in separate ownership; one had been turned into a separate dwelling. The secretary of state considered that, although a substantial portion of the other buildings surrounding the farmyard were now ancillary to the new dwelling in the practical sense, the visual function of those buildings, and of the new dwelling itself, continued to relate to the former farmhouse; he thus decided that all the buildings surrounding the yard were within the curtilage of the farmhouse (even though it was described in the list as being of no special interest). This should be contrasted with Morris v Wrexham CBC and the National Assembly, discussed in the previous article, which suggests that the sole question was what was the position at the date of the listing – subsequent events are irrelevant. The Court of Appeal has considered the issue of curtilage relatively recently, in the case of Skerritts of Nottingham Ltd v Secretary of State. This concerned the Grade II listed Grimsdyke Hotel in Harrow (the former residence of W S Gilbert). Skerritts, the owners of the hotel, had installed double glazing in a stable block, situated some 200 yards from the hotel (see Figure 6). No listed building consent had been sought for the operation. The local authority began enforcement proceedings, on the basis that the stable block lay within the curtilage of the hotel, so that consent should have first been obtained. Skerritts maintained that, on the basis of the decision in Dyer v Dorset CC (see below), no listed building consent was required, since the curtilage of a building must be small. This latter view was accepted by Mr George Bartlett QC, sitting as a deputy judge, when the matter came before him. Figure 6. Grim’s Dyke, Harrow (Skerritt’s of Nottingham v Secretary of State)
10 C O N T E X T 9 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 The Secretary of State appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal. In giving judgement, Robert Walker LJ maintained that: ‘whilst the decision in Dyer was plainly correct… this court went further than it was necessary to go in expressing the view that the curtilage of a building must always be small, or that the notion of smallness is inherent in the expression’. The court did not see fit to give any further detailed guidance upon the matter, other than to reiterate the proposition established in Dyer that curtilage will always be a question of fact and degree. Accordingly, it appears that while in any given instance it will be necessary to have regard to all the circumstances, the starting position for consideration can no longer be an assumption that a curtilage is necessarily limited in extent. The decision in Dyer was also applied in an appeal decision relating to the demolition of a lodge building in Warwick (noted at [2003] JPL 769). The lodge was some 200 metres from the main (listed) house, which had subsequently been used as a school, and the two buildings had been in the same ownership and related use until the date of the listing. There was then a hedge partially enclosing the lodge, but it was still open to the drive and visible from the front of the main house. The grounds had been used for modern residential development, but that was not sufficient to negate the original relationship; and the inspector accordingly found the lodge to be ancillary to and in the curtilage of the house, so that consent was required for its demolition. The position is thus that, for the purposes of establishing what is the extent of a listed building, the position must be examined as it was at the date of listing (or, possibly, as it was at 1 January 1969 in relation to buildings listed before then), in the light of the criteria in Calderdale. And once a decision has been reached, the courts will be slow to interfere. As Sullivan J expressed it in the unreported 1998 case R v North Devon DC, ex parte Tarn: ‘Whether a particular structure is within the curtilage of a particular listed building is a question of fact for the local planning authority or the secretary of state to decide. On such a question of fact, I would interfere with the district council’s decision that, in this case, the hedgebank was not within the curtilage of Prospect Lodge only if I thought it had erred in principle in some way, or if there was no evidence to support its decision or, to put it another way, if its conclusion in this respect was perverse.’ Definition of curtilage: other planning cases The courts have on a number of occasions considered the extent of the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, to determine whether the construction of garden buildings and enclosures would be permitted by the TCP (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or its predecessors. Collins v Secretary of State (1989) related to a cottage set in 4.5 acres of gardens, of which the part nearest to the cottage was well-cut lawn and the remainder was rough grass, largely neglected. The appellant constructed a summerhouse in the rough part of the gardens, which was the subject of an enforcement notice. On the subsequent appeal to the high court against the inspector’s upholding of the notice, Sir Graham Eyre QC, sitting as deputy judge, considered that in determining the nature and extent of the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, it is important that it should serve the purposes of the dwelling in some necessary or useful manner (echoing the test in Sinclair-Lockhart’s Trustees (see below). On the facts in this case, the rough part of the garden could not be described as part of the curtilage of the cottage, since it did not serve the cottage. The facts in James v Secretary of State (1991) were not dissimilar; a tennis court was constructed towards the further end of a 1.2-acre parcel of land surrounding a detached house set in wooded countryside. Sir Graham Eyre QC (again) held that the extent of the curtilage is ‘quintessentially a matter of fact’. The inspector considered that the field on which the court had been constructed was within the same ownership as the house; and found that there was a functional association between them. However, on the facts, the inspector found that the field was quite separate and distinct from the cultivated garden attached to the house, and the house and the tennis court did not have the appearance of close association or of being within the same enclosure. His decision, that the field was not in the curtilage of the house, was thus entirely satisfactory. A third decision, McAlpine v Secretary of State (1995), again related to the construction of a swimming pool and tennis court in a paddock beyond the bottom of a generous garden. Nigel Macleod QC, sitting as deputy judge, confirmed that the decision as to whether the pool was in the curtilage of the house was essentially a matter of fact and degree for the inspector. He also suggested that it is allowable for inspectors, in appropriate cases, to consider historical evidence where it assists the determination of a present curtilage boundary. The most recent of these GPDO cases is Lowe v The First Secretary of State (2003), in which the court emphasised that the curtilage of a building was not necessarily to be equated to the land in the same ownership as it. It should be noted that, when determining what is the extent of a listed building, the key question is what was the extent of the curtilage of the building in the list at the date on which it was listed. However, when determining what permitted development rights apply, the key question is what is the extent of the curtilage of the building in question at the date of the development. The principles are the same in either case, but the date on which they fall to be applied is different. National and local planning policies sometimes refer to various types of development being acceptable within the curtilage of existing buildings. PPG 3
flippingbook.comRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=