2 C O N T E X T 8 4 : M A Y 2 0 0 4 Context Editor Robert Cowan Editorial Coordinator Nigel Barker, 65Worplesdon Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9RT. Tel 01483 562 851 email [email protected] Editorial Board Nigel Barker (chair) Susan Brook (treasurer and IT) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Julia Smith (IHBC branches) 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 2004 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 [email protected] www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to non-members of the IHBC at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £50.00 Elsewhere £75.00 Subscription orders, together with remittances payable to Institute of Historic Building Conservation, should be sent to the IHBC Business Office at Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily those held by the IHBC nor the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. Briefing Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. Copy deadlines in 2004 are: Issue Date July, Issue 85 17 May September, Issue 86 12 July November, Issue 87 13 September give very little weight to conservation arguments to retain traditional thatching materials and were, instead, swayed largely by economic arguments. The IHBC technical subcommittee is undertaking research into listed building thatching policies in the UK. The aim is to establish which local authorities have adopted policies related to thatching, and how effective these are in dealing with applications for changes of material or thatching style and in tackling appeals. The first stage of the research is a survey of local authorities to find out which have adopted thatching policies and what their experience has been in practice. The information will be used to build up a picture of successful practice from which other authorities may benefit. All local authorities will shortly receive a questionnaire and I hope that those of you who work as conservation officers will take the time to complete and return it. The information provided may be useful even if there are only a handful of thatched buildings in your area. All completed questionnaires will be entered into a draw to win a copy of the English Heritage Research Transactions on Thatching. Alison Henry, chair, IHBC technical subcommittee Funding cut for church casework English Heritage is to reduce its grant towards the Victorian Society’s church casework from £17,100 to nothing over the next three years, the IHBC’s North West newsletter reports. Despite meetings between Ian Dungavel of the Victorian Society and Simon Thurley of English Heritage, the decision to phase out church grants has not been reversed. Matthew Saunders, secretary of the joint committee of the amenity societies told NorthWest: ‘The situation is highly regrettable. Nineteenth century churches are under threat in the north west like no other region’. A general grant provided to the amenity societies is split between the seven bodies. SPAB and the Victorian Society get extra cash for church work, as most listed churches are described as ancient or Victorian. The phasing-out may lead to the Victorian Society losing its churches officer. This blow for the amenity societies comes at a time when the Ecclesiastical Exemption Order is due for review. IHBC to research thatching policy The word ‘thatch’ conjures up images of picturesque country villages and pretty chocolate box cottages where the pace of life is slow and things have remained much the same for generations. In some parts of the country, though, this peaceful scene masks a heated controversy embroiling conservation officers, thatchers, homeowners, farmers and woodsmen. The debate is over the introduction of thatching materials, styles and techniques, which may be traditional in some areas, into other areas where they are not traditional – and where they are considered by some as alien and harmful both to the character of historic buildings in that area and to the regional diversity of thatching traditions. In some areas there has been resistance to applications for consent to change from one type of thatch to a different type. Until recently, planning policy guidance appeared to provide little support for this stance. PPG15, published in 1994, contained clear advice about the need to retain ancient, smoke-blackened thatch but, although it mentioned regional thatching traditions and detailing, the importance of the different thatch materials was implied rather than specified. In recognition of the deficiencies in national policy advice, English Heritage published Thatch and thatching: a guidance note in 2000. This document considered in detail the importance of the different thatch materials and styles in contributing to regional diversity and historic building character, and provided a clearer basis for strengthening local policy in favour of retaining traditional materials, methods and styles. The document issued a call for local authorities to formulate policies based on a thorough knowledge of local thatching materials and to adopt such policies as supplementary planning guidance. There have been several appeal decisions in recent years in which planning inspectors have appeared to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=