44 C O N T E X T 1 1 0 : J U LY 2 0 0 9 have extended to global limits, a few familiar places have been given less than full attention.Venice and its lands and the Kingdom of Piedmont, both recognised as being vital in the development and finest products of the baroque, have been almost overlooked. But is Britain included? Baroque 1620–1800 shows that native examples of baroque may indeed be found in Britain. Portraits of the lateStuart monarchs, Charles II and James II, are included in the catalogue. It also contains architectural examples stretching from Salisbury Cathedral (the splendid monument to Thomas Gorges, built in 1635) to works about 100 years later by James Gibbs, who trained in Rome. The furniture section includes LucyWood’s two-page article onThe International English Chair. Straightback chairs in walnut with caning were manufactured at the rate of up to 70,000 a year, and up to 24,000 of these were exported to India and SouthEast Asia. Designs were eventually copied by Indonesian craftsmen, who used teak to replicate the chairs. Further proof of what the English baroque can be when it comes to architecture is provided by the spire placed in 1697 on theWren church of Saint Vedast, 1670–73.The contrast between the geometric simplicity of the church and the design of the spire, based on the oval plan, is a perfect demonstration ofWolfflin’s characterisation of the difference between renaissance and baroque. GrahamTite, senior historic buildings advisor at Essex County Council, Chelmsford SaintVedast church © Images of England, Nicholas Bridges The IHBC responds The following are extracts from some recent consultation responses made by the IHBC (coordinated by James Caird). For the full responses, go to www.ihbc.org.uk/consultations_archive.htm. Heat and energy saving strategy The document concentrates on delivery and techniques, and refers little to consequential environmental impacts or other potential downsides of the options considered. Needless to say, great play is made of widespread use of techniques such as externally applied insulation (as less disruptive to householders than interior insulation) without reference to the possible disbenefits of this to traditionally constructed buildings or historic environments. Our members already report widespread misapplication of energysaving techniques to traditionally constructed buildings which are costly to remedy both financially and in terms of energy consumption. In fact there is no reference in the document to historic environments, heritage or the sensitivity of traditionally constructed buildings at all. It seems to us that this is the main aspect on which the strategy needs to turn its attention. There is much talk of the costeffectiveness of installing better energy efficiency but not much about the problem of improving this to the extent necessary to achieve the very demanding targets (eg near carbon neutrality for all dwellings by 2050 with seven million homes receiving whole-house treatments by 2020). Very substantial reductions in the cost of energy saving and microgeneration techniques will be required to convince property markets of their benefits to the widespread extent envisaged by the strategy. There is little or nothing in the strategy about whole-life energy audit or the relative efficiency of competing generating and distribution methods. It seems to us likely that people will remain sceptical of the benefits of the proposed approaches to energy saving unless they can be convinced that there really will be an overall lessening of carbon dioxide emissions. Considerable play is made of current good practice, but not much about how to replicate on a widespread basis the benefits shown in pilot projects which have had intensive support. If a better-supported wholehouse approach is in the offing, maintaining momentum with current levels of support may be difficult. In order to ensure widespread best practice, emphasis is rightly placed on installer accreditation, but this needs to be capable of providing individualised assessment and improvement of property, because much of the problem lies in traditionally constructed buildings which are potentially vulnerable to ill-considered intervention. There is a lot of detail about how energy improvements might be financed. These mostly depend on funding from commercial sources and how to create incentives for investment and compensate for disadvantage. Resources need to relate to the property and not the occupier. Temporary structures for events Our main concerns are with the document’s usability in the context of development control. As currently framed, we feel that it is likely not to be as helpful as it might be because its apparent requirements are far too onerous for the vast majority of cases. There is little or no reference to the need for listed building consent. It is reasonable to suppose that this may sometimes be required even if planning permission is not. Some temporary structures are not really temporary. These can be long-term continuous placements or continually recurring ones, in both cases the meaning of the word ‘temporary’ may be being stretched, for which the guidance is not emphatic enough. A safer way: making Britain’s roads the safest in the world We agree with the three-pronged approach of dealing with the issue by influencing vehicle design, driver behaviour, and highway engineering and management. We fear that a strategy driven wholly or mainly by targets for lower casualty rates will be implemented through ever-increasing amounts of ill-considered and poorly designed traffic calming measures, pedestrian barriers, road signage and other visual clutter. This would be detrimental to other government objectives aimed at protecting historic environments and improving the quality and design of public spaces.We would like to see the strategy specifically mention the many initiatives that are continuing to have beneficial effects in increasing safety while reducing street clutter.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=