Institute of Historic Building Conservation No 114 May 2010 Working with building preservation trusts
ii C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 Build Restore Renew Restores ComptonVerney, Warwickshire. RIBA Award 2004. From cathedrals and abbeys to small churches and chapels. From stately homes and royal palaces to small houses and cottages. For historic buildings across Britain, Linford-Bridgeman is the contractor of choice for repair, restoration and conservation. For more information about Linford-Bridgeman, find us at: www.linfordrestores.com, or call 01543 414 234 Linford-Bridgeman Ltd, Quonians, Lichfield, StaffordshireWS13 7LB Tel: 01543 414 234 Fax: 01543 258 250 [email protected] www.linford.com Stonemasonry • Architectural Metalwork •Traditional Plastering • Fine Joinery Linford SpecialistWorks brings together Linford Group's renowned stable of craft companies to provide a unique service for the property owners, architects and specialist contractors concerned with the care of traditional and heritage buildings. Our skilled and directly-employed teams can be contracted individually or in combination for projects of all sizes across the UK. By helping our clients to source multiple craft services from a single organisation, we can deliver outstanding craft quality alongside savings in client time and money. For more information about Linford SpecialistWorks, please visit www.linfordSW.com, or call us on 01543 414 234 today. L I N F O R D S P E C I A L I S T W O R K S Linford Masonry • Dorothea Restorations • Trumpers • Linford Joinery Linford SpecialistWorks A division of Linford Group Quonians, Lichfield, StaffordshireWS13 7LB [email protected] www.linfordSW.com
C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 1 Context Editorial The preservationist instinct 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. Officers President Eddie Booth email [email protected] Chairman Dave Chetwyn email [email protected] Vice Chair Sheila Stones email [email protected] Secretary Richard Morrice email [email protected] Treasurer Michael Knights email [email protected] Membership Secretary Jo Evans email [email protected] Education Secretary John Preston email [email protected] Publicity Secretary Doug Black email [email protected] Law & Practice Coordinator vacant email [email protected] Director Seán O’Reilly email [email protected] Projects Officer Fiona Newton email [email protected] Consultant Consultations Coordinator James Caird email [email protected] Membership Services Officer Joanna Theobald email [email protected] Administration Officer Lydia Porter email [email protected] Committee Chairs Policy Mike Brown email [email protected] Membership & Ethics Jo Evans email [email protected] Finance & Resources Richard Morrice email [email protected] Education John Preston email [email protected] Communications & Outreach Charles Strang email [email protected] Branch Officers North Geoff UnderwoodTel 0191 433 3435 NorthWest Kate Borland Tel 0161 2344556 Yorkshire Keith Knight Tel 01904 658482 West Midlands Charles Shapcott Tel 0121 7044312 East Midlands Roy Lewis Tel 01636 653060 South Julia Foster Tel 01296 585888 SouthWest Ian LundTel 01225 477687 East Anglia Phil Godwin Tel 01263 516131 South East David Kincaid Tel 01227 862185 London David McDonald Tel 020 8881 6724 Scotland Stuart Eydmann Tel 01506 775279 Wales Nathan Blanchard Tel 01492 583443 Northern Ireland Sharon BrownTel 028 9754 3087 Republic of Ireland Cormac O’Sullivan Tel 00353 5677 62907 Business Office Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA England Tel 01747 873133 Fax 01747 871718 email [email protected] Institute ofHistoricBuildingConservation No 114 May 2010 Working with building preservation trusts Cover: A new entrance through the prison wall giving access to the 19th century Debtors Tower and prison D Wing, part of a major project by the Oxford Preservation Trust and its partners, see p37 (Photo: Oxford Castle Unlocked) What is it about historic building conservationists? Something inspires us to choose this line of work. It is not the money. Perhaps it is something deep in our genes. Scientists tell us that human instincts relate to challenges that our ancestors faced in the environments in which they evolved. The psychologist Steven Pinker has suggested that there are sets of instincts for intuitive mechanics (knowledge of the motions, forces and deformations that objects undergo); intuitive biology (understanding how plants and animals work); number; mental maps for large territories; habitat selection; and justice (sense of right and obligations). We can imagine how these instincts helped our hunter-gatherer ancestors survive, and how they may inspire the various types of built environment professionals of today. Those with highly developed instincts for mechanics or numbers are more likely to become engineers; the instincts for understanding biology find an outlet in landscape architecture; those for mental maps are expressed in architecture; and those for justice may inspire the planner’s traditional concern for supposedly rational land use. Perhaps historic building conservation provides an outlet for people with a highly developed instinct for habitat selection. In his introduction to our theme on building preservation trusts (BPTs) in this issue of Context (p11), James Moir reflects on what motivates the people whose extraordinary passion drives the BPT movement. Saving neglecting buildings, he suggests, may evoke childhood memories; inspire thought about value and meaning; and, above all, satisfy our sense of place. Our ancestors’ survival depended on understanding what sort of places would be best suited to the tribe’s survival, and how to adapt those places. The knowledge was a matter of life and death. Conditions have changed, but the passion for placemaking is still vital today. Our articles in this issue point to some very practical ways in which building preservation trusts not only preserve buildings but help to create living places. IHBC comment on PPS5 2 Briefing 5 Out of Context 6 Letters 6 The writer’s voice 7 Remembering Joe Martin 7 ICOMOS-CIVVIH conference, Valletta 8 Periodically 9 Working with building preservation trusts James Moir 11 BPTs and revolving fund activity Andrew Beckett 13 BPT activity in the East Midlands David Trevis-Smith 17 Building preservation trusts in Scotland Sarah Jenkins 20 The Little Houses Improvement Scheme Stephen Copp 23 The best of both worlds Marcus Patton 27 Heritage assets for community use Nick Falk 29 A Scottish partnership Alan Lodge 31 New life for Portaferry Nick Brown 34 Partnership at Oxford Castle Debbie Dance 37 The Vivat Trust’s special buildings Laura Norris 40 A new approach to involving volunteers Liz Bates 42 Lessons from Great Yarmouth Stephen Earl 44 Public perceptions of conservation areas JennyWhetton 46 Gardens and designed landscapes 50 Architecturally speaking 53 IHBC consultations 54 Notes from the chair 55 Director’s cut 56 Membership notes 57 Vox pop 58 Book reviews 59 Products and services 61 Advertisers index 64
2 C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 Context Editor Rob Cowan Editorial Coordinator Fiona Newton 21 George Street, Louth, Lincolnshire LN11 9JU Tel 01507 602567 email [email protected] Editorial Board Fiona Newton (chair) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Michael Taylor (main features) Cartoons by Rob Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2010 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 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. Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November.The copy deadlines in 2010 are: Issue Deadline July, Issue 115 17 May September, Issue 116 19 July November, Issue 117 20 September and sparse. Coupled with this, the PPS introduces a raft of new language for us to take on board. How long will it take us all to feel the same attachment to ‘heritage assets’ and ‘significance’ as we do to the language passed down through circular 8/87 to PPG15? The separation of policy from guidance, in line with the current approach of governments across the UK, has made the document significantly shorter than both PPGs 15 and 16. With only 12 policy areas, the strippeddown approach will take some getting used to.The much-lamented loss of Annex C, which offered precise technical guidance on many aspects of conservation practice, has been a sore to many. Others are more sympathetic to the new approach, treating cases on their individual merits.The new accompanying English Heritage-authored Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide provides interpretation for the policies in the PPS and is a material consideration.The guidance is jointly owned by English Heritage and the relevant government departments. The guidance is seen as more flexible and open to later amendment. Indeed, the IHBC has raised issues with English Heritage on how guidance could be amended in the future to improve certain areas.To balance this there needs to be an awareness that it should not be treated as something so flexible that it will have little weight and confer little protection. Terminology Those parts of the historic environment that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or indeed artistic interest are now called ‘heritage assets’. In terminology at least, the PPS provides the first attempt to develop an integrated approach to the historic environment in line with the aims of Heritage Protection Reform. Legislation to create an integrated list is still seen as the aim. It is interesting to speculate how it would differentiate between buildings with utility value and monuments incapable of use. This is especially important to avoid the tests of viable use being applied to monuments that have no potential for productive use.The PPS gives no working definition of artistic value for practical purposes, but as such status is based on the determination of IHBC comment on PPS5 Fiona Newton, IHBC projects officer, writes: So there it is at last! The new Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5), issued in March, replaced two of the oldest pieces of planning policy guidance – PPG15 (1994) and PPG16 (1990).The response to the document has been, in the main, a sense of relief, given the widespread unpopularity of original draft document. Indeed full credit should be given to all those involved in the redraft, as the revised version marks a considerable transformation from the original. Of course it has strengths and weaknesses, and each of us will have a different view on the balance of these, but it is clear that it presents a new approach, which will certainly take time to get used to. For this reason English Heritage, through its HELM programme, has been providing introductory seminars to the document, while the IHBC is looking at how best to support implementation now that we are faced with this new tool. Although similar in approach and basic content to the consultation draft PPS issued in October 2009, PPS5 is more coherent and more consistent. It has been substantially reshaped in the light of comments and criticisms raised by the IHBC and the wider conservation sector.The joint consultation response of the IHBC with the RTPI led to front-page coverage in the national press and a subsequent announcement from planning minister John Healey that ‘to put it beyond doubt, there is no question of downgrading the protection of historic buildings.The current language in the planning policy statement is not clear enough.We will redraft it to make clear that the protection of heritage buildings will not be reduced.’ PPG15 was intended not only for local authorities, but also as a useful source of guidance for property owners, developers, investors, amenity bodies and others. PPS5, on the other hand, is planning policy and nothing more. PPG15 was for many an inspirational document filled with useful quotes. It could be used to explain clearly many key aspects of our trade, not just to the planning committee, appeal hearing or developer meeting, but also to the local society or the historic building owner unfamiliar with the system. It was a faithful friend with beautiful prose and added value, against which PPS5 seems very dry
C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 3 ‘significance’ (which in turn is founded on ‘interest’), it is clear that substantial duty is placed on the expert practitioner to make an informed and balanced judgement to identify a ‘heritage asset’. The new use of the term ‘significance’ is intended to be linked to the existing terms used in the 1990 Act, such as ‘special architectural and historic interest’ and also ‘archaeological interest’, which was established by PPG16.While the intention is that all policies cover all assets, in practice, and until and indeed if, any further legislation is enacted, the legislative regime governing each remains distinct. In order for applications to be validated, the significance of heritage assets has to be identified and assessed to a proportionate level.This may be seen as a formalisation of a conceptual process of assessment often used in practice.This proportionate approach to significance chimes very well with much current practice in building conservation. The PPS contains a number of terms which would appear to be likely sources of future debate and discussion as to their extent and definition, and which are not defined in the terminology annex.The introduction of such terms without definition is unfortunate. Let us hope that further clarity can be brought to this. For example, where does ‘substantial harm’ exceed ‘less harm’ or indeed become ‘less than substantial harm’? The level of harm is seen by the government to be a judgment to be made by local planning authorities. Indeed, a basic definition of each level of harm could be established at this early stage by the planning authority to ensure a more robust response to being put on the spot later in appeals and inquiries. Planning policies only The removal of all policies considered to not be direct planning policies has reduced the word count and, it can be argued, the value of the document to specialist conservation professionals, as opposed to wider planners.Thus the relationship of the historic environment to other areas of control and grant regimes (such as building regulations, dangerous buildings, disabled access, house renovation grants, ecclesiastical exemption, advertisement control, and highways and public realm) have all been removed in many cases, not only losing valuable statements of priority over other legislation, but unlikely to be picked up by other PPSs. Perhaps this is where the government’s high-level statement may need to come into its own. A number of other planning-related areas have also been excluded from the PPS.While many may notionally relate to other PPSs, they do not in the main have any specific concentration on the historic environment aspects. As a result the emphasis has been lost for areas such as enforcement and prosecution, and establishing fixtures and curtilage (in the light of the existing legislation pre-empting any possible new legislative framework). It is of course one aspect of the raft of planning policy and should be read as such with all other planning policy, particularly PPS1. PPS5 is not the exclusive reference for the historic environment policy. Rather, as the opening paragraphs of PPS5 make clear, reference should and must be made to others PPSs by users of PPS5, depending on circumstances and need. In this sense, perhaps more than any other, PPS5 represents the integration of historic environment policy with wider planning policy. In this way too, it responds to the IHBC’s firm commitment to integrating specialist historic environment practice with the wider planning system.The document is emphatic that it does not undermine the wide conservation values that the IHBC works to support.This is in stark contrast with the first draft of PPS15. It is no longer possible to hope that all the answers will be found by reference to a single document. But how do we balance other government policy against the value of the historic environment if it is not explicit in this document? Presumption in favour The welcome reinstatement of a presumption in favour of preservation, now termed conservation (policy 9.1), which was to be lost in the previous draft of PPS15, is now thus expanded under the PPS to be relevant to all designated heritage assets rather than the PPS15 presumption in relation to listed buildings.This brings registered scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens,World Heritage Sites and battlefields within this policy. A finite resource The acknowledgement that our heritage is finite has been reintroduced and a much-improved acceptance of the wider benefits of heritage is described in the section on the government’s objectives.The headline policies on climate change accept the inherent sustainability of historic buildings and do not see heritage entirely as an impediment to climate change mitigation. Enabling development PPG15 contained no advice on ‘enabling development’.The PPG did not appear to support the concept in general: paragraph 1.3 on sustainable development points up the risk of ‘sacrificing what future generations will value for the sake of short-term and often illusory gains’ and the sections on use and alterations (3.8 to 3.15) did not mention it.The new enabling development policy (11.1) is based very tightly on English Heritage’s existing policy. It requires a series of tests to be applied to applications to enable local planning authorities to weigh up
4 C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 persuasive and potentially useful of the suite of documents issued. But of course by now, after the general election, it is either obsolete as the view of a former government or simply forgotten. However, it does contain some strong, positive messages, many of which have been heavily and directly influenced by IHBC input. Any future government should be encouraged to commit to these.The positive statement acknowledges the inherent sustainability of historic buildings, their contribution to the low-carbon economy and to the mitigation of climate change, and the historic environment’s contribution to economic prosperity, employment, culture and regeneration. whether the benefits to the asset of the enabling development outweigh the deviation from local or national policies. Government’s statement Accompanying the PPS and the practice guide, The Government’s Statement on the Historic Environment for England 2010 is perhaps the most powerful, Main issues raised in the consultation, and the government’s response to them in producing PPS5 1. Need for the historic environment to be seen as a positive force in sustainable development The draft PPS saw the historic environment as an obstacle to sustainable development, and references placing the historic environment in a more positive light were restricted to its narrow role in leisure or recreation. Consultees requested more emphasis on the positive role of heritage in relation to regeneration, economic development, social enhancement and place-making. Action taken: New text has been inserted to recognise the contribution that heritage assets can make to sustainable development.This is reinforced by The Government’s Statement on the Historic Environment for England 2010. 2. Proportionality of approach Consultees wanted to see a more proportionate approach, particularly in relation to evidence gathering and information requirements. An associated point was that historic environment records, the enhancement of which is promoted in the PPS, are currently variable in quality and completeness, and should not be relied on as the main source of information. Action taken:The need for a proportionate approach has been underlined in the text as a general requirement, but particularly in relation to evidence gathering and to the information required of applicants for listed building consent. Additionally, less emphasis is placed on historic environment records as the only source of evidence.The text recognises that other sources of information could be important and encourages local authorities to use them. English Heritage’s revised draft practice guide emphasises that historic environment records vary considerably and draws attention to other information sources. 3. Treatment of climate change The consultation raised concerns about the treatment of climate change, especially that it gave the impression that mitigation of climate change took precedence over conservation. Others commented that the references to climate change throughout the text should be consolidated into a single policy. Action taken: The references to climate change have been consolidated and placed near the top of the text. This makes a stronger statement of the government’s intent. A new paragraph has been added, designed to give local planning authorities a clearer steer on how to respond to conflicts between conservation and climate change imperatives, through their development plans and decisions on individual applications. 4. Restoration of presumption in favour of conservation Many consultees commented that there should be an unequivocal statement of presumption in favour of protection of heritage assets from inappropriate change. Action taken: PPG15 included such a presumption in relation to listed buildings only (although some consultees were under the impression that it extends to all aspects of the historic environment). The idea of incorporating a presumption was rejected at consultation stage as it was considered it had little practical effect, in that protection was provided by the application of the various policies in the circumstances of each case. It has reinstated the presumption for designated assets. 5. Need for greater clarity about the degree of protection for designated and undesignated assets Although there was general support for the single-spectrum approach of the consultation draft (ie where most policies related to all heritage assets, whether or not designated), a number of consultees felt that there should be a clearer distinction between designated and undesignated assets, particularly in terms of the protection they should receive. Action taken: The single-spectrum approach arises from the need to find a way of applying the PPS to the different types of heritage asset, which historically may have been assessed in different ways. A new policy principle has been inserted, specifically relating to the protection that should be given to undesignated assets and the position clarified in relation to Grade II listed buildings. The key tests for determining in what circumstances harm to a heritage asset could be tolerated in the wider public interest, now apply to designated assets only. For undesignated assets, heritage status will be a material consideration in determining planning applications or application for listed building consent. 6. Improving the definition of significance Many consultees felt that the definition of ‘significance’ should be clearer and more detailed, and should relate more clearly to the legislative basis for the different types of heritage asset.This comment was often associated with a plea for comprehensive references to the legislative context of the policy, namely the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, particularly as the Heritage Protection Bill has not been taken forward. Action taken: The expanded definition of ‘heritage asset’ and the amended definition of ‘significance’ in Annex 1 of the PPS now cross-refer to one another. This should help to place the concept of significance in context. English Heritage’s revised draft practice guide provides more detailed guidance. The term ‘significance’ might be new but the concept is not. The term is a generic one relating to the special interest held by each type of heritage asset, and is firmly linked to terms (architectural and historic interest) used in the 1990 Act referred to above. The concept of ‘archaeological interest’, also used in the definition, is wellestablished in PPG16 (Archaeology and Planning, published in 1990) and familiar to the sector. The new-style PPSs focus on policy principles and do not simply repeat legal duties.
C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 5 Leighton House: originals reinstated Dawes TwineWorks: a rare survivor Briefing Rope works restoration The UK’s most complete surviving example of a rural rope works is being restored after South Somerset District Council bought the 300-footlong, 19th century Dawes Twine Works building and its machinery. The project will involve moving the roof and returning the sunken structure to its original footprint. The work is being organised by a partnership of the Coker Rope and Sail Trust, the district council and the Industrial Buildings Preservation Trust. The partnership plans to bring the twine works back to life as a visitor attraction illustrating how twine, rope and sailcloth were made, traded and used. A community farm in the village will grow hemp and flax, and the project will restore one of the original retting ponds used to rot the hemp and flax roots. The natural conditions in south Somerset made it suitable for growing flax and hemp and the establishment of the manufacture of rope, twines, webbing, netting and sailcloth. The industry flourished from the 17th century when government incentives encouraged British sailcloth production. By the 19th century there were as many as 40 sailcloth, rope and twine makers in Somerset andWest Coker. Surrounding villages were important centres for cottage-based production of sailcloth before the development of factory-based production. The Grade II* building is a singlestorey structure with an attic floor. It is of timber-framed construction that is bolted together with a pitched, clay, double Roman tile roof. The building is largely open-sided but is enclosed by weatherboarding at the eastern end. It retains virtually all the late 19th century machinery relating to the twisting and finishing of twine, with the exception of the engine that powered the machinery by line shafting from the engine room attached to the eastern end. Threat to rural crafts Herefordshire College of Technology is closing its rural crafts skills training and apprenticeship scheme due to the withdrawal of government funding. The New Entrants Training Scheme (NETS) provides two-year block releases in forgework, furniture making, upholstery, wheelwrighting, wood machining and thatching. The forgework and thatching courses are of particular importance to the heritage sector. Funding for these courses has been withdrawn following the demise of the Learning and Skills Council, which is being replaced by the Skills Funding Agency. Neal Armstrong, a part-time student on the NETS forgework course at the Hereford College of Technology said: ‘The NETS programme covers a range or rural crafts. All are to cease at the end of July, when I will be about half-way through the course. ‘These courses are highly regarded by everyone who has taken them and also within their respective industries, so to find their abrupt termination has come as a great shock. As students we’ve had no indication of who made this decision, so we are unsure who to petition about its reversal.’ As the NETS courses fall outside the National Occupational Standards (NOS) system (which includes NVQs), they do not meet the Skills Funding Agency’s criteria for ‘priority provision’. Some progress is being made in developing NVQs to level 3 for thatching, which could save this element of the course, but proposals for NVQs for ironwork have only recently commenced, pending approval of its NOS. Furthermore, the NETS forgework course tutor, Paul Allen, is concerned that only a handful of companies in the UK are large enough to cope with the requirement for learning and assessment at the place of work, which is the backbone of the NVQ system. The NETS programme was started in 1973 by the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (COSIRA) to meet the needs of the growing number of rural workshops and forges that could no longer afford to support apprenticeships. It was continued by its successors, first the Rural Development Commission and then the Countryside Agency. It is the only national source of vocational training where blacksmiths can learn specific traditional forgework techniques, enabling them to cover a broad range of skills from basic to advanced level while still at work. The course allows working blacksmiths and apprentices to be trained on a block-release basis. This has helped to ensure the survival of sustainable rural craft businesses. Some building conservationists fear that few blacksmiths will take on apprentices if they can not send them for training on NETS, as they may not be able to afford the time to train them themselves. Leighton House restored Leighton House Museum, the studio house of the Victorian painter Frederic Leighton in London’s Kensington, has reopened following a £1.6 million refurbishment. The project began on site in 2007 when external repairs were carried out to make walls, roofs and windows secure. This phase saw the reinstatement of the brick ziggurats that ran around the Arab Hall and Silk Room parapets. Derived from stepped pyramid profiles, the original ziggurats were removed in 1959. In their restoration handmade bricks were used in reforming their original geometric shapes. Leighton’s original decoration, furnishing and lighting schemes have been reinstated. More than 20 paintings formerly in Lord Leighton’s collection have been returned to Leighton House and now hang in their original locations for the first time since his death in 1868. The refurbishment was overseen by architects Purcell Miller Tritton.
6 C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 Suspicions confirmed From John Fidler, Simpson Gumpertz and Heger, Los Angeles I can help Chris Morris with his question about lead-eating deathwatch beetles in Lewes (Letter, p7, Context 113, March 2010).Yes, the larvae are wellknown to chew their way out of the wood and through lead sheets if in their way. I was taught this lesson in 1974 by the then surveyor of the fabric ofWinchester Cathedral, architect Corinne Bennett (néeWilson, as she was then) for whom I was working in the Sevenoaks office of Purcell Miller Tritton and Partners as a year-out architecture student. Corrine always specified sheet copper flashings and damp-proof courses on top of wall plates in the repair of beetle-decayed beam ends and roofs in general, due to this problem.The beetles did not chew their way through copper. Letters ‘THESE boards are litter and are not necessary in this age of internet access.’ A Hammersmith and Fulham resident quoted in the London Evening Standard in support of the council’s decision to ban estate agents’ For Sale signs in six conservation areas. ‘OUR JOB is to provide quality healthcare services in modern and suitable premises that are accessible to all local residents.We’re not here to look after historic buildings.’ A spokesperson for NHS Islington explaining in the Guardian why it plans to sell the pioneering modernist Finsbury Health Centre, designed by Berthold Lubetkin and built in 1938. ‘BATTERED and bedraggled as the NHS may have now become, this marvellous building remains its noble progenitor and still embodies its original promise of public service. That promise must not be betrayed.’ John Allan of Avanti Architects, who repaired part of the Finsbury Health Centre in the 1990s, arguing that it should remain in the use for which it was designed. ‘THE TWENTIETH Century Society is extremely disappointed that the DCMS has chosen to disregard English Heritage’s advice and has refused to list Slough Town Hall. Revealingly, the secretary of state was “persuaded by the evidence provided by others” – in this case a consultant working for the very council which wants to tear down its own headquarters. ‘A tragically high quantity of good buildings has been demolished in Slough in recent years, including grand art deco-styled factories by the likes of Wallis Gilbert and high-quality post-war offices. More are to come down as the town tries to erase its past and reinvent itself from scratch. Despite famously heckling Slough, John Betjeman’s praise for the town hall’s architecture as “a striving for unity out of chaos” in 1948 has never been so relevant as today.’ Comment from the Twentieth Century Society Yes, deathwatch beetles are guilty. An old photograph of the Pindar façade.TheV&A now displays it unglazed. In 1982, when I was studying on the building conservation course at the Architectural Association, I visited ChristopherWren’s gothic St Mary Aldermary in the City of London with fellow students for an exercise on the Quinquennial Inspections of Churches with the inspecting church architect Martin Caroe’s partner.We found pin holes in the 8lb lead sheets of the south aisle roof and I immediately diagnosed the problem as deathwatch beetles. The architect was incredulous, but I was insistent and bet him a bottle of champagne that I would be proved right once repairs got under way. Sure enough, the lead roofs were later repaired and the practice subsequently confirmed that the beetle larvae had created the flight holes. I never did collect on the champagne. I asked entomologist Brian Ridout about the beetles’ behaviour when we were later engaged in the European Commission’sWoodcare Research project at English Heritage (published inTimber, EH Research Transactions,Vol 4, 2001). He had not come across this himself.We set up a ‘beetle hot-line’ to encourage the public to send us samples of beetles for experimentation.This turned out to be more amusing than useful. A lady in South Africa heard about our work and rang to ask if John Lennon was still alive. John Fidler Defenestrated From Professor Malcolm Airs, Oxford It is ironic that GrahamTite’s excellent review of the new medieval and Renaissance galleries at the Victoria and Albert Museum (Context 113, March 2010) is illustrated by an old image of Sir Paul Pindar’s London house with its wonderfully evocative display of patterned glass. In its new position the façade has been effectively defenestrated. Although we can still enjoy the exuberance of the timberframing, I can’t help feeling that we have lost an essential element of its character. Malcolm Airs
C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 7 Remembering Joe Martin A deep attachment to the place Joe Martin, Salford City Council’s conservation officer, was the council’s longest-serving officer, having served for almost 40 years. He joined building control in 1970, becoming a building conservation officer in 1993 and a conservation officer in 2003. Joe was incredibly committed to and enthusiastic about Salford’s history and its buildings. The city may have an image (largely gained from LS Lowry’s paintings) as a densely built-up industrial city at the heart of the industrial revolution, and that is central to understanding Salford now. But its history goes back centuries before the industrial revolution. It was this tremendously varied history that Joe loved, combined with a deep attachment to the place itself. After all, the modern Salford Quays (with the Lowry and Media City) was formerly the Manchester docks at the head of the ship canal, from where as a boy he travelled on a ship to Canada. Joe’s background in building control gave him a practical understanding of buildings and structures. He loved the hands-on nature of the job and finding practical solutions to problems. His long time at Salford, combined with the high regard in which he was held, meant that he was able to use fantastic networking skills to get things done. It would be difficult to sum up all of Joe’s achievements. He loved Ordsall Hall (now undergoing major restoration) andWorsley Court House. He was excited by recent archaeological digs From A Broken Wave by Lionel Esher (Allen Lane, 1981) As unprecedented historically as the disappearance of the slums is the new attitude to the heritage from the past. Until 1940 educated people were extremely choosy about past styles of architecture. The Antique had a century of adulation; Tudor came in and went out; Louis XV went out then came in. But outside these decorators’ fashions, any new buildings were always thought to be an improvement and in designing them no deference whatever was paid to old environments. Then, perhaps as a result of the uniquely destructive character of World War II, there occurred a change in human sensibility. By 1950 we loved everything, however hideous. Of course this did not immediately prevent an immense amount of destruction for profit or ‘planning gain’. But as soon as the intelligentsia could get itself organised and rush through the necessary legislation, it became virtually impossible to demolish a listed building except by the underhand trick, soon acquired from private speculators by philistine public bodies, of encouraging it to fall down. This general benevolence (it stops short of true understanding) towards the past, plus clean air and new techniques for cleaning buildings, has spruced up old towns sometimes to the point of vulgarity. The Victorians would have been shocked by the Australian colour fantasies applied to their decent by-law housing, not to mention the tarting up of medieval streets. But by and large, and conspicuously in the north, the transformation has been miraculous. ‘Operation Eyesore’, whereby the black cotton towns of Lancashire washed and revealed their tawny Victorian public buildings, their intricate steeples and grand classical porticoes, while every tiny terraced cottage followed suit in its own fashion, has turned out one of the high points of our 20th century urban history. The unhappiest aspect of populist preservation is its negativity: ‘anything new is worse’. In… extreme forms… this is a national psychosis with obvious political connections. Deeply humiliated by their decline from greatness, the British look around on their society and do not like what they see – and they take it out on what has always been the mirror of society: its architecture. at Exchange Greengate, and in past months even helped a local councillor out in a campaign to save and find a place for Salford’s very own totem pole – a link with native Americans going back to the 19th century. Joe will be missed by all his many friends and colleagues at Salford and beyond: he was liked, loved and respected by so many. He leaves a very large and loving family, including his wife Carole and their three children. Chris Findley
8 C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 ICOMOS-CIVVIH conference, Valletta Historic cities and sustainable urban development The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) boasts a score of scientific committees that address various cultural heritage themes and issues, from underwater and polar heritage, through documentation and training, to 20th century heritage and tourism. These committees undertake research, develop guidelines, and promote international exchanges and projects. One of the largest and most active of these committees is that devoted to historic towns and villages, namely CIVVIH (Comité International sur les Villes et Villages Historiques). The 2010 annual meeting of this committee was held in the Maltese capital Valletta, with the theme of ‘The historic city, a reference model for urban sustainable development policies’. At a time when governments and communities across the continents are responding to the priorities of environmental sustainability and the challenges of climate change, to what extent can characteristics attributable to historic cities guide development in our increasingly urbanised world? Helen Maistrou, professor in the department of architecture, National Technical University of Athens, stressed the coincidence between sustainable development and the conservation of historic cities. Both emphasise quality of life and support cultural diversity. Sustainability addresses the maintenance and improvement of ecological systems, and the articulation of the city as an ecosystem dates back at least to the time of Patrick Geddes. Prioritising the use of local resources and the support of local economies applies to both, as do the principles of minimum intervention, reuse and the recycling of wastes. Maistrou urged greater interaction and the strengthening of these coincidences to the objective of positioning urban conservation as a determining factor in sustainable development. The empowerment of citizens and local communities is central to the catchphrase of ‘think global, act local’. The meeting was given two examples of this in practice. David Logan, a heritage consultant from Sydney, spoke of the historical example of the unwavering union-led opposition that saved the Rocks area of that city from redevelopment, and whose conservation programme Logan later led. Diana Belci, an urban planner from Romania’s second city of Timişoara, presented the integrated heritage and community-led strategic plan for quarters of the city, its current phased implementation with the support of European Union funds, and the status of the project as a model for a large city in post-communist Europe. The meeting concluded by adopting the Valletta Position Paper on historic cities. This opens by iterating that non-renewable resources are at the heart of the debate on sustainable development and climate change, and that these include extracted materials, fossil fuels and the heritage. Thus the heritage in a broad sense should be considered the starting point for planning and development in a sustainable society. Historic cities are characterised in the paper Grand harbour,Valletta Valletta’s main square has recently been cleared of cars and re-landscaped. as possessing many of the attributes that accord with today’s concept of the sustainable city. They are rooted in their natural environments, adapted to them climatically, human in scale, closely knit, multifunctional and have a strong sense of belonging and identity. The position paper closes by affirming that ‘historic cities may be seen as a source of knowledge for the functional and social organisation and spatial distribution of urban activities and natural elements, and an archetype for cities seeking sustainability. They minimise the use of resources, favour interaction and solidarity, and secure cultural continuity.’ In an age when critics claim that historic buildings are obsolete in the face of the challenges of climate change, positioning historic cities at the centre of the sustainability debate is most timely. Dennis Rodwell, consultant in cultural heritage and sustainable urban development.
C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 9 Periodically As political and professional pressures grow to address concerns about climate change, the recent cold winter has focused some attention on the thermal efficiency of Victorian housing. In his editorial in the latest issue of The Victorian (March 2010, No 33) Ian Dungavell highlights his conversation with a journalist fromThe Times. He was asked if, as a result of all the ice and snow, we should be demolishing Victorian housing and erecting new insulated boxes instead. Given that the Energy Saving Trust estimates that four-fifths of the houses that will be standing in 2050 have already been built, the challenge is what to do with the existing stock, one in five of which was built before 1919. This issue does not offer definitive answers but publishes some thoughts about the potential architectural impact, some of which will be familiar. Tim Yates, technical director of the Building Research Establishment, outlines the potential of the Code for Sustainable Homes and the emission reduction targets we require, and emphasises the value of some of the more obvious low-cost, simple improvements that can deliver real benefits. These include basic loft and cavity wall insulation, upgraded and efficient boilers and heating systems, solid wall insulation and double glazing.While Yates spells out principles of reducing energy use and reducing energy impact, the Ecohome he illustrates in Nottingham shows the subtle degradation of character by appearing to have uPVC windows, certainly an unsympathetic uPVC front door and a large front roof-slope solar panel. Robert Pruett describes a radical approach to energy conservation to a 1840s house in the De Beauvoir Conservation Area in Hackney. This is producing projected annual energy bills of under £100 (at current prices), but for an installation cost of £60,000. This includes internal insulation which eats into floorplans and disrupts the skirtings, cornices and architraves. It might be argued that in world heritage sites the heritage constraints would be greater still. AdamWilkinson of EdinburghWorld Heritage explains how a typical baronial-Georgianrevival tenement block of 1875 was upgraded sympathetically using several of the techniques suggested above by TimYates: secondary (rather than double) glazing; (low-key) insulation; draught-proofing; and a groundsource heat pump. This was perhaps more of a practical proposition where 17 dwellings were involved. Jessica Snow reports on Historic Scotland’s recent research aimed at improving the thermal performance of timber sash windows. The thrust of this was also covered in some depth in ChrisWood’s presentation to the IHBC Buxton School in 2009 (see Context 111, September 2009). One solution, of course, is to wear warmer clothes, ‘accepting a lower level of thermal comfort than we have been used to over the last twenty years’ but this has been dubbed the Chilblain Charter. The annual Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society (Vol 54, 2010) is one of the few heritage publications able to deal with subjects at great length. It has a propensity for featuring architectural history rather than aspects aligned closely to professional practice. Nevertheless, hard on the heels of the last issue of Context (112, November 2009) on the history of listing, there is a long and thought-provoking paper from Peter Larkham about the emerging ideas about conservation during and immediately after world war two, as exemplified by the treatment of bombed churches, especially in London. One of the interesting aspects is the evaluation and evolving criteria developed to consider whether the degree of destruction should lead to reconstruction in emulation of the original or as new work (and if the latter, in what style), or preservation as ruins (as memorials), or clearance. Those concepts might today be usefully revisited in the aftermath of, for example, a serious fire. Larkham relates these criteria to the thinking of the SPAB at the time and to the contemporary published views of James Lees-Milne, Lord Esher, HS GoodhartRendell and John Summerson, among others. The article also looks at how this diverse advice was distilled by the Ministry of Works; through Geoffrey Jellicoe in the Architectural Review in 1944; and in the book Bombed Churches asWar Memorials, published by the Architectural Press in 1945. A curiosity explained in depth is the architectural consequences of keeping domestic (not feral) pigeons in parish churches (columbaria), recorded and initially published in
10 C O N T E X T 1 1 4 : M A Y 2 0 1 0 1888 by the distinguished architect JT Micklethwaite, and studied in recent times by Frank Pexton (to whom the article is dedicated) until his death in 2006. Enquiries were made by Pexton about all the surviving examples. Nine are described and illustrated. They are widely geographically spread, being found in Herefordshire, Wiltshire, Somerset,Worcestershire, Nottinghamshire, Gloucestershire and Pembrokeshire. Notes of others were documented in the 19th century, but the physical evidence is lost. The Transactions also have articles about medieval muniment rooms, their furniture, fittings and information retrieval systems, with particular reference to those developed by Oxford University between c1250 and the mid-17th century; and a detailed architectural, historic and socio-economic evaluation of East andWest End Terrace, a rare survival of listed back-to-back industrial mill-workers’ houses in the Derwent Valley, Derbyshire. With heritage protection reform promoting ‘artistic’ in addition to archaeological, architectural and historic interest, more attention may now turn to the importance of public sculpture and statuary – its aesthetic value and its conservation. An article in the latest issue of the Journal of Architectural Conservation (Vol 16, No 1, March 2010) explaining the use of laser cleaning in the conservation of public copperalloy monuments in the UK, is timely. The use of laser cleaning has grown steadily in this country since 1994, but it is only rarely used on large-scale outdoor projects, where the application lags behind that used by museums. Helen Thompson and Martin Cooper show how the technique has been applied to a large monument to Lord Nelson and an imposing equestrian statue of King Edward VII, both in Liverpool. The before and after impacts are illustrated, partly in colour. Laser cleaning removed layers of paint and corrosive products which had proved resistant to other cleaning methods. It minimised the loss of surface material but required protective wax coatings to blend with stable sulphate corrosion which had been retained. An interesting counterpoint to current practice is provided by Ian Hume’s revisitation of the reconstruction of the columns supporting the Mausoleum at Castle Howard, which had required urgent intervention 30 years ago. The Grade I listed building was constructed between 1729 and 1743 to the design of Nicholas Hawksmoor. Hume, who was project engineer for the 1979-83 repairs, reflects on the engineering problems faced and poses the question of whether a different approach would have been taken if the work were done today. He concludes three decades on that ‘it is difficult to see where improvements to the repair processes could have been made’ and that ‘it illustrates many of the points of good conservation’. Another highly challenging structural engineering marvel is the Great Staircase at Kedleston Hall, Derbyshire, designed initially by Matthew Brettingham and James Paine around 1579, and completed by Robert Adam in 1765. Concern by the National Trust about the condition of this daring cantilevered stone staircase had led to restricted access to upper floor rooms. The article explains in detail the evaluation of the defects, the options to improve its robustness in use and the repairs undertaken in 2008, permitting the rooms accessed from it to be better used, and allowing the full architectural impact of the Great Stair to be appreciated without the need for unnecessary structural intervention. An article entitled ‘Heritage management and community connections – on the Rocks’ might initially lead the reader to anticipate some disaster. But the Rocks in question is a historic precinct of Sydney, Australia. The article deals with the diverse and flexible techniques used to connect with and involve residents and other stakeholders in the preparation of a heritage management plan. The Journal of Architectural Conservation’s international coverage is concluded by a paper on the conservation and conflicts in heritage management in central Asia, with particular reference to the Silk Road. Enrico Fodde explains the diverse approaches to philosophical and ethical conservation issues dealt with by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan (all semi-autonomous republics of the USSR until 1991). This region may be little known to us, but a case study of the conservation issues facing the great mosque in Samarkand (one of the great examples of Timurid architecture), two other regional cases and a discussion of the disappearance of vernacular architecture give a fascinating insight into problems as far removed from our own interminably evolving heritage protection reforms as it is possible to imagine. Fodde concludes with a message of optimism engendered by ICOMOS and UNESCO activities in the region since perestroika. Turning from internationalism to localism, and an encouraging sign of local distinctiveness, the January 2010 issue of Natural Stone Specialist reports on the development of Brinscall Quarry near Chorley in Lancashire. Until recently this had been producing aggregates, but new owners intend to produce dimensioned stone blocks so that this much-admired, fine-grained gritstone can be used in masonry and paving in the north west. The quarry was opened a century ago to supply local builders, but not used for this purpose recently. Encouragingly, there are consented stone reserves for another 40 years. The company, the Armstrong Group, has also recently acquired Montcliff Quarry on the outskirts of Bolton, adding another gritstone quarry to its portfolio. This may encourage renewed use of this distinctive building material. Bob Kindred MBE
www.ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=