Context Institute of Historic Building Conservation No 73 March 2002 When the natural and built environments meet Setting standards for conservation practice
C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 1 Context Bats are good for the belfry Richard Luxmoore 20 People and nature on St Kilda Robin Turner 22 Caring for our other urban populations Sue Timms 23 The natural heritage of canals Jonathan Briggs 26 Taking sides in the thatching controversy ChrisWood 29 IHBC news: Notes from the chair 31 IHBC news: Membership notes 32 Book reviews 34 Products and services 37 Briefing 2 Out of Context 3 Ruling on heritage funding and state aid undermines regeneration Dave Chetwin 4 The IHBC: setting standards for building conservation John Preston 6 IHBC NorthWest Region Branch Conference Graham Arnold 9 Conserving medieval tile pavements Lesley Durbin 13 Supporting Columns: Stable solutions for timber frames Brian Morton 15 Conserved in the gentle hands of nature Glyn Koppack 17 Editorial Let’s not think about the built environment Building conservation is a convenient label, but our perspective should be wider than that. The built environment is supposed to be the concern of built environment professionals (such as building conservation practitioners, planners, urban designers, architects and surveyors), while the natural environment is the habitat of the flora and non-human fauna. The distinction is of limited use. Cities, towns and villages can be understood fully only in the light of their land form, watercourses, green areas, ecology, plant and wildlife, climate and much else that no one has built. Similarly the natural environment turns out not to be very natural at all, but a series of complex relationships between natural processes and the human-made landscapes in which they operate. This issue of Context looks at some places where buildings and nature meet. Sue Timms (p23) points out that, ironically, some pockets of what she calls ‘trapped countryside’ in the midst of urban places have survived the era of industrialised agriculture better than much of the countryside. And it is often in urban areas that public pressure to protect local wildlife is at its most intense. Jonathan Briggs (p26) writes of attempts to help the physical structures of our waterways have a positive impact on nature. It turns out that this is nothing new. The original canal engineers, for example, advocated establishing reed fringes to prevent bank erosion and planted towpath hedges as stock-proof barriers. In thatched buildings (Chris Wood, p29) the connection between nature and the built structure is particularly close. The same can be said for lichenencrusted stonework and for buildings that provide a haven for threatened bats. In such cases particularly, understanding the natural world is an essential part of building conservation. For all the practical experience, Alan Taylor (p36) warns that building conservation may be at risk of being marginalised. The wider environmental movement is being driven forward with the benefit of considerable theoretical discussion, he writes, and building conservation could find itself left out if it fails to engage with that debate. A wider understanding of how ‘built’ and ‘natural’ combine in a whole environment is a good start. 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: Malcolm Airs e-mail [email protected] Chairman: Eddie Booth e-mail [email protected] Vice Chair: Sarah Higgins e-mail [email protected] Vice Chair: Ronnie Robertson e-mail [email protected] Vice Chair: Mark Strawbridge e-mail [email protected] Secretary: Richard Morrice e-mail [email protected] Treasurer: Robert Parkinson e-mail [email protected] Membership Secretary: Gus Astley e-mail [email protected] Branches Co-ordinator: Julia Smith e-mail [email protected] Consultations Secretary: Graham Steaggles e-mail [email protected] Education Secretary: John Preston e-mail [email protected] Technical Panel Co-ordinator: Jenefer Chesher e-mail [email protected] IT Manager: Peter Badcock e-mail [email protected] Branch Officers North: Ian Goodman Tel 01670 519391 NorthWest: Sheila Stones Tel 0161 242 1424 Yorkshire: Stephen Bateman Tel 01274 754551 West Midlands: Kathy Baird Tel 01939 238433 East Midlands: Fiona Newton Tel 01507 601111 South: James Webb Tel 01962 846831 SouthWest: David Stirling Tel 01249 706502 East Anglia: Michael Knights Tel 01603 611346 South East: Peter Cobley Tel 01622 221547 London: Jon Finney Tel 01895 250536 Scotland: Jim McDonald Tel 01236 616242 Wales: Trefor Thorpe Tel 01267 231568 N. Ireland: Laurence ManogueTel 028 9146 9707 Republic of Ireland: Bernard Dee Tel +353 1 473 7721 Business Office Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA England Tel 01747 873133 Fax 01747 871718 e-mail [email protected]
2 C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 Context Editor Robert Cowan Editorial Co-ordinator Dr Nigel Barker, 65Worplesdon Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9RT. Tel 01483 562 851 e-mail [email protected] Editorial Board Nigel Barker (chair) Catherine Croft (conference and exhibition reviews) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figuieredo (book reviews) Sarah Higgins Amy Hunt (regular contributors) Richard Morrice Julia Smith (IHBC branches) Michael Taylor (main features) Context is published five times per year and is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2002 ISSN: 0958-2746 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 e-mail [email protected] www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions toContext Context is available to non-members of the IHBC at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £42.00 Elsewhere US$119.00 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 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 that may occur. What’s the point? AdamVoelcker brings the attention of Context to an item in the October 2001 issue of the RIBA Journal by columnist Niall Roberts. ‘Do not make one application to cover all of the alterations you are seeking,’ Roberts advises.’ If you need to remove plaster that is shot, replace damaged joists, or install fire alarm or emergency lighting fittings, thus making holes in carpentry or walls, fill in separate applications for each element.’ Voelcker comments: ‘I have never heard this tip before. I do not understand the advantages, see all sorts of disadvantages (not least a huge increase in paperwork).What do Context readers think?’ Please let us know. No guarantees The IHBC has been exerting vigorous pressure, through its involvement with UNESCO UK, for the DTI to withdraw export credit guarantees to Balfour Beattie to prevent the highly damaging Ilisu Dam project in Turkey from proceeding, writes Bob Kindred. The project would have resulted in the destruction by flooding of the ancient and important lower town of Hasenkeyf, and the destruction or relocation of specific monuments that would have been a significant loss of Turkish and of universal culture.We also felt that there was insufficient survey data on the other archaeological sites which would have been inundated, either to assess their significance or to prepare a fully costed mitigation strategy involving excavation. The IHBC lent its full support to this stance last year. Faced with a highly damaging environmental impact assessment and the prospect of the secretary of state appearing before the House of Commons Select Committee, it seems that Balfour Beattie has bowed to the inevitable and announced their withdrawal in the face of the loss of their ECGs. New secretary for ICOMOS-UK Susan Denyer has been appointed secretary of ICOMOS-UK (the International Council on Monuments and Sites UK), the body that leads the UK contribution to the world heritage movement. ICOMOS-UK is the UK arm of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, a non-governmental professional organisation concerned with the conservation of places of cultural significance. Denyer joins ICOMOS-UK from the National Trust where she worked on sustainable approaches to the conservation of buildings, landscapes, gardens and material culture. She succeeds PhilipWhitbourn, who was secretary from 1995. Bennett honoured Bob Bennett, director of the Lime Centre,Winchester, was awarded the MBE for services to historic building conservation in the NewYear Honours List. Call for townscape bids The Heritage Lottery Fund’s Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) has announced details of its 2002 bidding round. This is for three-year grant programmes commencing in 2003. Applications will be assessed in two stages. All stage one applications are due by 3 May 2002. They will be assessed as a batch, with ‘in principle’ indications of support in late September 2002. Successful applicants will be invited to submit worked-up stage two applications before 28 March 2003. Final decisions on all cases are expected before the end of July 2003. THI provides grants of between £250,000 and £2 million to help local partnerships improve the historic parts of their towns and cities. The programme is designed to tackle problems in areas of particular social and economic need throughout the UK. Partnerships are encouraged to carry out repairs and other work on a number of different historic properties within those areas. Contact the Heritage Lottery Fund’s Information Team on 020 7591 6043/44/45. Briefing Deadline for next issue The deadline for the May issue of Context is 5 April. Cover photo: Village Street, St Kilda (see p22). A natural World Heritage Site since 1986, St Kilda’s greatest significance is in the spectacular interaction between people and their environment. Photo by the National Trust for Scotland. “When we called for support for our opposition to the proposed dam, we were literally… inundated!”
2 C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 Context Editor Robert Cowan Editorial Co-ordinator Dr Nigel Barker, 65Worplesdon Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9RT. Tel 01483 562 851 e-mail [email protected] Editorial Board Nigel Barker (chair) Catherine Croft (conference and exhibition reviews) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figuieredo (book reviews) Sarah Higgins Amy Hunt (regular contributors) Richard Morrice Julia Smith (IHBC branches) Michael Taylor (main features) Context is published five times per year and is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2002 ISSN: 0958-2746 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 e-mail [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 US$113.00 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 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 that may occur. What’s the point? AdamVoelcker brings the attention of Context to an item in the October 2001 issue of the RIBA Journal by columnist Niall Roberts. ‘Do not make one application to cover all of the alterations you are seeking,’ Roberts advises.’ If you need to remove plaster that is shot, replace damaged joists, or install fire alarm or emergency lighting fittings, thus making holes in carpentry or walls, fill in separate applications for each element.’ Voelcker comments: ‘I have never heard this tip before. I do not understand the advantages, see all sorts of disadvantages (not least a huge increase in paperwork).What do Context readers think?’ Please let us know. No guarantees The IHBC has been exerting vigorous pressure, through its involvement with UNESCO UK, for the DTI to withdraw export credit guarantees to Balfour Beattie to prevent the highly damaging Ilisu Dam project in Turkey from proceeding, writes Bob Kindred. The project would have resulted in the destruction by flooding of the ancient and important lower town of Hasenkeyf, and the destruction or relocation of specific monuments that would have been a significant loss of Turkish and of universal culture.We also felt that there was insufficient survey data on the other archaeological sites which would have been inundated, either to assess their significance or to prepare a fully costed mitigation strategy involving excavation. The IHBC lent its full support to this stance last year. Faced with a highly damaging environmental impact assessment and the prospect of the secretary of state appearing before the House of Commons Select Committee, it seems that Balfour Beattie has bowed to the inevitable and announced their withdrawal in the face of the loss of their ECGs. New secretary for ICOMOS-UK Susan Denyer has been appointed secretary of ICOMOS-UK (the International Council on Monuments and Sites UK), the body that leads the UK contribution to the world heritage movement. ICOMOS-UK is the UK arm of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, a non-governmental professional organisation concerned with the conservation of places of cultural significance. Denyer joins ICOMOS-UK from the National Trust where she worked on sustainable approaches to the conservation of buildings, landscapes, gardens and material culture. She succeeds PhilipWhitbourn, who was secretary from 1995. Bennett honoured Bob Bennett, director of the Lime Centre,Winchester, was awarded the MBE for services to historic building conservation in the NewYear Honours List. Call for townscape bids The Heritage Lottery Fund’s Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) has announced details of its 2002 bidding round. This is for three-year grant programmes commencing in 2003. Applications will be assessed in two stages. All stage one applications are due by 3 May 2002. They will be assessed as a batch, with ‘in principle’ indications of support in late September 2002. Successful applicants will be invited to submit worked-up stage two applications before 28 March 2003. Final decisions on all cases are expected before the end of July 2003. THI provides grants of between £250,000 and £2 million to help local partnerships improve the historic parts of their towns and cities. The programme is designed to tackle problems in areas of particular social and economic need throughout the UK. Partnerships are encouraged to carry out repairs and other work on a number of different historic properties within those areas. Contact the Heritage Lottery Fund’s Information Team on 020 7591 6043/44/45. Briefing Deadline for next issue The deadline for the May issue of Context is 5 April. Cover photo: Village Street, St Kilda (see p22). A natural World Heritage Site since 1986, St Kilda’s greatest significance is in the spectacular interaction between people and their environment. Photo by the National Trust for Scotland. “When we called for support for our opposition to the proposed dam, we were literally… inundated!” Context March 2002 [7] 21/3/02 12:17 Page 2
4 C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 Dave Chetwin Ruling on heritage funding and state aid undermines regeneration The issue of heritage funding and state aid has gained prominence as a result of a decision by AdvantageWest Midlands to withhold Single Regeneration Budget 6 (SRB6) funding towards the common fund of the Middleport Waterfront Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI). The ground for this decision was that the scheme broke European state aid rules. This was based on its view that the Heritage Lottery Fund’s contribution was subject to state aid controls. Following this, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Government OfficeWest Midlands both confirmed that heritage funding was subject to state aid rules. This includes the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and English Heritage grant programmes. The interpretation of state aid rules contained in the Treaty of Rome 1957 (with subsequent revisions) is based on the ruling of the European Commission of 22 December 1999 with respect to the English Partnerships Partnership Investment Programme (PIP). The Commission determined that the PIP was unlawful under state aid rules. European state aid rules relate to all trading companies and organisations. This includes charities that have a trading element, even if they operate on a non-profit basis. Much of the HLF general grant programme involves properties owned by the public or voluntary sectors. The state aid ruling should have limited effect only. However, the HLF’s THI programme and English Heritage’s grant programme often involve buildings owned by trading companies or organisations. These are clearly affected. To determine whether a project involves state aid, the following criteria should be applied: • Is there a payment of state resources? • Is there a financial benefit to an undertaking (commercial organisation)? • Is there potential distortion of competition? • Is there potential impact on trade between member states? In practice, almost any improvement to the site or buildings of a trading company could be interpreted to distort competition and impact on trade between member states. Limited levels of funding are allowed under state aid rules. There is a de minimis threshold of one hundred thousand Euros (around £60,000). De minimis funding is complex. It is accumulative over a period of three years. This means records of any previous funding over the past three years must be obtained, including any loans at favourable rates. Records must be kept for a period of ten years after a grant is made. In assisted areas, limited percentages of funding are allowed. These vary according to the status of the area (objective 1, 2, etc), the size of the company (Small to Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) attract higher percentages) and other factors. For example, a small enterprise in an objective 2 area could be funded to a level of 25 per cent (total of all public funding sources). The remaining 75 per cent would have to be the company’s private money. The above allowances will allow some projects to proceed. However, in many instances such low levels of funding would be unrealistic and insufficient to make projects viable. Assisted status recognises an area’s economic and social problems. Such areas often have most difficulty in attracting investment and suffer from greatly suppressed levels of demand for land and property. High levels of public funding are necessary in many or most instances to make projects viable. There are further potential allowances under state aid rules. Article 87 defines certain categories of funding which are compatible with the Common Market. These include aid to promote the economic development of areas where
C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 5 the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment; and aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. These categories recognise areas of low economic performance and heritage buildings. Each scheme would have to be individually submitted to the European Commission for confirmation that it was allowable under Article 87 3 (a) or (d). In order to satisfy Article 87 3 (d), it would have to be established that the heritage funding did not distort competition or impact on trade to an extent that would be considered contrary to the common interest. This process takes at least six months, and can take one or even several years. The decision on the English Partnerships PIP took from January 1995 to December 1999. Thus whilst Article 87 provides some hope for heritage funding, in reality the delay may be unacceptable to some building owners and some funders. Clearly it introduces significant delay and uncertainty into the already complex and difficult bidding and project development process. Both English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund have submitted their grant programmes to the European Commission under Article 87 3(d). This may provide blanket acceptance of the programmes. However, it is perhaps likely that any such decision would be heavily conditioned and therefore would not provide complete clarity or certainty. It may still be necessary to submit individual schemes to the Commission. A decision on these matters may take several months or even years. Grounds for supporting a submission under Article 87 3(a) may include: • The grant only covers the conservation deficit (the difference between the capital costs of the scheme and the increase in the value of the property) • The listing of a building imposes restrictions, which can create competitive disadvantage • The listing of a building effectively nationalises certain decisions and property rights. It designates a building as a public good. The preservation of such buildings is a matter of public policy. It places certain duties and costs on the owner. It would be unacceptable to require private owners to fund public policy. Buildings in the traditional industrial core of cities, where there are common problems of decline and low investment, are especially at risk. Such buildings are often owned and occupied by trading companies. The role of built heritage in securing urban and economic regeneration forms the basis of the HLF Townscape Heritage Initiative programme. State aid restrictions undermine the economic emphasis of the THI programme by preventing the normal THI rates of intervention. They similarly restrict English Heritage grant rates. This means that much privately owned heritage is at risk. The Middleport THI is now at risk, involving £3-4 million of much-needed urban regeneration investment. Three of the larger sites are especially affected. These include substantial building complexes, two of them listed Grade II*, one at Grade II. I have been personally contacted by four other local authorities whose projects are now in trouble. A number of other local authorities have been in contact with various funders and government offices. The current situation with state aid is placing tens or hundreds of millions of pounds worth of heritage project work at risk. The current interpretation of state aid rules is untenable. It undermines the concept of public/private partnerships, prevents urban regeneration, and places a significant proportion of Britain’s built heritage at risk. Derelict and abandoned pottery buildings along the Trent and Mersey Canal at Middleport, Stoke on Trent Middleport (above and below) includes seven listed buildings, many of which are in poor condition, vacant and at risk.Their regeneration depends on funding under the Townscape Heritage Initiative which will, it is hoped, attract new businesses into this area of high unemployment.
6 C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 John Preston The IHBC: setting standards for building conservation Setting standards for conservation practice is one of the IHBC’s key activities. The Institute’s 2001 Annual School in London explored the possibilities for drawing together a range of initiatives, including the national vocational qualifications in building conservation; existing accreditation schemes including the RICS, RIAS and AABC (Architects Accredited in Building Conservation); and the Historic Building Council for Scotland’s commitment that within 3-5 years the lead professional on all grantaided conservation projects should be accredited in conservation. English Heritage responded by giving a similar but narrower commitment, that architects on grant-aided projects should be AABC accredited, and by setting up a joint survey, with IHBC, of local authority conservation provision (LACPS). Public sector conservation The English Heritage/IHBC LACPS survey (highlighted in The Historic Environment: a force for our future) will parallel work being carried out for archaeology. The aim is that together they will provide a clear picture of historic environment provision in England. This information is urgently needed to help establish the current position and to promote best practice in service provision (even more urgently needed, since there are no dedicated local performance indicators for conservation within the best value regime). The Institute is keen for the survey to be extended to include Scotland and Wales, but this would require separate funding and support. The original plan was for the LACPS survey to be completed by April 2002.When the planning green paper was announced, English Heritage commissioned a quick desk-top study of local authority historic environment provision (LAHER).We hope the LAHER document will be published as quickly as possible. The LACPS survey will be proceeding soon, and it is important that all IHBC members receiving a questionnaire take the time to fill it in and return it. In the meantime, IHBC has been involved in work on the Planning Officers’ Society’s document on Excellence in Design and Conservation. National standards The LACPS and the Planning Officers’ Society document both aim to produce a template for local authority conservation provision. The IHBC has been involved in development of another potential template, the level 4 national vocational qualification (NVQ) in conservation control. This is the first qualification designed specifically for conservation officers. The standards for the three NVQs in conservation consultancy (Level 5), conservation control (Level 4) and building site management (conservation) (Level 4) were launched at the Heritage Forum in London in June 2000. These qualifications relate to the international standard of the ICOMOS training guidelines. NVQs NVQs test competence in the workplace and are assessed on the basis of portfolios of evidence provided by the candidates. Each qualification comprises a set of units and elements which form part of an industry wide matrix. The conservation consultancy NVQ is for fully qualified professionals wishing to add a specialist qualification in conservation. Its units relate directly to the ICOMOS guidelines and have been designed to be taken individually through continuing professional development (CPD). The conservation control NVQ has been designed to give those working in the field, but without a specialist qualification, the chance to become qualified in conservation. It provides a validated national standard for conservation officers’ professional competence. Its units and elements are cross-referenced to the areas of competence required for IHBC membership. The building site management (conservation) NVQ is an adaptation of the existing site management qualification to reflect the specific needs of conservation work. These NVQs are offered by the Joint Award Body partnership of Edexcel, the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and COTAC. They will be delivered through a series of assessment centres. Overall quality control of standards will be provided through COTAC. Please contact the Edexcel Customer Response Centre for further details of the qualifications (tel 0870 240 9800). All Edexcel publications can be obtained from Edexcel Publications, Adamsway, Mansfield, Notts NGl8 4LN (tel 01623 467467, fax 01623 450481). A common basis? The conservation consultancy NVQ was developed to provide a shared portfolio-based framework for a range of different professions to be accredited in conservation on the basis of agreed national standards. Historic Scotland has taken the process further, by commissioning a draft Proposed Professional Accreditation Scheme for Conservation. The draft, prepared by Heriot-Watt University and Edinburgh College of Art, comprises five units crossreferenced to professional body requirements and the ICOMOS international training guidelines. This proposal differs from other conservation accreditation frameworks in that it specifically includes design. This has been contentious among some of the bodies involved. The IHBC’s education committee will be considering the draft in detail. At this stage, it appears an extremely promising basis (with UKwide relevance) for a common approach by the professions involved. This is needed urgently, not least to allow us to stop navel-gazing, and to start exploring the common ground with related professions (notably urban design). This process is already under way in relation to archaeology, where the work on developing standards for building conservation is informing the current work on new national standards. John Preston, IHBC education secretary
C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 7 IHBC SOUTHWEST ANNUAL REGIONAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION St Loyes Conference Centre, Exeter 19th April 2002 Finding aWay Achieving access for all to the historic environment Much concern is being expressed about the implementation of the final stage of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. From 2004 all service providers will need to take reasonable steps to remove, alter, or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use its services. The conference and accompanying exhibition will be a forum for practitioners from both the conservation and access fields. It will be relevant to Conservation, Planning, Building Control and Access Officers, Architects, Surveyors, Urban Designers, Access Consultants, owners and managers of historic buildings. Legislation will be explained, case studies presented and hopefully your questions answered. For delegate information please contact Mrs Shan Toyne Conference Administrator, 01392 874584. For specialist suppliers exhibitor information please contact Jonathan Taylor, Cathedral Communications Limited, 01747 871717. The leading US solution for sympathetic treatment of historic buildings is now available in the UK. Storm Windows are the least intrusive type of secondary glazing available. No clumsy, visually distracting framework. Storm Windows are ingeniously simple. Storm Windows utilise unique magnetic seals and lightweight frames of a lift out design. No unsightly framework remains when the window is lifted out. Storm Windows can be replaced with optional fly screens in warm weather • THERMAL EFFICIENCY FAR SUPERIOR TO DOUBLE GLAZING • NOISE REDUCTION FAR SUPERIOR TO DOUBLE GLAZING • HALF THE PRICE OF SASH WINDOW RENOVATION • ARCHED, CURVED AND CROOKED WINDOWS ARE NOT A PROBLEM • SASH, SLIDING AND FIXED TYPES AVAILABLE Storm Windows Ltd. National Sales Office. Telephone: 0845 061 1444 Website: www.storm-windows-uk.com
8 C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 Thanks to Ventrolla, these period buildings are now enjoying an improved performance from their sash windows. By installing our award winning Perimeter Sealing System, these and many other listed properties have benefited from sound reduction and energy conservation without the need for modern window replacements. For details of how Ventrolla can help your refurbishment plans, please contact Central Office on Why these listed buildings enlisted our help. Ventrolla, FREEPOST, HG68, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG2 7BR. SASHWINDOWRENOVATIONSPECIALISTS 0800 378278 02/*%#4 -!.!'%-%.4 n #/.35,4!.#9 #!34 )2/. n 72/5'(4 )2/. n "2/.:% ",!#+3-)4().' n 0!44%2. -!+).' n )2/.7/2+).' "RISTOL 4EL &AX 3TOCKPORT 4EL &AX WWW DOROTHEAREST CO UK ! #/-0,%4 % -%4! ,7/2+ #/.3%26!4 )/. 3%26 )#% #HIRK #ASTLE 'ATES .EW #AST )RON &OUNTAIN CONSERVED FOR .ATIONAL 4RUST FOR 6ERNON 0ARK 3TOCKPORT KEIM MINERAL PAINTS LIMITED Muckley Cross, Morville, Nr. Bridgnorth, Shropshire. WV16 4RR Tel: 01746 714543. Fax: 01746 714526. www.keimpaints.co.uk Conservation Solutions The Royal College of Organists
C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 9 IHBC North West Region Branch Conference The future of historic places of worship ‘The future of historic places of worship: a creative approach to change’ was the subject of the IHBC north west region branch conference at Liverpool Cathedral last November. It was chaired by Chris Wakeling, lecturer in architecture at the University of Keele. The Right Reverend Colin Scott, a former Bishop of Hulme with experience of churches in Leicestershire and London, set the context of the church in the 21st century. He identified five trends affecting the way that church buildings would meet the needs of their congregations and the wider community. The first was the shift of population away from city centres and the loss of agricultural employment in rural areas. Allied to this was the local overprovision of churches due to denominational competition in the past. Second, inter-denominational cooperation allows one church to be shared and the proceeds of the sale of redundant buildings to be used to concentrate funds on the maintenance of the shared church. Third, the separation of the religious functions of the church from its community activities exemplified in the 19th century is now being reversed. The sacred and secular are being recombined, as in the medieval period. Fourth, the advent of post-modernism, with the emphasis on individual needs and aspirations, is increasing the popularity of retreats and courses. This is paralleled by the decline in formal Sunday worship. Finally, these trends are leading to the need for smaller spaces and more adaptable use throughout the week. Formal religion is seeking a more direct channel to God and greater involvement of the congregation, leading to a change in the use of space. Examples from London (Christ Church, North Brixton, and St Saviour, Peckham), Manchester and Leicestershire demonstrated the various ways in which churches were adapting to these issues. Inner-city churches with small congregations sold off vicarage and hall, or combined churches to generate the resources to convert the interior for ecumenical worship, housing, community facilities and offices, making good use of surplus space. In rural areas small churches are often the only community building in the parish. Here internal reordering can make them a better focus for community life and meet currently unmet needs.Worship and witness reach out to others, and the growth of vision helps increase the number of worshippers. In 1974 the plight of churches was explored in the ‘Change and Decay’ exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum. The challenge for churches is now change or decay. Matthew Saunders, secretary to the Ancient Monuments Society, highlighted numerous examples of All Saints’ Hereford.The modern approach taken to the design of a small café/restaurant and other facilities has transformed this sleepy church into a hub of the community, while retaining its religious use. creative change in church buildings. He exposed how the potential tensions of worship and community use can be overcome for churches in use, and described the challenges of secular use for redundant churches. After archaeological investigation, basements can be used without disturbance to the sense of space above. With separate entrances they can provide flexibility in multiple use. Modern extensions in sympathetic materials can complement the original building. Galleries can be reinstalled to provide extra, flat serviceable space, to help subdivide the space below, and to
10 C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 overcome structural problems caused by the removal of the original galleries. A multiplicity of mixed uses widens the scope for protecting the building from any threat of demolition. In one case the sale of surplus glebe land was used to set up a separate trust for the repair of the building. In another case the main body of a centrally located church was converted to shopping, with a new church at the top of the building. Three case studies showed a variety of innovative solutions. Rod Robinson talked about All Saints in the centre of Hereford, where a spire with a leaning top, a small parish, an elderly congregation and a vicar with vision came together to transform a sleepy church into a vital hub of the community. Funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund supported the insertion of a freestanding toilet, vicar’s vestry, office and counselling room on two levels. David Page of Page and Park architects from Glasgow spoke of the Roman Catholic Church of St Augustine’s, Preston, where the original strong expression of the vibrancy of the Catholic community had given way to despair and despondency. There was a need to maintain the church and widen its appeal in the community on the edge of the town centre. The solution adopted at St Francis in the Gorbals – inserting a mixture of uses in a separate two-storey pod within the large and high nave space – was not possible. Instead a careful analysis of the site suggested a solution that concentrated the eye on the dominant tower and presbytery. A large sports hall is proposed to the rear on ground which slopes away, with car parking on the former graveyard and an open courtyard overlooked by a new glazed aisle. It is hoped that the tower will house computer suites at the upper levels. A third case study concerned St John’s Scunthorpe, listed II*, a 1890s parish church in a 19th century iron town, converted and extended using single regeneration budget and Arts Council finance. In discussion it was agreed that interventions in Grade I buildings should be reversible, but for general buildings more creativity, imagination and flexibility were appropriate. The touchstone was the quality with which new works were carried out. Matthew Saunders pointed out the threat to pulpit, choirstalls and lecterns in adapting church buildings. He pointed out that there had been a greater loss of high altars and reredoses in Catholic churches in recent years than in the reign of Edward VI. Catherine Cullis, secretary of the Churches Conservation Trust (CCT), outlined the trust’s work. The Redundant Churches Fund for Church of England Churches had been set up after the Bridges Report and the 1968 Pastoral Measure, following changes in the patterns of demography and church worship. Since then, some 1,600 out of 16,000 parish churches had been made redundant and found alternative use; 325 had been transferred to the CCT, and 380 had been demolished. Under Part III of the Pastoral Measure, the church seeks a bottom-up approach. It is up to the local church to instigate redundancy procedures. There is an impetus to find a suitable alternative use through a democratic process. The measure is recognition by the established church of its wider responsibilities to save our heritage of churches for the nation. The complex procedures – they have been compared to an impenetrable fog – are being reviewed by the Church Commissioners at the behest of the Archbishops Council. This is to go out for consultation. The CCT cannot refuse to take a church once the Church Commissioners and its advisers have recommended the transfer, taking into account the cost. The CCT is a unique partnership between church and state in which the state is contributing an increased percentage of funding. Unfortunately an increasing number of redundant churches have failed to find successful alternative uses. Jennifer Freeman explained the work of the Historic Chapels Trust (HCT), of which she is secretary. Set up in 1993, the HCT is the counterpart of the CCT for Grade I and II* Roman Catholic and non-conformist chapels. As a charitable trust it keeps redundant chapels in good repair for public use and occasional worship, as acquirer of last resort. It has raised £2.5 million from private sources and has obtained grants from English Heritage and the HLF. The trust seeks help from local authorities and establishes groups of friends to try to make the properties self-supporting for such events as concerts and theatre, weddings and funerals. It carries out extensive research to reinstate fittings and fixtures, and seeks improvements for access and enjoyment. Fourteen chapels are in its care and six more in the process of acquisition. Chris Wakeling noted that there was a new social agenda for reusing churches for society living in city centres, and for providing new facilities in historic towns. In a sense we were recreating the medieval church. In Victorian times churches were exclusively used for worship, and the church community’s other functions were displaced into specialised halls. Now there was an opportunity to make the church buildings themselves into multi-use spaces more closely aligned to community need. Graham Arnold, conservation officer, Metropolitan Borough ofWirral A £500,000 repair and restoration scheme is being undertaken by the Historic Chapels Trust to save St George’s German Lutheran Church, a magnificent Grade II* church in Tower Hamlets, London which dates from 1762 (Thomas Ford & Partners)
C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 11 42!$)4)/.!, -/24!23 .ON (YDRAULIC AND &EEBLY (YDRAULIC ,IME 0UTTIES (YDRAULIC ,IMES 0OZZOLANS !GGREGATES AND !DDITIVES 2EADY MIXED ,IME -ORTARS 0LASTERS 2ENDERS 2OUGHCASTS AND 2EPAIR -IXES -ORTAR -ATCHING &ACILITY ,IBRARY OF .ATIONAL !GGREGATES 42!$)4)/.!, 0!).43 ,IMEWASHES $ISTEMPERS &LAT /IL %GGSHELL AND .ATURAL %MULSIONS IN (ISTORIC AND #ONTEMPORARY #OLOURS !RTISTS 1UALITY %ARTH AND .ATURAL 0IGMENTS -/24!2 !.!,93)3 !.$ #/.35,4!.#9 (ISTORIC "UILDINGS #ONSERVATION AND 2EPAIR #ONSULTANTS -ETHOD -ATERIALS AND !NALYSIS 3OPHISTICATED -ORTAR !NALYSIS n #HEMICAL $IFFERENTIAL 4HERMAL !NALYSIS 8 2 $ AND 3 % - 3PECIlCATION OF 2EPAIR -ORTARS &OR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 0ETER %LLIS ON &AX % MAIL INFO ROSE OF JERICO DEMON CO UK 7EBSITE WWW ROSE OF JERICO DEMON CO UK BU 4U #MBJTF -UE 7E SUPPLY MATERIALS AND SERVICES FOR ALL BUILDINGS FROM COTTAGES TO CATHEDRALS 2ECENT PROJECTS INCLUDE )CKWORTH (OUSE AND THE #ABINET /FlCE (MBTT GPS QFSJPE XJOEPXT 4HE ,ONDON #ROWN 'LASS #OMPANY SPECIALISES IN PROVIDING AUTHENTIC GLASS FOR THE WINDOWS OF PERIOD BUILDINGS 4HIS GLASS HANDBLOWN USING THE TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES OF THE GLASS BLOWERS IS SPECIlED BY 4HE .ATIONAL 4RUST THE #ROWN %STATES AND INDEED MANY OTHERS INVOLVED IN THE CONSERVATION OF "RITAIN S HERITAGE 3PECIFY AUTHENTIC PERIOD GLASS FOR YOUR RESTORATION PROJECTS 4(% ,/.$/. #2/7. ',!33 #/-0!.9 (ARPSDEN 2OAD (ENLEY ON 4HAMES /XFORDSHIRE 2' %% 4EL &AX WWW LONDONCROWNGLASS CO UK Acanthus a r c h i t e c t s A national network of independent practices with knowledge and experience in the conservation of historic buildings and skills in the design of a wide range of new buildings in sensitive inner city and rural sites. Banbury ACANTHUS CLEWS ARCHITECTS 01295 758101 Bristol ACANTHUS FERGUSON MANN 0117 929 9293 Coventry ACANTHUS CLEWS ARCHITECTS 02476 631306 Huntly ACANTHUS ARCHITECTS DOUGLAS FORREST 01466 793400 London ACANTHUS LAWRENCE &WRIGHTSON 020 8994 2288 Penrith ACANTHUS LOWE RAE ARCHITECTS 01768 863812 Pembroke ACANTHUS HOLDENARCHITECTS 01646 685472 Totnes ACANTHUS FERGUSON MANN 01803 840 300 Independent, local and national www.acanthus.co.uk email [email protected]
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s 0LANNING !PPLICATIONS !PPEALS 0UBLIC )NQUIRIES s (ISTORICAL !RCHAEOLOGICAL !NALYSIS 2ESEARCH s .EGOTIATION WITH %NGLISH (ERITAGE ,OCAL !UTHORITIES s $ESKn4OP 3TUDIES %NVIRONMENTAL 3TATEMENTS s "UILDING 2ECORDING s #!$ 'RAPHICS -EDIUM &ORMAT 0HOTOGRAPHY #G-S #ONSULTING HAS A TRACK RECORD OF RESOLVING ISSUES DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS INCLUDING THOSE TO DO WITH LISTED BUILDINGS CONSERVATION AREAS AND LOCALLY LISTED BUILDINGS #G-S #ONSULTING IS REGISTERED WITH THE )NSTITUTE OF &IELD !RCHAEOLOGISTS )&! AND UNDERTAKES ALL WORK ACCORDING TO BEST PRACTICE 7E HAVE OFFICES IN ,ONDON AND 'LOUCESTER HISTORIC BUILDINGS CONSERVATION Limited Consultants and Craftsmen in the Care and Repair of Historic Buildings and Monuments Experienced Conservation Main Contractor Suppliers of Traditional Building Materials Lime Plastering & Rendering All types of Lime Pointing Masonry Conservation Ornate Plasterwork Guaranteed Structural Solutions Stone Masonry & Carving Dry-stone Walling Paint Removal Inglenook & Fireplace Restorations Traditional Joinery Masonry Cleaning Traditional New-build Tel: 01664 410355 Fax: 01664 410366 Email: [email protected] Website: www.historic-buildings.net Contact: Andrew BrookDipBldgCons (RICS) IHBC (Arch. Mason) Managing Director LILAC COTTAGE BRENTINGBY MELTON MOWBRAY LEICESTERSHIRE LE14 4RX Works undertaken throughout the Midlands and considered elsewhere
C O N T E X T 7 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 2 13 LESLEY DURBIN Conserving medieval tile pavements Medieval tiles in unprotected outdoor sites, exposed to weather and visitors, inevitably deteriorate. Conservators are finding out how to slow down the process. Exposed tile pavements help visitors to interpret medieval buildings’ once colourful and sometimes lavish interiors. They provide a link between grassy ruins and the ecclesiastical interior. But they deteriorate due to the natural environment, the weather, visitors, and vandalism. The medieval tile pavements at Buildwas Abbey, Shropshire, for example, were the subject of an archaeological assessment in 1995. The Jackfield Conserva-tion Studio was consulted to advise on possible in situ conservation treatments or options for lifting the pavements for preservation in storage. Our recommendations for conservation treatment were to remove all vegetation from the surface of the tiles; to remove all debris and clean the surface; and to cut back an area of grass away from the tiles and replace it with a lime mortar surround.We advised that the tiles should be covered in the winter months, and that the surfaces of the tiles should be cleaned and weeded annually. It became clear that weed and grass incursion into the pavement areas, and the growth of moss and lichen on the surface of the tiles, had a more damaging effect than merely an unkempt appearance. When unprotected by glaze, fired clay bodies, combined with a possible initial firing temperature which was too low, are vulnerable to penetration by the fine roots of grass and moss. Not only are weeds, grass and moss a direct cause of clay crumbling, they also hold water around root systems. This has a devastating effect when combined with low temperatures. The harder the clay body the more easily these effects are resisted, but in any tile pavement the density, purity and vitrification of the clay will range from very hard to very soft. This makes it important to clear the pavements of vegetation and the pockets of earth at the end of every growing season, before the first frosts. Of course there are considerable site-specific differences. Buildwas Abbey, in the western region, is substantially more prone to moss and lichen, being low lying, close to the River Severn and having a water-retaining loam sub soil. Thetford Priory, in the east, by contrast, suffers very little damage from moss and almost none from lichen, due to its siting on a light, sandy, well-drained subsoil. However, severe damage is caused by grass and weeds, particularly those weeds which spread by runners (such as buttercups and potentillas). The detrimental effects of the highly developed vegetation are much more easily assessed than that of algae or lichen, whose effects are microscopic.We have recorded the effectiveness of regular removal of these plants, using a simple non-ionic detergent, in preventing recolonisation. The surfaces of soft-bodied tiles can be damaged by repeated mechanical removal of moss, lichen and algae. We would like to see more analysis of the effects of chemical algaecides on tile bodies, and whether their controlled regular use is actually less damaging to surfaces than mechanical action. Both methods rely on regular maintenance. Hand weeding is the first stage.Weeds with long root systems can be pulled only with care, or they may have to be cut and the roots left to rot. Moss, lichen and algae are removed by brushing, or using a hard-edged hand tool to loosen moss or collections of earth and small root systems from crevices and pitting in the tiles. Hand weeding and cleaning can be effective as a conservation measure only if it is carried out annually in the autumn. As a preventative measure particularly against grass incursion, we have put in place a mortar buffer zone around every tile pavement. After cutting back the grass from the edges of the tiles to width of around 12 cms, we laid a lime mortar border of about 10 cms wide around the perimeter of each pavement. The annual growth rate of the grass on the wettest sites has been enough only to cover the mortar, without reaching the vulnerable edges of the pavements. Each Thetford Priory Lady Chapel in 1999, showing the extent of weed growth after only one season.The roots and runners spread underneath the tiles.
ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=