Heritage conservation in Australia No 87 November 2004 Institute of Historic Building Conservation
traditional building products conservation advice mortar matching professional courses seminar & exhibition facilities lime putty hydraulic lime limewash stone dust ready-mixed lime mortars hair riven laths air-dried oak ochres & pigments pozzolanic additives pointing irons traditional drawn glass Bursledon Brickworks Conservation Centre has a wide variety of exhibitions & educational displays, explaining the history & development of building materials & conservation practice, housed in the late-Victorian Grade II* brickworks Courses include hands-on training, covering the use of traditional skills & techniques, materials & building conservation at introductory, CPD & post graduate level BURSLEDONBRICKWORKS(TRADING)LTD Coal Park Lane Swanwick Southampton SO31 7GW Tel/Fax 01489 576248 Email: [email protected] Registered No 2838216 VAT Registration No 631 7400 68
C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 1 Context THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORIC BUILDING CONSERVATION www.ihbc.org.uk Registered as a Charity Number 1061593. Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England Number 3333780. Registered Office: 3 Stafford Road,TunbridgeWells, Kent TN2 4QZ. IHBC Officers President: David Lovie email [email protected] Chairman: JohnYates email [email protected] Vice Chair: Dave Chetwyn email [email protected] Secretary: Richard Morrice email [email protected] Treasurer: Michael Knights email [email protected] Membership Secretary: Mike Lea email [email protected] Consultations Secretary: Dave Chetwyn email [email protected] Law & Practice Coordinator: Vacant email [email protected] Education Secretary: John Preston email [email protected] Publicity Secretary: Sarah Buckingham email [email protected] Director: Seán O’Reilly email [email protected] Branch Officers North: John Pendlebury Tel 0191 284 2119 NorthWest: Anthony Blacklay Tel 01270 610050 Yorkshire: Keith Knight Tel 01904 658482 West Midlands: Karen Holyoake Tel 01384 826891 East Midlands: Fiona Newton Tel 01507 601111 South: Gill Butter Tel 02380 285324 SouthWest: Colin Ellis Tel 01305 838334 East Anglia: Mike McConnell Tel 01284 735057 South East: Paul Barker Tel 01825 760705 London: David McDonald Tel 020 8881 6724 Scotland: Charles Strang Tel 01835 822560 Wales: Nathan Blanchard Tel 01824 708048 Northern Ireland: Sharon BrownTel 028 9754 3087 Republic of Ireland: Bernard Dee Tel +353 1 873 7226 Business Office Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA England Tel 01747 873133 Fax 01747 871718 email [email protected] Cover: Priesthouse door surround following conservation works at the Church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel at Mullewa, Western Australia. It won the 2003 RAIA Lachlan Macquarie award, and an Award of Distinction at the Unesco 2004 Asia-Pacific Heritage Awards. John Taylor architect. Lessons from the other side of the world Editorial Patrick Miller (p22) explains how a ‘statement of significance’ can set out the aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, historical, scientific or social significance that justifies protection. Significant to whom? Leah McKenzie and Frances O’Neill (p37) note that the Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens in Melbourne are important to the people of Victoria (as the place where the colony announced its importance in two international exhibitions), to the people of Australia (as the place where the first Federal Parliament was opened) and to the people of the world (as a monument to the technological movement of the 19th century). The Australian experience also highlights other aspects of heritage conservation, well beyond questions of significance. Susan Balderstone (p32) shows that recycling existing buildings is not only energy-efficient, but also contributes to social and economic sustainability. Megan McDougall (p39) describes how support for conservation depends on demonstrating benefits to a wide community. Australia has lessons to teach the UK about how to look beyond ancient buildings and great architects to new ways of understanding the meaning of places. But surely they don’t have any old buildings? Jo Day (p11) recalls getting that response when she told friends she was moving from England to work as a conservation officer in Australia. This issue of Context – which Jo Day has played a large part in putting together – reveals why, despite the relative youth of Australia’s buildings, the experience of heritage conservation in that continent has a great deal of interest for the UK. Yes, the historic places of Victoria – the state that our articles focus on particularly – do tend to be less than 150 years old. Conservationists there find themselves concerned with buildings and structures of, in Day’s words, ‘no apparent age or beauty’. Australians value them all the same, for their significance in terms of social and cultural development. Often it is not the individual building but the place that is particularly significant. The Australian concept of place is often complex.This is a continent that had been occupied for tens of thousands of years by aboriginal people with a well-developed sense of place, but whose rights were dismissed because they did not share the English concept of land ownership. Only in recent decades have serious efforts been made to reconcile two very different systems of expressing the value of place. Briefing 2 Letters 5 Periodically 6 Legal Briefing Charles Mynors and Alex Booth 8 The good, the bad and the just plain different Jo Day 11 Australian cultural heritage legislation Amanda Bacon 13 Local planning for heritage in Victoria Cathy Philo 15 The National Trust (but not as you know it) Jim Gard’ner 18 So why is this place so bloody important? Patrick Miller 22 Tracing the Cockatoo connections Noni Boyd 25 Conservation in the South Australian outback Duncan Ross-Watt 28 Enough energy to get half way to the moon Susan Balderstone 32 Victoria’s goldrush inheritance Jenny Climas and David Bannear 34 A return to the world stage Leah McKenzie and Frances O’Neill 37 Community benefits of heritage funding Megan McDougall 39 Melbourne conservation’s radical roots Renate Howe and David Nichols 41 Notes from the chair 43 Biography, Seán O’Reilly, the IHBC’s first director 44 Vox pop 44 Products and services 45
2 C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 Context Editor Robert Cowan Editorial Coordinator Nigel Barker, 65Worplesdon Road, Guildford, Surrey GU2 9RT. Tel 01483 562 851 email [email protected] Editorial Board Nigel Barker (chair) Susan Brook (treasurer and IT) Nigel Crowe (main features) Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Julia Smith (IHBC branches) Michael Taylor (main features) Cartoons by Robert Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2004 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Published for the Institute of Historic Building Conservation by Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA Tel 01747 871717 Fax 01747 871718 email [email protected] www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to non-members of the IHBC at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £50.00 Elsewhere £75.00 Subscription orders, together with remittances payable to Institute of Historic Building Conservation, should be sent to the IHBC Business Office at Jubilee House, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire SP3 6HA. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily those held by the IHBC nor the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. Briefing Copy deadlines Context is published five times a year, in March, May, July, September and November. Copy deadlines in 2005 are: Issue Date March, Issue 88 14 January May, Issue 89 18 March July, Issue 90 20 May September, Issue 91 15 July November, Issue 92 16 September British Waterways saves ‘at risk’ bridge with council funding In 2002 BritishWaterways conducted a survey to assess which of its great stock of historic waterway structures were included on local authority building-atrisk registers. Tamworth Borough Council reported a number of ‘at risk’ canal bridges along the Coventry Canal, including Kettlebrook Barn Bridge in Tamworth. This brick-arched accommodation bridge, built in soft red non-engineering brick, spans the canal to the south of Fazeley Junction. Built between 1785 and 1790, it is Grade II listed. The structure is well used by the local community as a footpath from the housing estate on the off-side of the canal to an open path on the towingpath side. In 2003 representatives from Tamworth Council and British Waterways walked along this section of the Coventry Canal to discuss the factors which contributed to these bridges being designated ‘at risk’. Kettlebrook Barn Bridge had the worst risk category of those on the council’s register. Its category status was designated 3A, largely due to problems such as localised structural settlement and inappropriate repairs undertaken in the past. Earlier repair work and repeated vandalism had resulted in sandstone copings missing along the bridge and a widespread need for repointing. Inappropriate maintenance and random modern-brick replacement, coupled with hard cement pointing, had further deteriorated the integrity of the bridge’s fabric. Tamworth Council was concerned that, if left untreated, problems such as penetrating cracks to the southern side and cracking and deflection on the arch of the bridge would deteriorate further if accelerated by cold weather and vandalism. As part of BritishWaterways’ own principal inspection process, Kettlebrook Barn Bridge had already been assessed to ensure it met safety obligations. The bridge was given a Grade D condition category, which meant that the structure was functioning but had problems due to ‘significant structural cracking, perishing, spalling and deformation’. The structure’s low condition category, coupled with the inclusion of the bridge on a buildings-at-risk register meant there was greater scope to secure funding for repairs both from within BritishWaterways and from the council’s Historic Buildings Grant fund. Tamworth Council provides grant assistance to help owners repair and refurbish historic buildings within the borough, including all statutorily listed and locally listed buildings, and all historic buildings within Tamworth’s seven conservation areas. Grants are available on a first-come-first-served basis. Fortunately for Kettlebrook Barn Bridge, the council had funding available in the conservation grant budget and was prepared to offer 30 per cent of the full cost of the works, which totalled over £50,000. In order to progress the grant application, the council required further information on costs, including a schedule of works and two tenders/ estimates from separate contractors. The conservation-led works involved a significant amount of traditional repair techniques. Replacement bricks were chosen from a local reclamation yard. Prior to the works beginning, a test panel was built next to the bridge to assess the specifications’ suitability for the full works. These specifications also had to be agreed with the council’s conservation planner. The test panel also demonstrated the suitability of the specified mortar mix for the works (a 1:3 mix of moderately hydraulic lime with two parts well-graded sand, half soft sand and half brick aggregate). Lime mortar was used for localised repointing. The corner buttresses were repointed and refaced at the base. The parapet of the bridge was removed and rebuilt, and missing voussoirs were replaced. New sandstone copings were chosen, with stone matched from other canal bridges in Tamworth. During the works, vandals tried to remove the copings by scraping out the
C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 3 lime mortar with screwdrivers. This act would have eventually proved fruitless, as the copings had been fixed with stainless steel ties. However, to prevent the lime from being removed on a daily basis without opportunity to go off, a ‘natural hydraulic’ binder was added, accelerating the setting time to about 40 minutes. The repair and conservation of Kettlebrook Barn Bridge has proved a great achievement. There has been just one report of new graffiti on one of the sandstone copings. Otherwise the local community and canal users have praised the restoration works. The successful funding partnership between BritishWaterways and Tamworth Council has established a precedent for future funding opportunities that will enable repair and eliminate the number of buildings at risk on the British Waterways estate. Elizabeth Turner, BritishWaterways heritage adviser for central shires waterway unit, based at Fazeley. highways maintenance backlog that runs into billions of pounds. In October English Heritage launched its Save Our Streets in London and at events throughout England. The campaign is backed by the publication of eight Streets for All volumes for the English regions outside London. HELM for councillors As part of English Heritage’s new training project, HELM (Historic Environment Local Management), conservation officers will receive copies of a CD-Rom that is being sent to all elected members in England. This is based on the website www.helm.org.uk, where a range of guidance and case studies is available. The IHBC is closely involved with the project and sits on HELM’s advisory panel. HELM aims to raise awareness about the historic environment among decision makers in local authorities and emphasises the key role heritage specialists play in managing it. Contact [email protected] Conserving historic buildings starts with the street Since the prime minister’s ‘liveability’ speech in Croydon in 2001, the state of our public spaces and streets has been gradually rising up the political agenda. Much of what has been said in recent years has chimed with what the conservation movement has been saying for some time: that the benefits of improving street quality are not just aesthetic. Keeping the individual appearance of a street or public space helps to create a sense of place, which in turn has community and regeneration benefits. Well-designed, well-ordered and wellmaintained streets are an expression of a confident and caring community. Chaotic and cluttered streets are often a symptom of a community in decline. Streets are the foreground of our buildings and the backdrop to everyday lives.Yet England’s streets are increasingly cluttered with a proliferation of traffic signs, bins, bollards, guardrails and street furniture. We pay attention to the maintenance and restoration of historic buildings, but much of the effect can be lost if the views of these buildings are marred by badly planned and maintained streets. Since liveability became an issue, many studies and reports have appeared, but little practical advice has been produced on how change can be achieved. Most reports look to a radical rewriting of primary legislation and government guidance.Yet in many cases both the law and the guidance is sound. The problem is how they are used. Revenue funding in local authorities has been trimmed right back over the past 30 years, and maintenance has not been a priority. The Institution of Civil Engineers annually produces a figure for The first Streets for All: a guide to the management of London’s streets was published in 2000, and widely used within London and beyond. The Save Our Streets campaign is intended to raise public awareness of the quality of England’s streets, and how this is being eroded as they lose their A mid-19th century former snuff factory in Sunniside, Sunderland, is being restored from dereliction as a bar/ restaurant and residential development. Grant assistance was awarded under the City of Sunderland’s Old Sunderland Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme. Ask the right questions The government is developing a picture of what local government across England should look like in ten years time. The ODPM discussion document The Future of Local Government: developing a ten-year vision invites views on the kind of issues that need to be addressed in considering the future of local government. The IHBC believes that it is necessary to modernise local authority functions and, equally important, to modernise the approaches of the central government departments that oversee them. The institute’s response, suggesting what questions the review should consider, can be read on www.ihbc.org.uk. Uncluttered footways and traffic calming by changing the carriageway geometry – Upper Pavement in the Lace Market, Nottingham If we could educate drivers not to park illegally on kerbs, we could achieve the perfect scheme without need for bollards. A simple, legible scheme in Southwell, Notts
4 C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 distinctiveness. It aims to show how a few simple measures can lead to big improvements, and how communities can work with and encourage their local councils. The campaign is fronted by author and English Heritage commissioner Bill Bryson. In Notes from a Small Island he expresses vigorously his views on the effects highways improvements and redevelopments have had on Britain’s historic towns and cities. Save Our Streets aims to win public support and encourage people to influence what happens in the streets and public spaces they use. It is also intended to raise awareness in local authorities of the wider benefits of the approach advocated by Streets for All. When English Heritage set out to produce Streets for All in the 1990s, for the first time it was able to illustrate common problems and offer solutions. We wanted to show what was possible within the existing legislation and using guidance judiciously. As bench-marks of good improvement schemes we had the historic core zone pilot projects around England and the Strand improvement in London.We sent many copies of the books out to London boroughs’ highways departments and held seminars in their offices, challenging them to take up the Streets for All approach. Progress has been made in the past five years.We have reprinted Streets for All three times. One borough has fully committed to our approach and others have adopted it as guidance. A survey at the end of 2003 showed that over 50 per cent of the members of the Institute of Highways and Transportation across the Britain had heard of Streets for All, despite it being primarily a London guidance document. CABE and CABE Space have been created and in 2002 the ODPM and CABE published Paving the Way. This set out the problems of poor design in the public realm and offered recommendations for the way forward. The obvious recommendation of producing a succinct summary of all statutory legislation and official guidance on highway design and traffic management has yet to be acted upon. TheTraffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 showed that the Department for Transport was looking at reducing the effects of signage clutter. Changes included dispensing with the need for ‘at any time’ signs to go with double yellow lines. The Traffic Signs Manual has been appearing over the past two years, chapter by chapter, with similar small, positive changes to regulations. The Highways Agency is reviewing the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The worst effects of the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 have been realised, and changes to the legislation now allow highways authorities more control over licensed operators digging up the streets, even going as far as ‘lane charging’. The eight new Streets for All manuals take on board the positive changes that have occurred, illustrate what is possible, and even hint at the radical solutions adopted by our European neighbours. Essentially, though, regional and local distinctiveness is the key message. The purpose of a version to cover each region is to bring this out, and to highlight examples of good practice in each region. The manuals highlight examples of good and bad practice, and set out general principles for good conservation, management and design of streets. The emphasis is on retaining local features, making sure paving is appropriate to the street and function, and removing unnecessary clutter. The principles advocated in Streets for All may seem common sense. But an informed look at England’s streets shows that most would benefit from the application of some simple measures. Why English Heritage? As champions of the historic built environment we have realised in recent years that the greatest threat to historic areas is from the gradual degradation of their streets and public spaces.We need to halt and if possible reverse this decline in the appearance of historic areas, but everything we say is equally applicable to any street or public space. Under the umbrella of the Save Our Streets campaign, we aim to engage the general public, working with such bodies as the civic societies and theWomen’s Institute. As part of English Heritage’s HELM project (Historic Environment – Local Management, launched in April), workshops based around Streets for All will take place in all regions, aimed specifically at highways and traffic engineers, and technicians and planners. Contact your regional English Heritage office if you want to find out more. There is a short HELM leaflet aimed at local authorities and a CD that sets out the main principles of Streets for All (‘HELM for councillors’, p3). The final strand of the campaign is to work with other bodies in the built environment to press government to change guidance affecting the public realm, particularly streets and to make the legislative changes needed to remove some of the statutory requirements that cause clutter and visually intrusive highways works. We need to highlight that improving the quality of our streets links to a range of other objectives, from regeneration to promoting walking and cycling. Streets for All helps to identify what needs doing and how to do it. The next stage is delivery. Save Our Streets aims to galvanise everyone.Within every local authority, partnerships need to be established between conservation and highway staff, and the messages need to be communicated to contractors. This requires persistence, an appreciation of the wider benefits, and ideally someone within the authority to take personal responsibility for enhancing the quality of all the streets in their area. CharlesWagner, English Heritage The use of a strip ofYorkstone paving across a setted carriageway on Steep Hill, Lincoln, allows accessibility to be maintained while keeping traditional materials.
C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 5 Conservation in Northern Ireland From AdamWilkinson, secretary, SAVE SAVE was surprised not to see any acknowledgement of the vast amount of hard work it has put in to the fight for conservation in Northern Ireland over the past three years in the pages of the September 2004 issue of your esteemed, and usually highly enjoyable, journal. This may well be down to our usual weakness of being too busy to blow our own trumpet. In July 2001 we published the report Blink andYou’ll Miss It: Northern Ireland’s heritage in danger, which pulled together all of the different failings in the system into one report, highlighting the very dramatic effect these were having on Northern Ireland’s built heritage. Many of these issues were covered in your reports on the IHBC Annual School. The launch of this report in Northern Ireland represented the first time any body from the rest of the UK had vocalised any concern about the dreadful situation faced by the historic built environment in Northern Ireland, and it was an important factor in galvanising the heritage lobby within Northern Ireland. The report was, as is SAVE’s wont, hard hitting and to the point. The Environment and Heritage Service, to its credit, listened to what we had to say and responded to it, that response ultimately finding its form in last year’s amendments to the Planning Orders.We have continued our interest beyond this, supporting the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society in casework when asked, and continuing to press government to act over buildings, areas and issues. The continued role that amenity societies and pressure groups have to play both within Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK is frequently overlooked, yet they are an essential part of the make-up of the broad alliance of those who care for our historic built environment. This breadth is reflected in the IHBC’s membership and, one hopes, in its thinking about, and understanding of, the sector, as it should be in its reporting of issues. AdamWilkinson Wheelie maddening From Ann Lots,York An anonymous contributor (Letters, Context 86, September) voiced concern at the impact of wheelie bins on historic places. I hate wheelie bins so much that I have become the Rudolph Giuliani of my street inYork – zero tolerance and direct action. If any are left out on pavements, I put a (polite) note through the door (which also mentions that no one is obliged to have a wheelie bin). But if the bins are still left out, I put them in the car and take them back to the council depot. I must have taken number 12’s five times, but it worked in the end. None of which solves the problem of councils which are giving bins to those in terraced houses that have no rear access or, as in one case I have seen, a flight of 14 steps. I have corresponded with a few authorities about this and they are well aware that it is an offence for a bin to be left permanently on the pavement. They are flouting the law and getting away with it. Bins in front gardens are just as ugly, although not as dangerous, as on pavements. I am toying with the idea of designing a trellis arrangement, also on wheels, which could be used to conceal the bins, with a plant container incorporated to cover the trellis. All other suggestions welcome (to [email protected]). From my fairly extensive travels, Ipswich is the worst place I have seen, with Bristol close behind, although the latter does have more excuse, with so many large houses converted into flats. A letter to the Times recently highlighted Bury St Edmunds as particularly horrendous, but I have not visited it recently. Can English Heritage be galvanised to address the issue? Its recent streets campaign must be a starting point, since in the worst-afflicted towns any other measures to improve streets are simply fiddling while Rome burns. I tried the Civic Trust but its reply was pathetic. One other element: it seems to me that a wheelie is approximately twice as large as a conventional dustbin. Even with fortnightly collection, three of those equals three times the previous capacity.What was that about discouraging over-packaging, and encouraging more responsibility and throwing less away? Organisations like Friends of the Earth should be on to this one and might be useful allies, as should the disability campaigners in relation to obstruction on pavements. What we need is a public uprising on the lines of the Schweppes bottle dump – a mass wheel-in, back to the council depots. I’m game. Are you? Ann Lots Letters Addendum The architect for the restoration of the Theatre Royal in Richmond (Context 86, September 2004, p3) was Allen Tod Architecture.
6 C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 Periodically… Is heritage going through a mid-life crisis? Do historic buildings ‘carry a weight of association which can be uncomfortable or off-putting’? Claire Fox explores the disturbing implications of these questions in an article entitled ‘Monumental folly’ in the latest issue of Civic Focus, the Civic Trust Newsletter (Issue 47, Summer 2004). The first question was prompted by the Heritage Lottery Fund’s recent conference ‘Who do we think we are?’ The second question, posed by the AttinghamTrust’s Opening Doors report, goes on to define ‘intangible heritage’ as ‘whatever people like to think of themselves’. Fox suspects that by following the trend towards an ever-broadening and inclusive definition of heritage, incorporating everyday experiences, the concept becomes almost meaningless. Heritage as a discreet area of life, she argues, is replaced by life itself, its undercurrent and exposes a tension between the special-elitist versus the commonplace-populist. New audiences (a Tessa Jowell obsession) can apparently only be won over to heritage by relating it to ‘their’ particular experience, with personalised heritage being dressed up in the clothes of empowerment. She concludes that, if heritage carries on in this vein, it is likely to talk itself out of existence. As the Director of the Institute of Ideas, she has certainly posed some thought-provoking concerns about a plebeian heritage currently detectable in a ‘me too’ mentality among those leading heritage organisations seeking largess from Ms Jowell. Elsewhere in the same issue, Dame Jennifer Jenkins criticises the Government’s Heritage Protection Review for its failure to tackle the problems of conservation areas or underpin it with adequate resources. It is a little surprising to note a statement (in the publication of the very organisation instrumental in setting up conservation area legislation) that this was initiated in 1957 (glaring howler or howler? Conservation areas were first introduced by the Civic Amenities Act 1967). One other phrase caught this reviewer’s eye in this issue. In discussing Liverpool in the context of Jane Jacob’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Tristram Hunt memorably describes the British architectural establishment of late 20th century as ‘destroying much of the nuanced social fabric’, and at once one recognises that it is nuance that is so easily lost but so difficult to recreate. The latest issue of Cornerstone, the renamed newsletter of the SPAB (Volume 25, No 3) devotes itself primarily to the subject of Britain’s 50,000 thatched buildings, half of them listed. No other building craft has given rise to such dispute and dissention as thatching. The society is in the thick of the debate over techniques, materials and regional and local traditions. On one side of the argument are the conservation professionals (supported by the Planning Inspectorate), anxious to maintain character and authenticity. On the other are the estimated 250 to 300 full-time professional thatchers, concerned at what they see as attempts to stifle a living craft. Underlying this is a tensionWilliam Morris would have recognised – the importance of continuing artistic creativity versus the need to respect the historic value of a building. Aspects of straw, reed and heather; the law; current research; skills; regional varieties; and the growing and harvesting of the right materials are all addressed. Peter Rumley attempts to separate fact from fiction over what is ‘authentic’ mission watered down. Actual places and artefacts are abandoned in favour of what the HLF calls the ‘intrinsically intangible and ephemeral… the living experiences of people’. Places of universal historical significance, of national value, give way to the local and parochial. There must be no intellectual challenge, no effort to understand or appreciate. Fox detects a patronising thatch, but concludes that there is no clear answer – philosophically at least – even with extensive and far-reaching forensic investigation. Architect Ruth Blackman sets out some guidelines on deciding whether a thatched roof can be repaired, with reference to three Norfolk churches. David Brock of English Heritage looks at current planning issues in the light of their recent Guidance Note and Research Transactions. This column does not usually reproduce letters, but the issue of ‘reversibility’ posed by JohnWinstone of Wells is worth quoting here. ‘Discussion of the claim that reversibility is justification for changes to historic buildings is long overdue, especially as it is widely quoted by agents, planning committees and chancellors to justify unwelcome alterations. That there are few examples of reversals is perhaps stating the obvious. Members will know that this meaning is entirely different
C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 7 from the SPAB reversible repairs. Perhaps in future we should refer to undo-able repairs.’ Winstone continues: ‘As list descriptions have become the measure of what is worthy of note and protection in a listed building (would that statements of significance had an having been refused permission to produce them at Appledoor (see Context 83, March 2004, p19). Mike Farey, who heads Hydraulic Lias Limes Ltd, will continue to be branded as H/2, but this will in future stand for hydraulic Lincolnshire lime. The August issue gives an account of the 10th International Congress on the Conservation and Deterioration of Stone, held in Stockholm in June. Of interest to British readers would have been problems with marble, including thin cladding panels and the different thermal expansion between marble types, and the British Geological Survey’s Ewan Hyslop discussing techniques for the selection and replacement of stone in Edinburgh. There is also a short report on the recent cleaning of Marble Arch in London by David Ball Restoration for English Heritage. In the latest edition of the RICS Building Conservation Group Journal (No 36, 2004), the Scots bid to show that when it comes to the restoration of swimming baths they are not to be outdone by Victoria Baths in Manchester. The first phase of the repairs to Grade B listed Drumsheugh equally rigorous status!), is it not intent in the legislation that the continuing existence of those very qualities and characteristics is protected for the wider enjoyment? That is to say they are not just for the owner or user of a listed building but for general appreciation, both for the present and for the future. ‘It follows therefore that to cover and/or remove these qualities for the foreseeable future is a material loss of enjoyment of the character of a listed building. To do so is to put the art and architecture beyond reach, effectively into a paper record, at best a discrete store (or worse, when fashion may subsequently dictate, disposal). ‘This is not to say alterations can not be admissible, merely that they must be properly justified. Promises of possible reversal do not make the case. Could we hear any dissenting views please, or campaign to remove this false argument from the armoury of applicants.’ Natural Stone Specialist continues to carry interesting features on conservation. The July 2004 issue describes the stonework repair and replacements being undertaken at Hardwick Hall for the National Trust. The latest phase of works to the elaborate open-parapet detailing is being undertaken with a £6.3 million grant. An estimated £8.5 million of work remains to be done. The issue also reports that H/2 English Lime Mortars is moving production to Barnetby in Lincolnshire, Baths in Edinburgh is described. This private swimming club, started in 1902, is considered to be the most impressive Saracenic example north of the border. A Scottish theme is maintained by a discussion of the conservation issues facing Highland Council, the largest local government unit within the EU (9,800 square miles, or 33 per cent of Scotland). As compliance with Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act finally arrived on 1 October, disabled access issues remain highly topical. Adrian Cave reports on three recent historic museum projects to make improvements: the Queen’s House, Greenwich; Hollytrees Museum, Colchester; and the Captain Cook Memorial Museum,Whitby. Bob Kindred MBE Letters (continued from p5) From Ian Hume, Braintree I wonder how an IHBC accreditation scheme would work and what it would prove (‘It’s time to have your say on accreditation’, Stuart Eydmann and John Preston, Context 85, July)? One of the great benefits of the IHBC is that its members are from a whole range of conservation professions. This gives both the institute (and Context) a holistic view that benefits us all.Where else would I, as a conservation engineer, be able to read about disability access and conservation works at Kew Palace, to mention but two articles in your July issue? If the IHBC becomes an accrediting institute, what markers would its members be judged against? Stuart Eydmann and John Preston mention that the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers ‘have been moving towards an accreditation system for some time’. In fact the Conservation Accreditation Register for Engineers (CARE) came into being in November 2003. The scheme is administered jointly by both these institutions. I have the privilege of chairing the multi-disciplinary panel which was initially charged with setting up CARE, and which is now responsible for running it. Currently we have about a dozen engineers accredited. As chairman of the CARE panel I am in the process of visiting many branch meetings of both institutions to talk about conservation engineering and the accreditation scheme. The CARE panel is represented on both the Edinburgh Group and the York Group to which Stuart and John refer. The CARE scheme application form is very much based on the areas of competence developed by the multidisciplinary Edinburgh group. When you next meet an engineer on site why not ask if he or she is CARE-accredited and if not, why not? Conservation accreditation for engineers can only serve to raise standards. Ian Hume
8 C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 LEGAL BRIEFING Changes to law and procedure: looking ahead Charles Mynors and Alex Booth report on the government’s longer-term measures to change the law and procedures relating to the built heritage. In Context 85 (July 2004) and 86 (September) we looked at the history of the government’s proposals to change the law and procedures relating to the built heritage. In particular we outlined the package of short-term proposals (to be implemented from April 2005) contained in the most recent paper, published by the DCMS in June 2004, entitledReview of Heritage Protection: the way forward. This present article completes the exercise, examining the longerterm measures set out in TheWay Forward. These will generally require primary legislation, and will therefore probably not appear until 2006/07 at the earliest. That legislative package may also include the changes proposed by the consultant Halcrow in a report for the ODPM, also published in June 2004, entitled Unification of Consent Regimes. A new single register The government has decided that there will be a new, single document entitled the ‘Register of Historic Sites and Buildings of England’.This will contain two parts. The first, the main section, will be compiled by English Heritage, and will incorporate: • World Heritage Sites • The existing statutory regimes of listed buildings and scheduled monuments • The non-statutory regimes of historic parks and gardens, and battlefields. The second, a local section compiled by local authorities, will include conservation areas and locally listed buildings. English Heritage will set the standards and criteria for entries in the local section. The paper claims that ‘this arrangement is intended to demonstrate clearly that significance in the historic environment is assessed and owned from both ends, national and local. There is also an international dimension in World Heritage Sites’. Well, maybe. An alternative view is that the new register is trying to be all things to all people. There will be considerable confusion in attempting to include such a wide variety of categories of heritage assets in a single register. It is to be hoped, incidentally, that any legislation introducing the new system will make clear precisely what is included along with each item in each category – to avoid the difficulties that presently arise with the curtilage of listed buildings. One interesting offshoot of this integrated approach is that in some cases there will be, in effect, an area designation at national level. This would apply, for example, to sites where there are numerous distinct but linked elements of the historic environment, such as a country house with its associated buildings, park and gardens, or a university campus with buildings of different ages. It would also apply in cases where current regimes do not really work, such as areas (both rural and urban) with extensive archaeological remains. Linked to this proposal is a further one, that English Heritage is to have statutory responsibility for listing. As explained in the previous article, English Heritage will be responsible in practice from April 2005 – but then it is in practice largely responsible at the moment. So there would seem to be little change in reality. But further proposals are designed to bolster this: in particular, the proposals that there will be a policy framework set by the secretary of state; and a statutory right of appeal to him/her, as well as a power of call-in. Finally, under this heading, there is the oft-repeated pledge to make the listing system more open, so that owners would be consulted before their building was included in the register. Such a procedure would obviously need to be linked to a system of interim protection, so as to avoid the hasty alteration or demolition of a building being considered for inclusion in the register.While therefore there is some commitment to greater openness in the first stage of the reforms, it is only at the second stage, when there is the possibility of legislative changes to bring in the interim protection, that the new system can really become effective. However, even though 96 per cent of those responding to the consultation agreed with this approach, it may nevertheless be questionable how much benefit will actually accrue. The whole process of listing is after all simply one of ‘experts’ (either actual or so-called) registering that a building is of interest to them. The views of laymen may therefore be of limited relevance at that stage. Later on, once there is a particular proposal, it may well be sensible to balance the views of professionals as to the desirability of keeping a building against those of the owners who wish to alter or demolish it. But that is a different scenario from the initial selection process. Standards The criteria for listing/scheduling are to be reviewed, with specific standards being set for each of the various categories of asset – archaeological remains, buildings, underwater assets, landscapes, battlefields and historic areas. The decision to include an item in the register will thus not take into account considerations – such as, in particular, regeneration and redevelopment issues – other than merit. This is sensible, and echoes the comment above about the distinction between the initial selection of a building and the subsequent
C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 9 assessment of a proposal for its alteration. The government also proposes to put on the face of the statute ‘an overarching definition of historic assets’. What is that supposed to mean? Possibly, like ‘sustainable development’, it will be hijacked by those seeking to promote their schemes. Almost everyone responding to the consultation paper felt that the grading system should be maintained. The government has accepted this, and proposes that the present system of grading be made clearer, by the merging of Grades I and II* into a new, unified, super grade of listing: Grade I. That is sensible, but scarcely revolutionary. There was a proposal that some buildings currently classified as Grade II should be reassigned to local lists, but this was unpopular and is not to be pursued. That is scarcely surprising, politically, but is nevertheless unfortunate. There are after all almost half a million listed buildings in England alone, of which around 96 per cent are Grade II. It simply can not be true that all are of equal value. Some form of assessment would be helpful to decision makers, both in considering proposals for alterations and in allocating scarce money for repairs. But it is not likely that half the listed building owners in the land would wish to be ‘downgraded’ to a new Grade III, whether statutory or otherwise. Historic environment records The government has recognised the importance of Historic Environment Records (HERs), the successors to the old Sites and Monuments Records, as they underpin the new system of integrated registers. It accordingly proposes that local authorities should all either maintain or have access to HERs, and that such records should be placed on a statutory footing. This is particularly important in rural areas. Works to historic buildings Possibly of greater concern in practice is the system for protecting historic buildings and areas from unsuitable changes. The first proposal here is that listed building consent and scheduled monument consent should be integrated into a single system. This makes sense, and would echo the integration of the two types of assets into a single register. Second, there will be a system of statutory management agreements, enabling works in defined categories to be carried out on a regular basis without the need for detailed applications to be made in each case. This would be particularly suitable for largescale buildings, sites and landscapes; for complex historic entities that comprise more than one type of asset; and for assets better managed alongside other statutory regimes. Such an approach might also be suitable for assets of a similar type in single ownership but in dispersed locations, such as historic bridges and underground stations. However, it is very doubtful whether it would be suitable, as proposed in a separate consultation paper, for churches, since these are too diverse. Charles Mynors and Alex Booth are barristers in the Chambers of Robin Purchas QC in the Temple. A new edition of Mynors’ seminal book, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments, published by Sweet & Maxwell and including over 100 recent decisions of the courts, is expected in 2005. In response to a separate initiative, Halcrow (consultants engaged by the ODPM) have recently completed a research project looking at the possible integration of all the consents in this area. Their report, entitled Unification of Consent Regimes, also supported the unification of listed building and scheduled monument consents as a first stage. It also noted that conservation area consent was in fact only rarely required, and recommended that it be rolled up into planning permission, which is, after all, needed for all development, including demolition.The current exemption from the definition of ‘development’ of the demolition of buildings that are listed or in a conservation area arises solely as a result of a ministerial direction, which could easily be reversed. Looking further ahead, the authors of the Halcrow report – after looking at a number of possible models, as well as the system in other countries – considered that there was much to be said for merging all four consents into one. The government has not yet promised any legislation on this, but will consider the way forward. In practice, however, it is likely that the unification proposal, if is to be implemented at all, would best be dealt with at the same time as the other matters referred to above that require primary legislation. Policy guidance Finally, there was a commitment to replace PPG 15 (historic buildings) and PPG 16 (archaeology) with a single new planning policy statement. However, in view of the impending new legislation that would be needed to implement the changes outlined above, and consequential secondary legislation, it now seems unlikely that new guidance will be produced until after the dust has settled on the new system. Conclusion Overall, the changes outlined here, taken as a whole, represent a worthwhile package of reforms, albeit scarcely radical. However, given that the great bulk of the country’s historic assets have already been identified under the one or other of the existing regimes, it is difficult to see what is the real value in changing the designation/listing system now. Is it a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? The unification of consents, on the other hand, may be a more significant change, that would mark the move of heritage protection back into the heart of mainstream planning where it belongs.
10 C O N T E X T 8 7 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 4 Head Office, PO Box 5404, Nottingham NG16 4BU Tel: 0870 240 0666 Fax: 0870 240 0777 E-mail: [email protected] www.lslongden.co.uk A member of A member of A member of LS Longden panelled doors and doorsets combine top quality traditional craftsmanship with the technical performance levels needed to meet today’s demands: • certified fire resistance up to 60 minutes • sound reduction up to 36 dBRw • solid timber construction • raised and fielded or flat panel designs LS Longden products are particularly suited to the conservation and refurbishment of traditional buildings where existing doors and frames can be accurately matched. Advice and assistance in the detailed design of traditional doors to meet particular technical requirements can be provided. PANELLED TIMBER DOORS FROM LS LONGDEN Glass for period windows The London Crown Glass Company specialises in providing authentic glass for the windows of period buildings. This glass, handblown using the traditional techniques of the glass blowers, is specified by The National Trust, the Crown Estates and indeed many others involved in the conservation of Britain’s heritage. Specify authentic period glass for your restoration projects. THE LONDON CROWN GLASS COMPANY 21 Harpsden Road, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 1EE Tel 01491 413227 Fax 01491 413228 www.londoncrownglass.co.uk Telephone +44(0)1202 876141 www.farrow-ball.com Finest finishes made here by us, available in all our colours Ca s e i n Di s t empe r • Dead F l a t Oi l E s t a t e Emu l s i on • Ex t e r i o r Eg g s he l l Ex t e r i o r Ma son r y • F l oo r Pa i n t L imewa sh • Oi l & Wa t erba sed Egg she l l Oi l Fu l l Gl os s • Rea l Lead Pa i n t So f t Di s t empe r • Un i ve r s a l S t a i ne r s Dr agged , S t r i ped & B l ock Pr i n t ed Paper s
www.ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=