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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=