New thinking on EH remit

[Penners]

Article in today's Sunday Times.

 

[Nemesis]

I posted a link to the latest draft of the conservation principles a couple of days ago. Last year they tried draft one which was heavily criticised. All expertise and thinking on conservation doesn't reside with EH by any means.

http://periodpropertyshop.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7529


This isn't actually very new thinking by EH - the problem is that EH is inconsistent. What has to be stated though is that what is a solution for one building isn't always what should happen to another.

And at times, under pressure from its political paymasters, who want to be seen to be 'developer friendly', it abandons all sense and OK's things which it should not have even considered. A great deal of politics with a small p happens also.

I'm waiting at the moment to see what they have to say about a scheme I'm heavily involved with, trying to save buildings - where the developer has come up with the worst sort of facadism, retaining the walls but gutting all else and adding a raised roof and extra storeys. Grim. Marginally better than the alternative proposed which was total demolition, but not exactly perfect...

With Hellifield, the fact it was actually a dwelling not so long ago will have helped with permission to reinstate it as such.

This was SAVE's newsletter report from May last year on the first report:

Principles of Conservation

English Heritage recently issued its first stage consultation of a document called Principles of Conservation for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. This of course begs the question as to how many more stages of consultation there will be, and to judge from the document, we hope not many, as it veers from the utterly impenetrable to the pointless.

English Heritage claims that the work is urgently needed as "existing guidance on ethical and other considerations involved with the conservation of the historic environment is now becoming outdated, is forgotten or misunderstood". One of the joys of conservation in the UK is that it is not the preserve of desk bound theorists, but is a balance between them and those with a more practical involvement in the process. What the work appears to do is to move conservation back into the realms of the theoretical, and this is reflected in the lack of plain English throughout the document. One has to ask "why this document", "who is it for?" as well as "why now?". Is it a response to a real need? If so, it appears to have passed us by.

Much inspiration seems to have been drawn from the Burra Charter, an Australian document focussed on a historic environment of a very different nature, and other international charters are taken into account. This however, lacks the simple clarity of the major international charters (both in terms of language and concept) that helps make them special. All that is bad about this document can be found in one paragraph on page 78, and it is worth quoting in full:

"Where there is potential for conflict between conservation and other public policy objectives, we are firmly of the view that they are best reconciled or balanced through dialogue. Initially this should be focused on whether the other objectives could be achieved in a way that is less harmful to the heritage values of the place, or which would even eliminate the harm completely. Thereafter a balance must be struck, in which the greater the significance of place, the greater the weight that must be attached to sustaining that significance. "

This raises so many questions. Surely the lead body in the heritage sector should in the first instance be seeking to eliminate any harm. Does this represent a shift in policy? We are not told. What happens if dialogue? How does this relate to law and statutory guidance? Will this carry any weight? What counts for "sustaining significance"? A blue plaque?

One could spend an eternity picking holes in the document. Frankly, though, it's not worth it. The principles, no matter how penetrable or impenetrable, will only ever be dust in the wind, just another document marking a point in time. It is a values based document, and values change rapidly. It is not a practical or useful document to help practitioners when considering how to deal with a building in need of repair. When writing the SPAB manifesto in 1877, Morris was not motivated to justify it with a mass of sub clauses, questions and explanatory notes.

The commissioners of the document might have pondered whether the points they are trying to make might not be better illustrated with a series of examples - as there are useful ideas in the document which deserve an airing, but not in this sort of document. They might have also questioned whether Planning Policy Guidance 15 says all of this, and rather more usefully so, while giving English Heritage the option to say "no" to a bad set of proposals - a cynic might say that applied in retrospect, Principles of Conservation would justify some of English Heritage's worse decisions.


Farm Buildings

What is so depressing about the Principles of Conservation document is that English Heritage is perfectly capable of producing extremely helpful guidance, as evinced by its forthcoming guidance on how to deal with redundant farm buildings. It is written with both architects and their clients in mind, giving a clear idea of the architectural importance of our agricultural heritage and clear ideas about how farm buildings can be adapted to new uses while keeping their character and interest intact. This leads the document into being occasionally overly prescriptive - one feels that as a result inexperienced conservation officers might start questioning the appropriateness of kitchen fittings rather than addressing the bigger picture. However, this document must be seen as a welcome addition to the bookshelf, with clear guidance about what is and is not acceptable when dealing with this vulnerable building type.

 

[plumbers mate]

>> the developer has come up with the worst sort of facadism, retaining the walls but gutting all else

Sounds like what happened to most of the much lauded "Grainger Town" buildings in Newcastle - Grey Street "the most beautiful street in England" is all a sham, the facades are original but little else is - most of the backs were removed and rebuilt. I know beacuse I worked in one for a while and have seen what was done to others.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh it's worse than that I fear...

 

[Pford75]

Whilst I understand the criticism of much of EH's inconsistency, there is one point which is neatly summarised in the ST article.

They point to the fact that the interpretation of planning law (and therefore what does/doesn't happen to a particular building) is in many cases, entirely dependant upon the view of one person.

Now, we all know and understand that CO's are overworked, underpaid etc. but like any profession quality and attitude are variable. There are very, very good CO's and there are very, very bad CO's. But the power which they weild is disproportionate and one could argue, uncontrolled. Most individual householders, with the rules open to interpretation and the appeals process long and costly will either give up - or even worse....undertake changes without consent.

A consistent set of guiding principles is not a lot to ask - I still cannot understand how one CO can insist on a 'faithful' repair using traditional materials and techniques, where another would prefer the use of modern materials to ensure that the 'new work' is clearly identified.

We all visit PPUK (presumably) because we have an interest in our PP and in doing things the right way....but to many people...it's just the house they live in. Surely it's desireable to make it easier for people to understand the rules (rather than rest all the power with a single individual)?

 

[Nemesis]

I think that the difficulty is that there can never be a perfect solution as all building are different, all have different histories. What is right for one isn't always right for another.

We can only hope that eventually all local authorities have Conservation Officers who are highly qualified - but the government has refused to make having a CO mandatory.

 

[Penners]

the developer has come up with the worst sort of facadism

The same could be said of the redevelopment of the Robert Sayle (John Lewis) store in St Andrews Street, in Cambridge. The fine facade dates from 1876, with some later parts, and will be retained. But behind and beside it (completely dominating the old facade, in my view) will be a massive modern shopping cathedral, with not only a new Robert Sayle store, but about 50 other new shops.

I hate the idea of this, but the plan is a major commercial development of the city. So resistance was always futile.

It comes down to Arthur Dent lying in front of the bulldozer - well-meaning but inevitably doomed to failure.

http://www.coda-architects.co.uk/pdf/RETAIL.PDF

 

[Nemesis]

Yes I know that one.

This is much, much worse...

At least we have a public inquiry.

 

[Penners]

Can you identify it, or would that mean assassination?

 

[Nemesis]

Smithfield - General Market to be demolished and one of the nastiest buildings I have seen in a long time put in its place (Conservation Area, setting of listed buildings etc...)

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3081522&c=1


The Annex (Fish Market) and (currently still listed...) Red House Cold Store - which is the longest running listing saga ever...

...instead of the nasty office block there they (Thornfield PLC) revealed plans two weeks' ago which retains the facades but removes all interiors and builds a great lump several storeys high out of the top.

Ghastly.

http://www.urban75.org/london/smithfield-market.html

http://www.urban75.org/london/smithfield-market2.html

Inquiry into the Gen Market starts Jun. The rest is a new app and they want to bypass normal planning and have that tacked on to the Inquiry.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh - that pic of the proposed replacement for the Smihfield General Market...

That is the view as proposed from the Holborn Viaduct;

this is the view as it is now:

 

[Penners]

That leaves me speechless.

And that takes some doing.

 

[Nemesis]

You can write and object...