A Slice of Unmitigated Nostalgia

Nothing much to do with architecture, but too good not to add. I'm a complete sucker for this sort of socialist realist (ie utterly fictional) film-making (Nightmail, anyone?), so here's "English Harvest" of 1938 in glorious Dufaycolour, courtesy of the British Film Institute and currently doing the rounds as part of a tour entitled "Britain at Bay"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcyzAIkMwrg&feature=sdig&et=1240649909.72

http://www.independentcinemaoffice.org.uk/mediatheque_britainatbay.html

Local Authority impotence

(Thanks to Mark Savage for the pic, from http://www.geograph.org.uk/)

Today's prats are West Lancashire District Council, and their victim is Greaves Hall at Banks near Southport, a Grade II listed house which, under the local authority's nose, has been allowed to deteriorate to the point at which they have become minded to compulsorily purchase it, for demolition http://webdocs.westlancsdc.gov.uk/coins/ViewSelectedDocument.asp?DocumentID=3093, though they did grant consent for its conversion to flats a few years ago (following many, surprisingly well-maintained, years as a hospital http://www.slideintime.com/html/greaves_hall.html )

Here's the list description:

SD32SE NORTH MEOLS GUINEA HALL LANE (East side), Banks 1759-/2/10001 Greaves Hall - II Country house, now disused hospital. Dated 1900. Timber framing with rendered nogging, brick plinth, plain tile roofs. Brick gable, ridge and side wall stacks, with octagonal coped flues, many of them multiple. Tudor Revival style, with multiple gables and patterned timber framing imitating the local vernacular. Windows are mainly casements with wooden mullions and cross mullions, and leaded glazing. 2 storeys plus attics; 16 windows. T-plan. Single range of exaggerated length, punctated by projecting gables, with parallel range at left end, and a substantial rear wing. Entrance front has in the centre 3 gables, stepped back from left to right. Left gable has full~width cross-mullioned windows on each floor. Other gables have smaller windows to each floor and to attics. To right, 5 windows, then a projecting double gable with cross mullioned windows. In the return angle, a gabled porch with double doors. To left of centre, 4 windows, then a projecting gable, then a single window. Right return has to left a large external stack. To right, a projecting rounded gable with a cross mullioned window on each floor. Rear elevation has to left a small central gable flanked by larger end gables, that to left with an external stack. To right, parallel range with regular fenestration and 3 dormers. Central rear wing, 2 storeys plus attics, has a jettied end gable with a full-height canted bay window, with brick ground floor and segment headed door. At the left corner, an octagonal brick stair tower with slit lights and crenellated parapet. Left return has 2 full-height canted bay windows under jettied gables, and 2 dormers. Right return has 2 external stacks and box dormers. Interior: entrance hall has four-centred arched ashlar doorcase with glazed double doors. Half~panelled hallway has elaborate open well wooden staircase and matching landings, with bulbous balusters and square newels. Plaster cross ribbed ceiling. Stair window has stained glass with coat of arms dated 1900. Ground floor spinal corridor has an elliptical arched opening with screen, doors and fanlight all with diamond glazing bars. Ante room with Renaissance Revival style wooden chimneypiece, with columns and segmental pediment. Panelled recess at opposite end. Rear wing contains a half-panelled hall, 2 storeys, with strapwork ceiling and span beams on heavy curved brackets. At the far end, a wooden gallery on square posts with mid C20 balustrade. Doorway under gallery, and four-centred arched window recess above. Remaining rooms have cornices, and some attic rooms have original fireplaces.

And here's the developers plan - which is an exercise in ignoring the "elephant in the room" as far as the listed building goes, beyond following the local council's lead in condemning it as having "no prospect of retention or conversion" - you'll note that the site plans show the building, but don't propose anything at all for its footprint: http://www.keyworkerhomesltd.co.uk/pdf/Greaves%20Hall%20Banks.pdf

The remainder of the site is being developed with new housing, but without an agreement over the repair (which ten years ago, wasn't needed) of the listed house. Congratulations to all concerned. You must be really pleased to be in the vanguard of "progress".

The Decline of Civilisation

An architectural photographer's disappointing experience of the boys in blue combines the elegant work of one of the best firms of architects working in the period 1945-70 with further evidence of the paranoid new barbarism into which we are sleepwalking. All who spend any time enjoying, and recording, the built environment would do well to read Edward Denison's piece here:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-architectural-photographer-as-terrorist

Particularly poignant as McMorran and Whitby's work was, in part, the subject of my RIBA Part II thesis nearly 20 years ago, going unchallenged as I - a scruffy student - photographed Hammersmith and Wood Street (above) Police Stations, and the Old Bailey. But that was before the current madness of those who believe they are in charge descended.

Do order the book, though, it promises to be a treat.

http://www.ribabookshops.com/site/viewtitle.asp?pid=10354

Sad news from Liverpool

MV Wincham, a modest, 1948-built coastal trading vessel, is to be scrapped, despite receiving £47,500 from the Heritage Lottery Fund for restoration eight years ago.

Needless to say, this underlines concerns about the Lottery Fund's long-term usefulness - what is the point of funding a restoration if the work is to be undone (and worse) less than a decade later?

The HLF's largesse is often reported uncritically, but the effects of so much money sloshing about (at least until the pointless 2012 sports day came along) have been decidely mixed. I've always taken the view (based on much experience of spending these funds) that too much money is at least as great a threat to our heritage as not enough money.

It also begs the question, so far unasked, of why the only alternative to continuing with the restoration of the Wincham is to destroy it. As boats of less robust construction have lain unattended and deteriorating for decades before being rescued, a middle ground of mothballing has surely not been ignored? If this were a building that had failed to attract short-term support, we would not be calling in the wrecker's ball.

I haven’t actually been away, but I have been terribly busy with all manner of other things – and this post is just a thank you to the Society of Antiquaries (no less) for noticing...

http://www.sal.org.uk/salon/#section13

“Of course, if English Heritage staff want to know more about life at the coal face of conservation area work, they could do worse than read the ‘Confessions of a Conservation Officer’ blog. This blogger’s trenchant reflections on the life of a Conservation Officer at a small English local council have been flowing through at weekly intervals since the beginning of 2009 and have gathered a loyal readership for their poignancy. But the blog has dried up recently — perhaps because doing the day job and writing a blog is proving too much; but if the anonymous blogger happens to be reading this, please do keep up the good work!

Also anonymous are the occasional contributions sent to Current Archaeology magazine by Amicus Curiae, in which our ‘Friend of the Court’ seeks to explain the terms and concepts that govern modern archaeology. In the May 2009 issue of the magazine, s/he finds black humour in the definition of conservation as ‘the process of managing change’ (William Morris, you should be with us now) as stated in the IfA’s ‘Standard and Guidance for Stewardship of the Historic Environment’, and in the five key rules that curatorial archaeologists live by, of which Rule No 5 states: ‘all archaeological activity must be governed by a paper chase’. Amicus may be anonymous but s/he quite clearly writes from bitter experience.”

Back to the land of dreams...

The saga of the "Chiltern water mill" has taken on a life of its own, and readers are recommended to check Nemesis' blog (in the right hand toolbar) as a gateway to the pros and cons.

I have had other fish to fry today (the rest of today's blog will seem rather dull compared to the cut n thrust of recent exchanges), with the news that the government is planning to scrap the various exemptions to the "energy efficiency" Part L of the Building Regulations, which currently apply to certain classes of historic building.

However, given the proposed replacement clauses set out below, I can't quite see how the end result differs from the current situation, begging the question of why English Heretics think it's necessary to seem to be supporting a change in the rules, and having a vast and time-consuming survey on the subject, when the net effect will (quite rightly, in my view) be no change at all:

PROPOSAL TO REMOVE EXEMPTIONS FOR HISTORIC BUILDINGS FROM PART L OF THE BUILDING REGULATIONS

The Issue
Government is considering removing the exemption under Part L that currently exists for:
• listed buildings
• buildings in conservation areas
• scheduled ancient monuments
• churches (unconditionally)

The criterion against which exemption is judged is whether compliance would unacceptably alter their character or appearance.Any proposal to remove the exemption will have to be approved by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and ministers before going to public consultation.

English Heritage did not request [that comes as a surpirse to many of us] the exemptions but clearly their removal will have implications which must be considered. We are working with CLG to assess these.

Background

Part L of the Building Regulations deals with the conservation of fuel and power and tightening targets is one of the main vehicles for reducing carbon emissions. The UK changes are mandated under the European Directive (Energy Performance in Buildings Directive). Part L was revised in 2002 and 2006 and work is well advanced on changes to be made in 2010.

Back in 2000 English Heritage objected to energy efficiency proposals which could harm historic buildings: notably requirements to;
significantly reduce natural ventilation of buildings, provide gratuitous insulation and only allow double glazing.

Working closely with ODPM (now CLG) resulted in special consideration being given to historic buildings with the aim being: “to improve energy efficiency where and to the extent that it is practically possible, [but] not prejudice the character of the historic building, or increase the risk of long term deterioration to the building fabric or fittings”.

• Work specifically allowed to historic buildings– replacing lost elements (eg facsimiles of historic windows)– rebuilding lost buildings (eg a gap site in an important terrace)– making provisions to allow buildings to “breathe”

Those paragraphs are included within the Approved Documents for Part L . English Heritage has consistently supported the line that exemptions for historic buildings (allowed under the Directive) were not needed [there's that surprise again, those of us who were there at the time have a rather different recollection], provided that historic buildings were given special consideration. Our view has been that:

• historic buildings can accommodate significant benign changes (eg energy efficient lighting, boilers, pipework, loft insulation etc)
• we did not want to create a two tier approach where listed buildings are left alone and all other traditional buildings (pre 1919) are ‘fair game’
• unimproved historic buildings might end up being blighted during economic downturns in some parts of the countryUnfortunately when the 2006 changes were made, the definition of historic buildings was removed – inadvertently I am assured. Amendments are proposed including the reinstatement of a revised definition to read:

…listed buildings and those in conservation areas have an exemption from the energy efficiency requirements where compliance would unacceptably alter their character or appearance. There are three further categories of buildings where special consideration is encouraged:

a) buildings which are of architectural and historical interest and which are referred to as a material consideration in a local authority’s development plan; or

b) buildings which are of architectural and historical interest within national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, registered historic parks and gardens, registered battlefields, the curtilages of scheduled ancient monuments, and world heritage sites; or

c) buildings of traditional construction with permeable fabric that both absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture

This may be introduced when a few other minor changes are made although no date has been given.

2010 changes2010 changes to Part L are well advanced and CLG hope to go to public consultation in April 2009. They are aiming for a tightening in targets to achieve 25% improvement in energy savings over 2006. The proposal is to remove the exemptions and the following provisions have been suggested by CLG:

Historic and traditional buildings

3.6 When establishing reasonable provision for the conservation of fuel and power, special considerations apply to the following classes of building:
a) listed buildings;
b) buildings in conservation areas;
c) scheduled ancient monuments
d) buildings which are of architectural and historical interest and which are referred to as a material consideration in a local authority’s development plan;
e) buildings which are of architectural and historical interest within national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, registered historic parks and gardens, registered battlefields, the curtilages of scheduled ancient monuments, and world heritage sites;
f) buildings of traditional construction with permeable fabric that both absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture.

3.7 When undertaking work on or in connection with a building that falls within one of the classes listed in paragraph 3.6, the aim should be to improve energy efficiency where and to the extent that it is reasonable and practically possible. The work should not prejudice the character of the host building or increase the risk of long-term deterioration of the building fabric or fittings. The guidance given in the English Heritage publication Building Regulations and Historic Buildings, English Heritage, 2002 (revised 2004) should be taken into account in determining appropriate energy performance standards for such building works. Particular issues relating to work in historic buildings that warrant sympathetic treatment and where advice from others could therefore be beneficial include:
a) restoring the historic character of a building that has been subject to previous inappropriate alteration, e.g. replacement windows, doors and rooflights;
b) rebuilding a former historic building (e.g. following a fire or filling a gap site in a terrace);
c) making provisions enabling the fabric of historic buildings to ‘breathe’ to control moisture and potential long term decay problems.

3.8 In arriving at a balance between historic building conservation and reasonable provision for energy efficiency improvements, it would be appropriate to take into account the advice of the local authority’s conservation officer.

Mills, and Madness

Image from www.geograph.co.uk © Copyright Andrew Hill and licensed for reuse under Creative Commons Licence.

Well, I seem to have stirred up a bit of a hornets' nest with my post on "Grand Designs".
Certain aspects of the matter (by no means all) put me in mind of a case which achieved some notoriety a few years ago, that of Sproughton water mill in Suffolk, where the owner became so aggrieved that he was being forced to keep his listed building in repair, he set up a website to rant about it (not unlike conservation officers who set up blogs to get things off their chests, I suppose I'll have to admit). Despite the former owner's subsequent bankruptcy, the site is still available:
http://www.sproughtonwatermill.co.uk/
Now, there's a lot to read there, but the most important fact to bear in mind as you wade through it is that the work carried out by the local council was done as an emergency repair for the urgent preservation of the building, not as a permanent work of restoration, and as such, naturally fell short of the standards that would have been required in the latter case (indeed, the law generally only allows for the "necessary" work to be done, not any arty-farty stuff). It's also important to realise that the owner had consent to convert the mill to a new use, but did nothing to implement the scheme.
The key page is this:
http://www.sproughtonwatermill.co.uk/html/litigation_1.html
an opinion from perhaps the best-known planning barrister specialising in historic buildings in the UK. The opinion has been posted on the site because the mill's owner believes it vindicates his view. A careful reading, in fact, shows precisely the opposite.
I happen to know many of the key players in this particular farce, and I also know that (despite assurances to the contrary) that comments sent to the site which do not accord with the former owner's view are not published there.
I feel a certain amount of sympathy for those who embark on a lengthy project with little but ideals and enthusiasm, but little or none for those who wilfully misunderstand their own position and then complain when they get hurt. "Look before you Leap".
This case resulted in the departure of a very able conservation officer from the local authority, under frankly intolerable pressure from an ignoramus:
http://www.sproughtonwatermill.co.uk/html/richard_ward.html
But (unreported on the site) it ultimately led to the bankruptcy of the foolish owner, and the vindication of the local council's action:
http://www.babergh-south-suffolk.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/BCD8ED18-7E18-430E-8FBB-6DCFA3A029DD/0/smillvin.pdf
I just thought my reader(s?) might like to know that, as the end result was not nearly as widely reported as the events that led up to it.