Casework News:
April 2005
The General Market, Smithfield
Winchester
Out of Government (and Parliament)
Pathfinder
Pathfinder: Stoke on Trent, East Lancashire and Merseyside
ODPM Committee inquiry into the role and effectiveness of CABE
English Heritage
"Better Places to Live"
Casework:
St Joseph's, Christchurch
Good Hope, Wimbledon, London
Middlesex Wharf, Hackney, London
Littlewoods Headquarters, Liverpool
The Florence Institute, Liverpool
Tall Buildings
Hafodunos, Llangernwy
Jordans, Buckinghamshire
Churchill House, Bath
North Warehouse, Sharpness, Gloucestershire
Old Reading Room at Allonby, Cumbria
Bristol North Pool
Govanhill Baths, Glasgow
CrossRail
Stansted Expansion
Courts: Middlesex Guildhall
Schools
The K6 Phone Box
Railway footbridges
Save Europe's Heritage: Moscow
Heritage Link
Save Our Parsonages
Maintain our Heritage
Leave Chiswick Alone: John Harris makes a personal plea
Casework News, November 2004
Casework News, June 2004
Casework News, November 2003
Casework News, April 2003
Casework News, October 2002
Casework News, April 2002
Casework News, October 2001
Casework News, March 2001
Casework News, October 2000
Casework News, February 2000
Casework News, September 1999
Casework News, April 1999
Marcus Binney, President of SAVE
1975 - 2005
SAVE is now 30 years old but thanks to Adam our secretary and a host of new recruits as youthful as ever.
SAVE has made its mark by concentrating its energies and resources on key issues. First on historic buildings and areas
threatened imminently with destruction. Second on those simply left to decay, which are often crying out for new owners
and new uses. Third,we have always tried to be practical. Not just to object, but to set out positive solutions. In the last, extreme, resort we have
taken on and raised the money to restore buildings manifestly on death row - Barlaston Hall, All Soul's Haley, Hill, Halifax, 6
Palace Street Caernarfon, and now Castle House in Bridgwater.
We have sought to inject a new fighting spirit into conservation, a willingness to stand up for interesting and unusual buildings
which developers and local politicians may simply have ridiculed. With photographs and research into their history we have set out
to explain why they are of interest and to open people's eyes to qualities they may not have perceived before. We began with railway
architecture, continued with 'Satanic Mills', and Nonconformity in the Fall of Zion, and have since worked our way through farm buildings,
public baths, inns and pubs, hospitals and military buildings and most recently law courts. We have also put the spotlight on remarkable
places whose interest has been overlooked or gone virtually unrecognised - most recently the wind tunnels of the Royal Aircraft
Establishment at Farnborough. Before that came the pioneering series of northern towns.
SAVE has also taken up the major policy issues. Our hard-fought campaign over Mentmore provoked a Parliamentary committee on the
National Land Fund and led to its reconstitution as the National Heritage Memorial Fund - under independent trustees as we suggested.
And from this sprung the Heritage Lottery Fund. When listing slowed to a virtual halt in the late 70s our carefully documented exposees
prompted Michael Heseltine to kick-start the listing process more than doubling the total number of listed buildings.
Even so, deplorably, this was a task never completed and today 16th, 17th and 18th century buildings are still unlisted or underlisted in
parts of England, most notably in Babergh District in Suffolk, which includes the towns and villages of Hadleigh, Lavenham, Long Melford,
Nayland and Sudbury. The lists for Oxford and Cambridge have not been revised in 30 years.
For all the success we have had in raising awareness and the huge numbers of people passionately interested in the rescue and repair of
historic buildings, Government has rarely shown less interest or support. Major historic buildings continue to be shut down, sometimes
virtually abandoned, or thrust on the market without a thought to the most appropriate solution. The Ministry of Defence responded
positively and constructively to SAVE's barbs in Deserted Bastions and the Royal William Victualling Yard is now being transformed
in exactly the manner we proposed. By contrast the Department of Health sits scandalously on a vast property portfolio, leaving much
of it to rot, while ministers vacillate about its future. At Severalls near Colchester, we have found a developer who has worked up a
scheme with us, preserving all the worthwhile buildings on the site for residential and educational use. Yet the Secretary of State and
his officials have simply brushed off our approaches.
Think too, that over 30 years SAVE has achieved what it has with a handful of staff, never more three and sometimes only one. Often
we have been desperately short of funds. Now with the support of a growing number of friends and benefactors our finances are gradually
improving, opening up exciting ways in which we can develop our work -through better publications, more practical schemes for saving
individual buildings, an expanding website and above all fast concerted action on more endangered buildings. Recently Adam has put major
effort, with impressive success, into submissions to Parliamentary Committees. Ela has greatly increased the coverage of our buildings
at risk website and now Dale has joined us to organise events and explore further sponsorship.
This autumn, the V & A has offered the temporary exhibition gallery beside the new Architecture Gallery for a SAVE 30 year
retrospective. It will chronicle success, loss and current and future challenges. We hope you will come and bring your friends.
Marcus Binney
President
The Red House cold store
The General Market, Smithfield
Over a year after our last request for the "spot-listing" of the General Market buildings at Smithfield, we have
finally had an answer from the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell. Much to our delight, she has used her initiative as Minister to
over-rule English Heritage and list one of the threatened buildings, the Red House, at Smithfield. Her grounds for doing so are
that it is probably the earliest surviving powered cold store, dating from 1898. Previously ice was imported from Sweden and Norway.
Much credit is due to SAVE Friend Ev Cook for her valuable research in to the history of the buildings and discovering the real
story of the Red House.
The Red House only represents about an eighth of the area which Thornfield Properties are seeking to demolish and redevelop and one
might imagine that its listing would not stop them from seeking listed building consent for its demolition, or perhaps its retention
and the redevelopment of the rest of the site. However, the listing arrived with a letter from the Secretary of State to John Prescott,
suggesting that he "call in" the application for scrutiny at a Public Inquiry. It is remarkable that such a letter was written and
made public. Furthermore, the Secretary of State made it clear that other buildings on the site are of great importance to the character
of the conservation area in which they sit. A rather strong case for their preservation is being built, and the input of very many
architectural historians, from James Stevens Curl to Jenny Freeman to Lord Briggs, all of whom wrote to the Minister at SAVE's request,
has no doubt played an important role in this. We extend our thanks to them and the legion of people and organisations that wrote in
support of listing.
However, the developer has been very aggressive, at one point threatening the Secretary of State with a judicial review of her failure
to make a decision on the listing of the buildings on the grounds that they were losing potential profit. Our legal advisors tell us
that the case would have been thrown out had it gone ahead. Most recently Thornfield have applied for a Certificate of Immunity from
Listing for the parts of the General Market buildings not covered by the listing.
Thornfield do not own the General Market buildings, rather they have an option on them from the Corporation of London. The listing should
force them to reconsider their proposals for demolition. If however, they prove to be in for the long haul and a public inquiry, they can
be certain that we'll be there too, armed with viable alternative plans for the reuse of the buildings and unlimited energy.
The sad casualty of the exercise so far, with the great emphasis placed on finding new evidence on the historic interest, is beauty, which
has been rather overlooked by the Secretary of State's advisors.
Winchester
Meanwhile, Thornfield are planning a development in Winchester, which will see a massive building constructed on the site of a rather nasty 1960s development. While this demolition of the 1960s buildings represents no loss to Winchester, the scale of what is proposed does. If built, the development will be the same height as the parapets of the cathedral. The ambient height in Winchester's city centre is between two and half and four storeys, with the wonderful cathedral dominating the dell around which Winchester is built. The construction of a grossly out of scale building will only serve to disrupt the splendid townscape that has survived thus far. In the face of local opposition, Thornfield have yet to back down on their plans.
Pathfinder
The Government's policy of building the economic success of the North on an increased variety in housing (through
the demolition of up to 400,000 pre-1919 terraced homes over the next 15 years) is the elephant in the room at the moment.
Admittedly, the point on economic success is only one of the many reasons given for the insane plan to tear down swathes of historic
buildings and entire historic areas, but gives a good flavour of what we are up against. The current rate of demolition will result
in 168,000 terraced homes being destroyed, and there are calls from academics and central Government for this to be speeded up.
Coincidentally these are the people most isolated from those most likely to be affected by the demolition plans.
SAVE has been pushing, both publicly and privately for the Pathfinder / Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI) to be radically altered
away from clearance, instead looking at alternatives based around refurbishment, innovative adaptation, community need, and the wider
effects on the townscape and sense of place.
The ODPM Committee has been the highest arena in which we have done this so far, giving evidence to this august committee on how the policy
is failing both the historic environment and the people that live in it and hold it together. Evidence was also given to them by the likes
of Lord Rooker, Minister for Regeneration CHK who came up with the quite splendid line of:
"I have been a strong supporter of SAVE Britain's Heritage, make no bones about it, for many, many years, I think they do a good job"
Would that he was the Culture Secretary. Would that he listened to our words on Pathfinder.
The only national newspaper to have picked up the story and run with it is the Daily Telegraph. Some may see a certain irony in their
criticism of a policy that is meant to undo the damage of deindustrialisation, but its coverage has been fair, hard-hitting and very welcome
indeed. The scale of the disaster is starting to become apparent to the wider public, and we will keep on pushing: we plan to release a
comprehensive report on Pathfinder in the coming weeks.
The ODPM Committee's report on the inquiry was encouraging - given that it was their initial inquiry that set the (demolition) ball
rolling, it represents something of a volte-face (and a very welcome one too) for its outgoing chair, Andrew Bennett MP, to say "The
Government's Pathfinder programmes … must not turn into a clearance programme with wholesale demolition of neighbourhoods". The report
called for flexibility in the Pathfinders, better evidence, plans based on proper consultation, and for areas which are suffering to be
properly managed by local authorities. This is commendable, but whether Government sits up and listens is another matter.
Houses for clearance in Bootle, Merseyside
Pathfinder: Stoke on Trent, East Lancashire and Merseyside
As a part of the research for our proposed report SAVE visited Stoke-on-Trent and East Lancashire, having visited Liverpool before
Christmas. Each of the areas has its own particular problems, and it was immediately apparent that demolition might only really be
an option in a small minority of cases, such as in parts of Burnley wood, where some streets are completely abandoned and the buildings
neglected and heavily vandalised: SAVE trips are rarely to places where the condition of the buildings lifts the soul, but this was on
a whole other level. In Liverpool too there are areas of mass abandonment, but this is different - there is a housing market chomping at
the bit to take on these buildings, but the local authorities and registered social landlords who own the buildings refuse to let the
market operate. In the majority of places visited in Liverpool, the quality of the buildings is such that they should be conservation
areas, yet it is the duty of the very authorities, which are intent on demolition to designate them. Surely this is an opportunity for
the Secretary of State to use the powers available through the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act to declare
conservation areas.
The 450 houses in the Anfield clearance area seem to have been chosen for demolition on the basis of council and registered social landlord
ownership, without thinking that the massive redevelopment of the nearby football stadium and construction of a new one on Stanley Park
(in itself very controversial) will provide a huge investment in the area, and the buildings of the Anfield clearance area, if a market
actually operated, would be the first to benefit.
Stoke-on-Trent was in many ways the most surprising place to visit, as its six towns retain a wonderful industrial landscape, both
familiar and alien at the same time, with the countryside and towns intermingling, and within the towns complete settlements based
around old (and now mostly redundant) industrial works. The potential of the place is remarkable, with these old industrial sites
potentially providing employment spaces. There is no shortage of brownfield sites on which to build expensive new houses (if this is
really the solution) and the need to demolish complete historic areas such as Northwood simply isn't there. Stoke-on-Trent requires an
entirely different solution to Pathfinder, incubating new economic activity to support the revival of the urban fabric.
In East Lancashire, in light of the ruckus at Nelson and the crushing defeat of the local authority's demolition plans, the emphasis
seems to be on smaller clearance areas and the occasional terrace rather than the mass demolitions of Liverpool or Sandwell. This in
itself can be very harmful and seemingly pointless - as we previously highlighted, what is the point in clearing away a sustainable
community like that in Darwen (based around 1860s buildings), on the basis of series of half-truths. One of the many areas that is cause
for concern is Brierfield, where an almost perfect industrial village (which should be a conservation area, but won't be as the local
authority is intent on demolition) faces the loss of a couple of rows of terraced houses to make way for a different kind of housing to
provide variety in the housing market. The houses are in good condition and are two minutes walk from the shops, with expensive cars
parked outside.
John Prescott's talk of creating sustainable communities is in this context absolute rubbish.
ODPM Committee inquiry into the role and effectiveness of CABE
As well as presenting evidence in person to the ODPM Committee on Pathfinders, SAVE's Secretary also gave oral
evidence to the Committee on CABE. We had voiced strong concerns about the effect of CABE's comments on various planning
applications where the historic environment had either been ignored or even attacked by this increasingly respected body.
Most of the cases have previously been discussed in the SAVE Newsletter, such as Span 4 at Paddington Station, The Governor's
Garden at Berwick-upon-Tweed and Kingston Mills in Bradford-on-Avon. These cases made us very concerned that the thin line
between judging new design for the public benefit and promoting schemes for the private benefit was being crossed. This was
SAVE's first appearance before a Parliamentary Committee in several years and was suitably butterflies-in-tummy inspiring.
The Committee's recently produced report took an even handed approach to the situation, recognising the good work and achievements
of CABE since its foundation, but importantly it called for much greater transparency in its decision making process. Of the nineteen
points of the Committees conclusions, the following are most worth reporting on:
· CABE should, as a matter of course, publish its pre-planning advice letters unless there are overwhelming arguments to keep them
confidential
· The Design Review Panel should be open to the public unless there are exceptional reasons
· CABE's lack of consideration of the context of schemes, particularly those involving historic buildings, can mean that its comments
have less validity. It should demonstrate that it has considered the impact of new buildings on their surroundings.
· CABE's recent initiative to set out its policies on historic buildings…. should be developed and form the basis for all its decisions.
Its should demonstrate that it is adhering to them and on occasions when its views contradict them, offer a full explanation
· CABE should work within the statutory designations set down by other public agencies. Its role is not to assess the value of the
historic environment but to ensure that new schemes enhance it
· CABE should ensure that members with expertise in the historic environment and conservation are present at all meetings of the Design
Review Panel
There is hope yet that CABE might see the historic environment as an asset not a millstone. However, Government's response to the report
was to bury its head in the sand. While it is happy for there to be endless reviews of English Heritage, its plaything gets away scot-free.
The response might just as well have been written by CABE. We intend to write to the Department under the Freedom of Information Act
asking to see CABE's response to the criticisms, and then to compare this to Government's response.
English Heritage
While CABE received this strong criticism from the Parliamentarians and a pat on the back from Government,
English Heritage's 21st birthday present from the Minister was a kick in the teeth.
Its funding was cut. Again.
This tightening of the purse strings will no doubt result in more job losses at the organisation and lower morale, leaving the
organisation increasingly beleaguered when it needs to be up and fighting hard. EH has tried hard to please Ministers by undertaking
several reorganisations in recent years, firstly to put itself on a regional basis and most recently to make it more "customer focussed".
Becoming more developer friendly in order to please the political masters is a gamble that hasn't yet paid off. Of course EH cannot
know if the tactic will succeed if it doesn't play, and it has little to lose in terms of its relationship with Government by not trying.
Perhaps there is much in the presentation, and if it can now boast to be a slicker, more effective machine in the modern political world,
some improvement in its funding situation may happen at some point in the future. On the other hand it might not.
However, this leaves it in something of a predicament. It has effectively dumbed down its advice through the use standard letters,
decreasing its dependence on the solid scholarship that makes its advice so useful and respected in the first place. It also has to
take on responsibility for listing, amongst other things, as a part of Government's Heritage Review. Heavens knows where the funding
will come from.
In taking on listing, the duty to list buildings of listable quality will remain with the Minister but owner will now be formally told
of applications to list their buildings. Past history suggests that owners who are less than enthusiastic at the prospect of listing will
act to vandalise the buildings before the listing Inspectors arrive. Some form of temporary protection is urgently needed. The question
is - will Government bother?
St. Patricks Social Club
"Better Places to Live"
"Sometimes there is a perfectly coherent case for preservation in terms of aesthetics and architectural history,
but there is an equally persuasive argument against it, in terms of social gain or an opportunity for an innovative new design"
Tessa Jowell, "Better Places to Live: Government, Identity and the Value of the Historic and Built Environment - An Essay on the
Historic and Built Environment
While leaning on the guillotine, wondering when to let the blade drop on to English Heritage's neck, the Minister has penned a personal
essay explaining what it is that appeals to her about historic buildings. This is in principle welcome, but in spite of over 20 pages of
her wordsmithery, your Secretary (and indeed the rest of the SAVE office) was left generally mystified. The following is an attempt to
make head and tail of it all.
It could be interpreted as a brave attempt to move the debate on heritage back to heritage for heritage's sake, but it is something of
an ill-fated venture, especially as the Minister gives heritage a rather rum deal by pointing out that splendid new design can justify
the demolition of old buildings (No.1 Poultry anyone?). The way in which she values the historic built environment in the essay gives
heart to those who see it in terms of architecture. However the "undesigned", the vernacular, the inoffensive that form part of the group
or help mould the historic landscape or townscape are destined for that cursed oxymoron of preservation by record: almost acceptable if
you are an archaeologist, useless if you are a layperson who appreciates your surroundings: it doesn't preserve the way you react to the
building in the street, nor the enriching effect it has on your everyday life, in spite of the Minister's suggestion that we are now able
to create almost perfect virtual models of historic buildings. What could be more accessible to the public than a building standing on a
public street?
She suggests that the choice of what is listed is determined arbitrarily by politicians and bureaucrats. This is an insult to the fine
scholarship and research of generations of architectural historians who attempt to understand and interpret the built environment for the
benefit of all. The politicians who determine what is listed (that'll be her) do so as they have a legal duty to protect those buildings
that meet the criteria, based on historic and architectural merit, through listing. Is the Minister suggesting that these criteria are
arbitrary (and thus the every building listed has been done so on a random basis)? In stating that "when we consider changes to the
environment in which we live, decision making cannot be left to the elite 'who understand things' ", one questions if she is really
calling for the logical opposite of this: an uniformed decision making process.
The Minister's love of new architecture creeps in to the essay and accordingly we are informed that our obligation to future generations
is not to preserve what we have for the future, but to allow architects and buildings "to show us what they can do… in settings and on
sites where all can appreciate them" (the buildings or the architects?). Apparently the "tension between old and new is at the heart of
creative activity in all fields, but never more so than in our built environment". This appears divisive, stirring up the pointless
debate of the previous generation between those who work in a modernist idiom and those who build on the foundations and experience
of the past, neither of which are necessarily mutually exclusive.
The private owners, who are responsible for most of our historic buildings, are neglected by the Minister in this essay - not even a nod
acknowledging their role in having kept buildings great and small alive and in use for hundreds of years. Instead we are bombarded with
messages about the strong potential of heritage to promote higher aspiration, and how the National Trust, English Heritage and the
Historic Houses Association need to be doing more towards this.
As professionals we are on the receiving end of a salvo for making people feel excluded by using jargon. SAVE holds that the terms
we use, such as "Conservation Area" are to a degree self explanatory, and that "spandrel" is an easier term to use than "the bit on the
wall outside of an arch". Government is in no position to lecture on jargon (Jowell tells us, for example, that "We all need to feel
that our cultural perspectives are respected and that our plural identities can find expression").
It seems that the Minister is not content with shooting herself in the foot and is taking aim at everyone else's toes too. In doing so,
beauty and history are the innocent bystanders, gunned down unnecessarily
Fortunately the Minister asks for responses to her essay. SAVE will be providing one.
Kelly House, Devon
Buildings at Risk
It has been a busy few months for the Buildings at Risk project, gathering information for our latest catalogue,
Damned Beautiful. We continue to hear about neglected historic buildings, and this year there are some very sad stories.
One that particularly tugged at our heartstrings is that of Kelly House, Devon, an absolutely gorgeous country house dating from the 16th
century with a handsome west front added in the 18th. It (or rather the site) has been in the same family since the Norman Conquest, but
as in so many cases finances have dwindled, and the upkeep of a house and gardens of this size has become impossible. The owner would love
to be able to do something with it, and we at SAVE feel that it is important that the house stay in the family. At Grade I listed, there
should be some help for Kelly House.
As well as Kelly, there are buildings ranging from cottages to a sixties car park. As usual, a few are for sale but most need a big rescue
operation and a lot of persistence.
We have also visited a number of buildings at risk in the last six months. Trips to the West Country, Nottinghamshire and Northumberland
have enabled us to really get to know the buildings we are working with, and we have also met a number of the Conservation Officers working
on the front line. Regine Jaszinski, previously Buildings at Risk Officer at SAVE and now working for Nottinghamshire County Council, kindly
spent a day taking Ela Palmer around some of the worst cases in the area, as did Andrew Slaney of Bassetlaw District Council.
Nottinghamshire is working extremely hard to tackle its BaR problem, and a number of buildings from the area are highlighted
in Damned Beautiful.
Roger Duce, the recently appointed Conservation Officer at West Devon District Council, also gave up an afternoon to take Ela and Dale
Ingram on a fascinating, if slightly muddy, tour of neglected buildings, including Kelly House. West Devon District covers some wonderful
countryside, and we were horrified to see some neglected farmhouses that would make idyllic homes.
Owen Luder's unlisted Gateshead carpark
We are extremely grateful to them, and all the other Conservation Officers who have helped us with the register over the last year. We also hope that these field trips will continue, as the better we know the buildings, the more we are able to help them!
The trips certainly threw up some cases that we will be working on in the coming months, and many have been included in Damned Beautiful. £12 for mere mortals, the catalogue will cost £9.60 for Friends of SAVE.
St Joseph's, Christchurch
The outcome of some public inquiries is always puzzling, and often reflects the level of detail into which the inquiry delves on seemingly obscure points. In this case it involved points such as the degree to which setbacks are or are not a part of the character of an area, and precisely what distance a setback has to be in order to be seen to be making a positive or negative contribution to that character. This, to an extent, has to be the fault of the legions of lawyers employed, who inevitably end up clinging on to the smallest details to make their points. The essential contribution of a building to the built environment can become obscured by these arguments, the wood not being seen for the trees. Thus Christchurch will loose its handsome Roman Catholic presbytery, while the church to which it is attached will be retained. The Inspector judged the demolition of the presbytery to make way for a car park and the rebuilding of its old garden wall and railings to constitute an enhancement to the character of the conservation area. So, half a victory for SAVE and the local authority and local amenity societies, and naturally, half a loss. Whether this will weaken the effectiveness of conservation area protection in Christchurch is yet to be seen, but any loss of faith in the legislation on the local authority's part would unfortunately be understandable.
The south side of Good Hope, which would have been extended
Good Hope, Wimbledon, London
Once again, proposals for the radical extension of this remarkable and rare Cape Dutch house and its very early
motor home have been thrown out by the local planning authority, much to our relief.
Good Hope is loosely based on Groot Schuur, Cecil's Rhodes' house in Westbrook, near Cape Town, South Africa, by Herbert Baker, which
dates from 1900. Groot Schuur remains an official residence of the President of South Africa. Good Hope was built by Spencer Carey
Curtis (who had lived in South Africa) for Petrus Cornelius van der Poel Hiddingh, a member of a very prominent Cape family. Curtis
was articled to Henry Wilson, an arts and crafts architect who later became president of the Art Workers' Guild.
The Cape Dutch style is extremely rare in this country and we would be delighted to hear from Friends of any examples they know of on
top of Good Hope (as above); Shorne Hill, Netley Marsh (Ernest Willmottt, 1908); Wickhurst, Sandwich Bay (Biddolph Pinchard, 1908);
Port Lympne, Shepway (Herbert Baker, 1912).
As if all of this were not enough to drive arts and crafts lovers into a dizzy froth, the conservation area in which Good Hope sits
contains a stunning series of houses, many of which are rightly listed (and many unrightly not listed, most notably No 1 Highbury Road,
a delightful Voseyesque concoction). For those interested in having a look at this fascinating suburban development, the North
Wimbledon Conservation Area is bounded by High Street, Parkside, Belvedere Road and Burghley Road.
Middlesex Wharf, Hackney, London
Another loss. The Lea valley in London is becoming a developers' paradise, and the Olympic bid is turning their focus more and more in that direction. Numerous old industrial sites with buildings both good and bad are being flattened to make way for new residential development. We previously highlighted the threat to Middlesex Wharf, with its completely unexpected Belfast truss roofed warehouses, more usually found in early aircraft hangars. We were alerted to the plight of these probably rather too late in the day, after permission for demolition had been granted, and the inevitable has happened in spite of local opposition. To prevent this becoming the pattern, the potential of these sites in terms of their history and contribution to local character must first be assessed, as while individually they may not amount to much, collectively they help paint a fascinating story of East London's industrial past, while also creating the character of the area on the western edge of the valley.
The United Powers pub being detonated for TV
Littlewoods Headquarters, Liverpool
Finally some good news from Liverpool, land of exploding pubs (the unlisted Georgian United Powers pub
on Tithebarn in the city centre was detonated for a production starring Ballikissangel's Stephen Tompkinson and Heartbeat's
Nick Berry), new tall buildings and disgraced fourth graces.
The handsome 1938 Littlewoods headquarters, probably by Gerald de Coursy Fraser, is a major art-deco landmark on the way in
to Liverpool city centre from the west. It came to SAVE's attention two years ago and after initial pressure from ourselves
and a concerted effort by local campaigners, it is not to be demolished after all, rather it is to be converted to residential
accommodation. The survival and reuse of this great landmark is happy outcome and we can only hope that the local authority
will start to apply this retain and reuse attitude to the thousands of threatened houses in its Pathfinder areas, as well as
other buildings at risk.
The Florence Institute in its heyday
The Florence Institute, Liverpool
In an act of typical late Victorian civic-mindedness, former mayor Bernard Hall founded the Florence Institute
for Boys in 1889 in the tough docks area of the Dingle, as a permanent tribute to his daughter, who died at the age of 22.
Probably designed by H.W. Keef, it is a very fine building with delicate use of terracotta, and originally it had splendid
interiors, from the great hall to the top lit gym to the library. The original intention of the Florence Institute was to provide
a club for the education and recreation the working boys and young men of the area. It now lies derelict and forlorn, but in
spite of this it retains a dignity possessed by few modern buildings and clearly has great potential.
This potential has been recognised by the "Friends of the Florrie", which aims to protect and reuse the building in the same spirit
as Alderman Hall, to work with all the agencies and stakeholders to redevelop the Florrie into a multi-ethnic community centre for
all ages and abilities. SAVE has written to express it strongest support for the efforts to bring this handsome and important landmark
back life. We pointed out that the enthusiasm and ability of voluntary groups frequently gives the impetus for the repair and
rehabilitation of historic buildings in a way that commercial enterprise simply cannot, and that the results of such great efforts
are far more than just the restoration of historic fabric, pulling together the community, providing an all too rare focus for local
pride, and lifting the quality of life in the area. Sparks such as this light the fire of regeneration, with community and heritage
at the heart.
Tall Buildings
It turns out that the Public Inquiry in to the Heron Tower, and the Inspector's findings that it was acceptable, really has ushered in the next generation of tall buildings. It is ironic then that the very same Inspector found against the Vauxhall Tower in London earlier this month, only to have John Prescott over-rule him. Other very tall buildings in Central London to have either been granted consent or which look to be on the way to gaining consent over the last 12 months include Richard Rogers massive tower at 122 Leadenhall and the Minerva Tower at Aldgate. There is talk of Heron adding a couple of extra storeys to their proposals. As for the rest of the country, Birmingham is to get the 187m tall Arena Centre, Liverpool a brace of towers by developer Beetham, the tallest of which will be 125m tall, and in the pipeline is a 166m tower for Brunswick Quay by Ian Simpson. Manchester is to get a 188m tower by Woods Bagot Architects along with Ian Simpson's Crown Building, and possibly something tall at Chapel Wharf; and even poor old Sheffield is to get a 19 storey building on Broad Street.
Hafodunos, Llangernwy
The burning of Hafodunos Hall is possibly the worst news we have heard in the last six months. The fire was
started by a couple of young men with little better to do. Their crass ignorance and wanton act of vandalism has resulted in
the near loss of a high Victorian work of art. Listed at Grade I, Hafodunos has been on our radar for many years, with a
series of owners promising much and doing little other than letting it rot. The house and park were subject to a planning
application for the construction of ninety holiday chalets in the grounds. Naturally the house was also uninsured and there
was no adequate supply of water nearby for the fire brigade.
We reacted swiftly, dispatching all-round conservation hero, engineer Brian Morton, to inspect the ruins. An initial walk through
and a more thorough inspection revealed the gutted shell of the main house (the servants' quarters survived) to be in fair condition
but in need of propping up and roofing over with a temporary scaffold. Cadw have offered grant aid toward his fees. The local
authority, Conwy County Borough Council, does not have an outstanding record with major buildings at risk - Gwrych Castle is also
on their patch. Together with the Victorian Society we are pushing the local authority to act to secure the building before it is
too late. A visit by the Welsh Culture Minister has helped keep up the pressure: the planning application for the chalets has been
withdrawn and the Council is apparently working with the owner on a new scheme.
Jordans, Buckinghamshire
Another dreadful loss is the burning of the Grade I listed Jordans, the oldest Quaker Meeting House in the
country. Although in Quaker thought the building is little other than a place to meet, in practice Jordans is of huge
significance to the Quaker community and wider. The building dates from 1688, immediately after the Toleration Act, and
was built by William Penn (1644-1718), who was also responsible for founding of Pennsylvania in the USA (and the planning
of Philadelphia - the earliest planned city in the USA), He is buried with wife in burial ground at Jordans. The building is
part of a wider group including Old Jordans farm, and in spite of being located in prime London commuter belt, it remains a very
quiet corner of Buckinghamshire.
The community is determined to rebuild: the fire started in the caretakers flat and swept through the building at roof level - which
then collapsed on the furniture within - which had been remarkably intact. Rebuilding will be a substantial challenge, but one with
which we wish them every success.
A plan of Churchill house at first floor level
Churchill House, Bath
The grand name rather disguises the function of this handsome, contextual neoclassical building, built
1924-1932 to the designs of W.A. Williams. It was originally built to serve as the offices of the Bath Electricity Works
Company, and incorporates an "electric light station" of 1897 and a turbine hall of 1903 (it stands beside the river). It stands
on a corner site, which it turns with the giant tuscan order and simple but effective detailing, and it forms a groups with
other buildings in the area that employ the giant order, such as Anchor House (also by Williams), the Grade I listed railway
station by Brunel, and the Grade II listed Forum cinema.
It is currently subject to an approved set of plans to demolish it and make way for a bus station. On the bright side the plans also
see the demolition of the awful Southgate shopping centre, an inward looking shopping mall with no respect for the scale and materials
that create the charm of Bath. However, this is not sufficient recompense for the loss of a good reusable building, and we have joined
local campaigners in requesting its listing. We do not argue that it is a groundbreaking twentieth century building, rather that it is
a building of architectural interest, reflecting the place it was built and the tastes of provincial England, not those of the
metropolitan elite which now seem to be the main criteria for listing twentieth century buildings.
North Warehouse, Sharpness Docks (© NMR)
North Warehouse, Sharpness, Gloucestershire
The ongoing revival of the canal network in the UK is one of the great feats of conservation, and given the scale and extent of the
works done to enable this, it is refreshing that the cases we deal with so rarely involve the waterways. However, at Sharpness dock
in Gloucestershire a proposal emerged to demolish the North Warehouse.
The North Warehouse is important as the only surviving historic warehouse at Sharpness Docks, which joined the River Severn, with
its massive tidal range, to the widest and deepest canal in the world at its completion in 1827. The warehouse was built in 1878 in
response to the construction of the New Docks in 1871-4 and was used as a granary. It remains virtually complete. Seven storeys high
and twenty-eight bays wide, it is a massive brick structure, yet this mass is broken up and articulated by wooden gantried loading
units that give it a lively rhythm. It is Grade II listed.
The justification put forward for demolition was purely commercial, the building being seen to be in the way of the commercial
development of the docks. Time and time again it has been shown that this sort of building can be easily converted to new uses,
a fine example of this being at the other end of the canal at Gloucester. Planning permission was refused by Stroud District Council,
and the applicants were preparing to appeal. We wrote to the Planning Inspectorate suggesting the appeal should be thrown out, and
contacted British Waterways expressing our strongest concern at the proposals, especially given its record - as it would have the
ultimate say over the fate of the building. The appeal was withdrawn.
The old reading room at Allonby, without its roof
Old Reading Room at Allonby, Cumbria
"The Beauties of England and Wales" of 1802 describes Allonby as 'A neat and well built town resorted to
in the summer season'. It retains a certain beauty and charm, and it was no doubt with this in mind that the Old Reading
Room was designed.
Alfred Waterhouse is held in the highest regard for his contribution to the architecture on the 19th Century, such as the Natural
History Museum. One would have thought therefore that his early buildings would be worth protecting. Apparently not, however. The
Reading Rooms at Allonby (possibly 1862) - or what now remains - is a good, small, early example of his work. It stands in a
magnificent setting, between the town and the Solway, raised on vaults above the level of the highest of tides. It is in both a
conservation area and an area of outstanding natural beauty.
An attempt to spot list the building failed, permission was granted for partial demolition and conversion to residential use, and
then in the January gales part of the roof blew off, taking the gable end with it. The building is now in a dangerous state, but the
local authority officers are hoping to get their councillors to agree to pressing for the repairs to be done. With any luck, the
repairs will be done and the owner presented with the bill, or he will sell up to someone with a vision for the reuse of the building
as a whole.
UPDATE 07/05: The local authority are currently doing urgent works on the building, following a Section 79 (Building Act) notice. The
hope that this will finally encourage the owner to sell.
Bristol North Pool
A local campaign for a threatened historic building is usually an essential ingredient in any successful attempt at preventing dereliction and demolition. Doug Reid and his merry band have been nothing if not tenacious in their efforts to prevent the closure of these Edwardian baths that provide a well used and much loved local amenity, contributing to the sustainability of the area. Doug took the decision to stand in the election as a one issue party in what is a very finely balanced seat indeed. To date the local MP and other politicians have tried to brush aside the campaign for the baths. We suspect that this will change given Doug's tenacity his aim was to keep his deposit rather than become the elected member for the area. His campaign has not gone unnoticed, and as he puts it, he'll fight until every last drop of water has left the pool.
Govanhill Baths, Glasgow
Govanhill is a relatively intact late Victorian tenement development, with red sandstone tenements defining
the character of the area. The public baths and washhouse on Calder Street date from 1912-17 by the Office of Public Works
(A.B. McDonald). They are B listed. It is a classical composition, nine bays long with a basement, piano nobile and attic,
in red sandstone. The 4th and 6th bays are taken up with Roman Doric pedimented doorways. Its interiors are lavish, with two
top lit pools and arched concrete ribs overhead
As 2000 turned to 2001, Glasgow City Council informed the Govanhill community in south Glasgow that its beloved baths were to close
on 31st March. In spite of strong demand locally for the use of the pool and a very strong desire on the part of the community to see
this local amenity remain open and in use, the council had not carried out any local consultation. The strength of opposition was such
that community members occupied the pool for five months after its closure, until a decree was obtained from the Sheriff for their removal.
This was done with 250 police, horsed and helicopter surveillance. Overkill?
Since closure, a survey has revealed that 70% of the building's regular users now no longer swim at all.
The community have set up Govanhill Baths Community Trust to restore the building to its former splendour whilst incorporating
impressive modern amenities including a Healthy Living Centre, centres of excellence for arthritis and asthma, a hydrotherapy pool,
a rooftop garden, and crucially space for youth activities. Once again, it is down to the local community to take action in the face
of a threat from the powers that be. It makes the efforts of the authorities to empower communities seem rather ill-placed.
CrossRail
The most recent plans for the £13billion east-west railway connection below London are a mixed bag as far as
the historic environment is concerned. Particularly affected are the buildings at the east end of Oxford Street and around
Farringdon, where many will have to be demolished to make way for the works and new stations. In any major infrastructure
project in the UK something somewhere is going to suffer and so it should be normal practice to ensure that the effects are
minimised and properly justified. However, the buildings that would be bulldozed to make way for CrossRail are in many cases
of historic and architectural value and play important roles in conservation areas. Frequently they are sited next to or near
to buildings of no interest. Surely these should take the hits instead. As yet, little justification has been provided for the
demolition of these buildings. We have asked the CrossRail team to present this to us.
The positive outcome for historic buildings, however, is that Span 4 of Paddington Station cannot be demolished during the construction
works, which are scheduled to go on until 2013, and the increased capacity at the station that will result from CrossRail negates many
of the rail arguments for the demolition of Span 4. We live in hope.
Stansted Expansion
A lack of candour and a lack of proper consultation were the conclusions of the High Court on Government's Aviation White Paper. The proposals contained within this would result in massive damage to the historic environment around Stansted airport, and it is to the immense credit of Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) that their challenge to the White Paper garnered this verdict. It was also the first time that a White Paper has been challenged through a judicial review in the Courts. In forcing the Government back to the drawing board in assessing the most appropriate location for extra runways to serve London and the south-east, however, the challenge has perversely lengthened the period of uncertainty for the local community. Nonetheless, this is a milestone in this particular fight against the bulldozers
Courts: Middlesex Guildhall
The splendid Edwardian Guildhall in Parliament Square, London, has been chosen as the location for the new Supreme Court. This is extremely unfortunate for a number of heritage based reasons. The building is listed at Grade II* and has superb interiors, fittings and fixtures which are especially vulnerable to major changes that will inevitably follow should the Supreme Court actually come in to existence. It has only recently undergone extensive, sensitive refurbishment to bring it up to modern standards in terms of information technology. We are concerned that the changes needed for the Supreme Court will result in radical alterations to the building and the loss of some of its very fine fixtures and fittings, in particular some of the excellent carpentry. We are urging English Heritage to take a strong line on the building to ensure that any alterations do not disturb its wonderful interiors.
Schools
The billions of pounds being pumped into the education sector are set to have a lasting impact beyond teaching.
Local education authorities have in their hands large sums of money with which to improve the fabric of their schools. This is of
course very welcome, but as ever it is a double edged sword for the built heritage. Schools sit at the centre of communities and
frequently include good historic buildings, both listed and unlisted.
Schools were subject to one of the soon to be dropped thematic listing surveys whereby rather than being judge against the general quality
of buildings within the listing grades, they were judged against one another. Whatever the merits of thematic listing as a means of rapidly
covering a building type (except with the airfields survey which has maddeningly been stuck on Ministers' desks for years) it is no real
substitution for proper area based surveys, and there are many school buildings still in need of protection.
It has been left to the LEAs to decide whether the school buildings across their area are in need off refurbishment, alteration or
replacement. The vehicle by which this is to be done is the ubiquitous public finance initiative, the benefits and disbenefits of which
have been widely discussed. In simple terms the buildings are generally dealt with in one contract which does not allow the necessary
flexibility to deal with the range of buildings types, from Victorian Board Schools through to 1970s prefabs.
Consequently, both the Lancashire and Devon LEAs plan to replace all the secondary schools in their areas. What the options are for the
historic buildings in their stock remains unclear. What is clear however, is that there is a great number of examples of how school
buildings can be reused, from residential to community to commercial. This should always be the first port of call, not demolition.
However, given that many historic schools are well located at the heart of their communities, there will be pressure to build the new
schools in their places. This is where conflict will arise. English Heritage needs to working with the LEAs early on in the process,
before PFI bids are made, to identify areas for concern and buildings worthy of retention, both listed and unlisted.
The K6 Phone Box
One of our Friends has drawn to our attention the plight of the K6 phone box, the classic Giles Gilbert Scott update of his K2 design to commemorate the Silver Jubilee of King George the Fifth in 1935. They are becoming an increasingly rare part of the local street scene. It is often the historic details such as these that help reinforce the beauty and sense of place, yet it is also these details that are most easily forgotten and neglected, and this is certainly the case with the K6. BT appears to have a policy of removing them over modern designs and has recently started taking the doors off some of them in London. Mr. Wanstall has personally saved about fifty of them through listing and asks other Friends to keep an eye on their local historic phone boxes and report any faults with them to BT on 151. He also points out that they are rather good value at 30p for a fifteen minute call.
A railway footbridge
Railway footbridges
Often charming and familiar parts of the railway heritage, built in scale and harmony with their surrounding buildings, historic railway footbridges are steadily disappearing. Lattice ironwork, delicate capitals and fine ironwork are out. Instead, a range of massive and clumsy structures, rudely bolted together, are in. These are being constructed with the entirely positive and laudable aim of making stations more accessible to the less mobile members of society, but we have yet to see one example of station operators attempting to adapt the historic structures, which are being done away with wholesale, such as at Moreton in Marsh. We will investigate this further and would be interested to hear from Friends of other losses.
Politicians and Heritage
There are many good Parliamentarians who take on board the concerns of the heritage world and are at the very
least sympathetic to the cause. However, nobody as yet has worked out which are and which really do not care. Thus it falls to
SAVE to take the opportunity of the formation of the new Parliament to work this out.
We would be grateful if Friends could write to their local MPs asking what their position on historic buildings and the built environment
is - and report the results back to the SAVE office. This will help us when campaigning for buildings in their constituencies, rather than
flying blind: the local MP can frequently be a strong ally.
Save Europe's Heritage: Moscow
SAVE's sister organisation, Save Europe's Heritage, had a preliminary trip Moscow to assess the current situation faced by the historic environment in this wonderful city. The initial findings are deeply disturbing although not entirely unexpected - the post communist era has resulted in little investment in the maintenance of old buildings; the rules of the planning system are swayed by financial interests; buildings awaiting legal protection are frequently demolished; the historic skyline with its seven sisters is increasingly eroded; and reproduction in facsimile is preferred over restoration. We will be compiling a report on the situation, which should be complete in time for the next newsletter.
Heritage Link
A few useful points from Heritage Link, the sector's umbrella body. First is the statement agreed upon at the AGM
in December 2004. The statement points out how heritage contributes to many government policies. 'The nation's heritage' it states
'is central to economic and social regeneration, liveability, local quality of life and community cohesion. It should be at the
heart and not the periphery of public policy and political priorities as a positive force for change'. It sets out 7 priorities
that the sector wants to see the next government address:
1. Publish a policy statement putting heritage centre stage in the development of cultural policy in its lead Department - the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport.
2. Introduce "heritage proofing" in policy development and decisions over land use planning, new development, regeneration, and transport
infrastructure, and require the Ministers in each Department to report annually on progress.
3. Announce a strong heritage stream will be part of the National Lottery post 2009.
4. Increase dedicated grants for heritage and require a Conservation Officer in every local authority.
5. Introduce new fiscal measures which support maintenance and repair.
6. Introduce entitlement for every child to experience heritage education out of the classroom.
7. Provide formal consultation and establish a stakeholder group examining the objectives and options for the future of the
statutory heritage agencies.
Secondly is its guidance on Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). These replace the existing system of unitary development plans,
local plans and structure plans. The guidance is aimed at helping local groups ensure that heritage concerns are properly represented
in the LDF. This guidance is available on www.heritagelink.org.uk
Save Our Parsonages
Government's advice on the use of listed buildings, as outlined in Planning Policy Guidance note 15, is that
the original use is frequently the best. With specific regard to parsonages, Save Our Parsonages is doing its best to ensure
that this remains the case and that these, the low hanging fruit in any attempt to raise funds for a diocese, are not flogged
off - they are a forgotten part of the Church estate which can fulfil a range of roles which smaller replacement vicarages
frequently cannot.
Save Our Parsonages is 10 years old this year and is looking to hear from people interested in their work or who know of parsonages
in peril, or who wish to help or write up cases. Anthony Jennings, Save Our Parsonages, Flat Z, 12-18 Bloomsbury Street, London
WC1B 3QA.
Maintain our Heritage
In December, Maintain launched "Putting it off: How lack of maintenance fails our heritage". This report on
Maintain's extensive research programme, funded by the DTI, English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund called for a change
in approach from passive endorsement to pro-active encouragement, in particular:
· A UK strategy for maintenance
· Statutory duty of care balanced by financial, advisory and technical support
· Review of current enforcement powers
· Best practice: heritage organisations and local authorities to lead by example
· Maintenance focussed grants and fiscal incentives
· Develop buildings at risk as an information source and advisory tool
· Maintenance guidance and information sources
· Assessing costs and value of maintenance
· Motivate owners to undertake maintenance
· Facilitate maintenance
· New maintenance services and products
If you would like a copy of the report or its summary document, please send an A4 stamped SAE (83p) to: Maintain our Heritage,
Weymouth House, Beechencliff Road, Bath BA2 4QS
Below: Chiswick House in full glory (JH)
Leave Chiswick Alone: John Harris makes a personal plea
We recognize Chiswick House as iconic, of possessing an unparalleled preciosity. So much intellectual thought
went into its making, and it has been the focus of so much study and analysis. This opinion was first expressed by the great
Rudolf Wittkower as early as the late 1940s. It was not always so. In 1929 the 9th Duke of Devonshire sold the estate of Chiswick
House to the Middlesex County Council, which vested it in the Borough of Brentford and Chiswick. As might have been expected then,
with interest in Georgian architecture at a low ebb, the ensuing treatment of the Villa was disgraceful, the gardens deteriorating
into a public recreation ground, as at the time of writing they frankly still are. Following wartime use, the Villa was up for grabs,
and it was then that Geoffrey Houghton Brown, famous for buying, living in and selling country houses, considered taking it on,
encouraged by the Ministry of Works architect Adrian Brookholding Jones. No doubt Geoffrey would have demolished the wings, as he
did to that other exquisite Palladian villa at Felix Hall, Essex.
This matter of wings is the nub of the acute problem today, for when the Ministry of Works took Chiswick House and its garden buildings
into care in 1948, and the following year launched their restoration campaign, they demolished them, under the misguided belief that
they were recreating Lord Burlington's lost ideals. Alas, his lordship's ideals had been compromised in 1732 when he himself took the
decision to move out of Burlington House, Piccadilly, use Londesborough House, Yorkshire, as his northern seat, and make Chiswick House
his main seat in the south. He was compelled to use the old house and the new in tandem, joined by what was then known as The
Communication, but is known today as the Link Building, as well as another connection of uncertain plan.
What could never have been contemplated in the 1950s was how the astonishing growth of country house tourism would affect Chiswick.
Progressively the focus of public interest would be on country houses, the expansion and variety of alternative uses, and their
attraction for corporate and private functions. Those lost Chiswick wings were crucial for the challenges and problems that beset
Chiswick today.
The acute problem that has bedevilled Chiswick since 1948 has been the insensitivity to Chiswick's importance of the Borough of
Chiswick and Brentford, now the London Borough of Hounslow. In truth they could not have cared a fig, and there exist Borough
minutes in the 1930s that prove that they would willingly have pulled Chiswick House down and laid tennis courts over the gardens.
The rampant rot found in the wings by the Ministry in 1948 was directly the result of the Borough's neglect.
In the 1950s there were a few gallant souls in the Ministry, later Department of the Environment, now English Heritage, who cherished
the ideal of restituting much of William Kent's furnishings and works of art from Chatsworth to Chiswick. It did not help that Lord
Eccles, Minister of Works, infamous for authorizing the demolition of the shell of Coleshill House after the fire, rudely demanded
from both the Duke of Devonshire and the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, that all the relevant drawings from
Chatsworth and Portland Place be sent to Chiswick. He got a mighty snub. Restitution is possible, but it would require great generosity
on the part of the Devonshire Family, and indeed in recent years they have gone some way towards this end. In my personal view Chatsworth
would not suffer from the loss. This restitution idea which could be in the form of a loan is the one ideal that should be pursued.
The loss of the wings left the Link Building no longer a link, just tied onto the Summer Parlour. There was no possibility that Link
and Parlour might be used for access. The public would have to enter the house, as they still do, through the basement entrance under
the portico. From there the only access to the piano - nobile was up narrow spiral stairs. Burlington himself recognized this deficiency
when he proposed full stairs rising to where the Bedchamber Closet now is.
No one would deny the access problem as faced by the Department of the Environment. An attempt to solve this was made in 1977, resulting
in what has been described by this writer as the 'Chiswick Travesty'. Inspectors and architects conceived a design to add a monstrous
addition to the rear of the Link Building and Summer Parlour to serve as a Function and Interpretation Centre. Lady Birk, then Minister
of the Environment, instructed her officials to keep the project secret until revealed at a press conference. Of course, the designs
were immediately leaked to Marcus Binney of SAVE. They could not refuse Marcus an invitation, but I was deliberately uninvited. However,
I gained access with an RIBA Journal press card. The conference was an ill tempered shambles, described on the front page of The Times
as a ' Bear Garden'. Lady Birk was soon at the centre of a torrent of criticism and had unwisely allowed herself to be cornered. The
project was hastily withdrawn and consigned to history. I came to know Lady Birk well, and she confessed that the Chiswick incident
was the worst of her ministerial career.
Internally the Villa was improving under the supervision of Julius Bryant. The Blue Velvet Room was restored with specially woven
silk in 1991 and the Octagon in 1997. More furnishings and paintings were borrowed or bought. There was a growing intelligent attitude
to the entity of Villa and garden, but not then by the London Borough of Hounslow.
To explain my concerns I must now declare an interest as one who was a potential Trustee of the newly constituted Chiswick House Park
and Gardens Trust. This Trust is a consequence of the marriage between the Borough of Hounslow and English Heritage. I am deeply sceptical
that a Council such as Hounslow can have a change of heart, but let us hope it is true. Their one wish is to lessen the financial burden
of maintenance of the gardens. I innocently thought, here was an opportunity to realise that ideal of restitution, and so provide a
furnished interior recognizable to the Architect Earl should he favour us with a return. When I attended a dinner in the Villa to launch
the Trust, I recognized the agreeable and attractive ambience of the rooms, the paintwork and gilding now fifty years old and of a faded
beauty, but I was forcibly struck that these exquisite small scale rooms were not the place for dinners, or for what we call corporate
entertainment. Disconcertingly I have discovered that such entertainment is high on English Heritage priorities.
At a second meeting the Phase 1 Proposals for the Regeneration of Chiswick House and Grounds were presented, drawn up by Dannatt,
Johnson Architects. As the drawings were dated 28 June 2004, it struck me that the project must have been maturing in the sanctum of
Fortress House, Savile Row, for much of that year, if not earlier. I was thunderstruck, for here was a repeat of the ill - fated Birk
proposals: the Facility Building and Interpretation Centre with turnstiles, ticketing, shops, lecture rooms, WCs and what have you,
embracing the rear of the Summer Parlour. This was to be the access point by stairs and handicapped elevator to the piano - nobile,
not the main front of the Villa as is proper. For the average visitor it is nonsensical to experience the villa by means of the North
Octagon and Sculpture Gallery. But of course, for corporations and wedding guests, who cares?
Located to the east of the villa on a site due south of the Inigo Jones gateway, was the outline block for the new café. The old nineteen
fifties café, beloved by the locals, is now long past its sell by date. In outline too was the site for a marquee for 500 people. It
struck me as wrong to build a café so near the Function Building and not somehow combine the two, especially as refreshment and cooking
facilities were planned for the Function. I said to the Project Manager, 'Do you really need the café there? Can you not put it somewhere
else'? The reply was negative, for the café was already subject of a HLF application, and could not be withdrawn. It was admitted that
corporate and private functions were on the agenda. An income had to be generated. The rooms at Chiswick are so attractive that once used
for corporate entertainment it is inevitable demand will increase, and the profit generated will ensure that there will be no restraint
upon that use. I saw this as English Heritage prostituting itself to Mammon, and as far as Hounslow was concerned, I am certain they would
he happy for the income to roll in, and roll in it will. Nevertheless, I decided to endure one further meeting.
At this third meeting the problem of disabled and handicapped access was on the agenda. With the Function Building in place, the standard
wheel chair cannot pass through Burlington's doors to the North Octagon. The only answer is to destroy the door or provide narrow
wheelchairs to change-over. Alas this requires a stock of such chairs to be stored somewhere! The suggestion that a platform lift
be made rising from the room to the right of the basement entrance up through the floor of the Bedroom Dressing Room, was too much
to even contemplate. I sat there nonplussed. This determined me to withdraw as a potential trustee.
A caring Trusteeship is a good thing, the restoration of the gardens an admirable priority. But I emphasize leave the interiors of the
Villa alone. In any case their future restoration is a most delicate matter. Do not contaminate and endanger them with all the shabbiness
of corporate entertainment. What is certain is that once English Heritage goes down this road, that is the end of any hope of restituting
furniture from Chatsworth. A Function Building, Interpretation Centre, what you will, could be built in the Walled Gardens. I cannot
believe that a high tech demountable handicapped lift could not be invented. I do not wish to have any responsibility as a trustee in
bringing about the demeaning of one of our greatest buildings.
John Harris, April 2005