Floodgates open or shut? Planning seems to be the portfolio no Minster really wants, and has been regularly handed from department to department, most recently landing back in the red box of Mr. Prescott, now at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Thus, the man that passed the Gherkin also held the fate of Gerald Ronson’s Heron Tower in his hands, and gave it his blessing just before the parliamentary recess in July, with an indication that towers are vital to London’s future. The very next day, though, he decided to call in Irvine Sellar’s dream of a 66 storey spike at London Bridge. There has been much clamour about the need for clear policy guidance on tall buildings, and probably rightly so - public inquiries are expensive affairs, and if every application for a tall building is called in, there will be an even greater and more confusing mass of case studies and precedent for the lawyers to trawl through. However, it should not be forgotten that of the current tall buildings applications, only two have been called in. While the lack of a policy does in some ways make it easier to oppose tall buildings, it is not sensible - it is a piecemeal approach indicating a lack of any general plan amongst those who have decided they want these buildings as to where they should go.

Is there anything positive to take away from the Inquiry? Yes. The Inspector made it clear that economics are not an excuse to inflict harmful development on either St. Paul’s or the Tower, or for that matter St. Botolph’s. He also highlighted the Mayor’s frivolity in specifically mentioning the Heron tower in the London plan. In what is referred to as the City’s eastern cluster (which implies some form of grand plan, curiously absent in the formation of this loose amalgam), the Inspector identified Tower 42, formerly the Natwest Tower as the apex. Although Tower 42 is a rotten example in terms of both architecture and origins, it might at least provide a focus. Inconsistencies were found in English Heritage’s approach to tall buildings following the fiasco over the Gherkin, and it seems the Inspector saw this as a weak point in their case. This makes it all the more important that English Heritage continues the approach it took in the Heron Inquiry, looking first and foremost at the impact of the building on the historic environment, rather than the architectural statement it may make.

So, applications for tall buildings have started to roll in and there are rumours of plenty more to come. However, permissions have not started to roll out. More of a shower, then, rather than a deluge.

Railway enthusiasts of the world unite! The Bishopsgate goodsyard on the fringe of the City of London is faced with certain demolition unless the London Railway History Society succeed in their judicial review of the proposals for the clearance of the whole site other than the listed Braithwaite viaduct. Put simply the goodsyard is an exciting collection of railway arches, incorporating the Braithwaite viaduct which until recently were occupied by a series of small businesses. These have all been turfed out by the owners of the site (none other than Railtrack) who want to clear all of the site apart from the Braithwaite Viaduct, ostensibly to allow the construction of the East London Line Extension and the redevelopment of the rest of the site. This is a tad premature, given that the route of the extension is not yet settled, nor is the source of the massive amount of funding required. English Heritage has taken a commendable lead in the campaign to save the arches, alongside the likes of CREEP (Campaign for a Real East End Plan). EH have produced several reports highlighting how the existing structures can be retained and reused with the tube extension and new development above. Together, these factors make a strong case for preservation, yet the publicly owned London Underground is stonewalling all opponents of its (as yet unrevealed) scheme. We expect to hear any day of the result of the JR.

The individual bringing the action on behalf of the LRHS was assaulted on the first day of the proceedings, with his assailant allegedly telling him, ‘That’ll teach you". He has also received a number of threatening phone calls inviting him to drop the action. It makes you wonder.

Threatened schools continue to be something of a theme of here, with the Rachel McMillan Nursery School in Greenwich, and Willesden High School being among the most interesting current cases. Rachel and Margaret McMillan broke new ground with their life-long campaigns for child health and welfare in London and Bradford. The original school of 1918-21 survives substantially intact and was the only large school built before the War for the under fives. It has been listed Grade II following a request for spot listing from local campaigners and ourselves.

Willesden High School is a very handsome neo-Georgian composition, by William Thomas Curtis, Middlesex County Council’s architect in the 1930s. The school is earmarked for demolition to make way for a Norman Foster building and playing fields. Surely this is too much to inflict on our school-going populace? A group of former pupils have come together to fight for the building, and we are backing their attempt to get the building listed. Allegedly that splendid 80’s children’s TV series ‘Grange Hill’ was based on the school (although we consider it unlikely that this will sway the listing inspectors).

While preparing a piece for The Times on the building, Marcus Binney came up against the mighty Department of Education, trying to dissuade him from publishing anything on it with the wonderfully fatuous claim that the building is infested with pigeons. This is about as poor an excuse for the demolition of a building of historic and architectural interest as could ever be thought up - on this reckon ing most of London ought be flattened. A black mark to the Department for feeble fibs.

The East Dulwich Hospital has been turned down for listing because of later additions and changes to the building. This complet e workhouse infirmary complex is significant not only in townscape terms, but also because it still retains all of the other buildings in the complex. The hospital is innovative in the way the pavilion plan was adapted to make circulation easier, but this and the attention lavished on the administration block and spine corridor were not sufficient in the eyes of the Inspector to overcome the effect of both later additions and the removal of the balconies at the ends of the pavilions. (These were replaced with fire escapes).

This raises some interesting thoughts and questions. The listing inspector remarked that the building was undoubtedly of listable quality in an unaltered state, whereas the alterations to it since construction seriously diminished its historical interest. However, apart from the removal of the balconies at the end of the wards, most of the extensions and alterations did not appear to us to be irreversible. The holy grail of reversibility comes out of this (and the saga of the Beaumont Riding Stables, Aldershot) looking a little tarnished: if it is deemed acceptable to make reversible changes to a listed building on the grounds that they do not detract from its inherent architectural and historic interest, then surely it should be the case that essentially reversible changes to an unlisted (but potentially listable building) do no detract from its inherent architectural and historic interest. The gurus of reversibility need to have a chat with the wonks of policy to straighten out such anomalies, which makes an ass of an otherwise productive (if limited) listing policy.

Boffin Alert. What on earth does on do with Western Europe’s first nuclear reactor? The civil nuclear programme was one of the UK’s greatest-ever industrial efforts, and the first fruits of that programme are currently being decommissioned. GLEEP, a graphite moderated low energy pile at Harwell airfield, was designed as a test facility to check the purity of graphite destined for use in later piles. It went critical on 15^th August 1947, and remained in use until it was shut down in September 1990. Decommissioning began shortly after and by 1995 the second stage of the three-stage process was complete. What now remains is a concrete box containing the reactor structures.

This rather important concrete box now sits in a rotting 1930s aircraft hangar. The hangar is not in good condition, and while it had been the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s intention to keep the box in the building until 2008, it looks like the wait might be rather shorter.

Is the concrete box worthy of preservation? Very probably is the best answer we can muster at the moment. The airfield is earmarked for development as a business park (what else?), which may well put paid to attempts to preserve it in situ. The questions the case raises are twofold - can GLEEP be safely decommissioned without having to move it off site, and allied to this is the question of cost: is it more expensive to remove it from the site than to secure it in situ?

SS Teulon was never one to hold back when designing a building, but with this 1840s church he was more restrained than usual, with his gothic detailing being rather more organic than in his usual exuberant fantasies. The problem is that much of the building is now actually rather too literally organic, as the rot has set in after years of neglect, as the building has sat waiting for the HLF to decide whether to fund repairs. The Church Commissioners have very patiently given the building a very long stay of execution, but despite the best efforts of a local organisation reuse the building as an community arts centre and raise the necessary funds to sort it out, the future of the church is looking bad. A hardy and determined individual is needed to take on the building and slowly bring it back. The challenge of a lifetime.

Frankly it is a shame that trains on the Edinburgh to London line don’t stop more frequently at Berwick. It is a remarkable town, surely worthy of World Heritage Status for its pioneering role in the evolution of military defences in Northern Europe. Aside from the wonderful redoubts, its architecture has a strong military pedigree - a certain Mr Vanbrugh is held responsible for the erection of the barracks, and more recently the Governor’s house, one of the principle detached buildings in the town, has been attributed to him. It is a spot ropey around the edges, with a few single storey sheds in the garden, but otherwise suitably grand.

Having faced off numerous potential invaders over the last few hundred years, Berwick now faces a new threat, in the form of Messers McCarthy and Stone, purveyors of expensive accommodation for the elder generation. Nothing wrong with this in itself, but quite a lot wrong with piling ‘em high in the garden of the Governor’s House, with no regard to the local authority’s development brief. The Governor’s House stands with uninterrupted views to the seafront, firmly within the bounds of the town’s conservation area, and prominent in Berwick ’s distinctive townscape.

The local authority quite rightly demanded a better scheme, and we wrote objecting to the proposals. It is not that there cannot be development in the garden, simply that 36 granny flats, no matter how artfully arranged, are going to be a huge lump too far. McCarthy and Stone appealed against non-determination as the local authority was attempting to negotiate a better scheme, and have been granted a public inquiry. One would have thought this a risky tactic, on the grounds that any sane inspector would throw their case out on spec. What is really needed for the site is a holistic view that takes into account the future of the Governor’s house, not piecemeal development. Given the asking price of £175,000 for the house alone, this cannot be too much to ask.

Proposals for redundant city centre hospital buildings are no rare thing, although the involvement of the great Norman Foster in such projects is. Up in Edinburgh proposals for the magnificent complex of buildings that form the Royal Infirmary are more concerned with flashy new buildings than with retaining and reusing some of the fine old parts of the hospital.

The result is something of a mess, overdeveloping an interesting and important site, destroying some perfectly decent historic buildings, overwhelming those that remain and visually intruding on the Parks. Fosters should take up the challenge of reusing them.

Should you be so inclined, it is worth a peek at the Scottish Civic Trust’s excellent Buildings at Risk publication to get an idea of what’s going on north of the border.

The issue of locally loved but unprotected buildings is the subject Moira McGhie’s St. William of York Deposition, which has gained a wide body of support. The deposition would see demolition classed as a form of development and thus make it possible for objections against the demolition of non residential buildings to be lodged with local planning authorities and listened to. The ideal opportunity for this has arisen as a result of the Planning Green Paper, where amongst other things, various changes are proposed to the GPDO. These are to be welcomed: currently it is a vast muddle, totally impenetrable to all but the most agile and patient minds. The idea behind the deposition is not new - we have wanted to see this happen for years, but it is currently gaining increasing momentum due to Moira’s great efforts. Each unlisted non-residential building that is demolished against the wishes of local people gives this initiative further fuel.

‘Sustainable Communities’ is the catchy title of the government’s response to everyone else’s responses to the Planning Green Paper. Although claiming to be about empowering communities, this is essentially a document with the needs property development industry at its heart, not that this is all bad news - indeed many of the more worrying aspects of the green paper have been successfully rejected following the record 16,000 responses to the green paper. Planning is clearly an area in which people are interested - or maybe this is a sign that there was something not quite right with the green paper’s proposals.

First and foremost amongst the changes is that there is now no presumption that the number of statutory consultees will be reduced, although there is a proposal for a 21 day deadline for their responses. More committee meetings to discuss cases in the offing for the amenity societies, poor sods. None the less, a small but important victory.

Other measures include the tightening up of compulsory purchase powers, to make it easier for developers to assemble sites as well as making easier for big projects to move ahead, getting around the obstacles posed by the likes of Mr. Swampy and Co. Although this may whiff of giving license to the big to bully the little, it could have possible effects for buildings at risk, unless of course the measure is made specific to new projects. Still, for local authorities to gain experience and confidence in compulsorily purchasing buildings is no bad thing if they can then be encouraged to use some of that experience to sort out the problems affecting historic buildings on their patches.

So, there is a whole raft of measures that should be welcomed in their own right, but in the wider context of the Green Paper, they might be seen to take on slightly sinister tone, making life easier for those with little or no regard to the historic environment.

The proposed huge injection of cash into the planning system by government is of course welcome but whether this will this have any tangible benefits to conservation remains unknown. Gaps at conservation officer level still exist in local authorities and the problem of buildings at risk is still way down on the list of priorities: a job advert was recently sent to the office for a buildings at risk officer position in a rural authority, salary £12,000. It is more likely that the money will be spent on more administrative staff with little grasp of conservation issues, who will be able to process more of the paperwork, so speeding up the planning process.

A point to be borne in mind when considering the green paper and its offshoot s is the statistic that 30% of all planning applications are reckoned to have some effect on the historic environment. Surely then 30% of the green paper should look at the historic environment.

So, what was there for the built heritage in this then? Not a sausage.

Although there are perhaps aspects of the HLF which could be tinkered with (such as decision making times), wholesale massive reform is probably not necessary, and neither is a decrease in the slice of the lottery cake it receives. However, the DCMS is currently having a look at all aspects of the HLF as part of a wider review of the lottery. One suggestion which has appeared from heaven only knows where is that punters could tick a box on the back of their lottery ticket indicating their preferred area. Wildlife, youth and health would benefit, heritage almost certainly wouldn’t.

The HLF has had a massive impact on the historic environment at all levels, providing funding for a massive range of initiatives and projects beyond the well known high profile cases. Given that the number of people playing the lottery is decreasing, any diminution of the HLF’s share of the proceeds will have a drastic effect on its ability to fund this range of activities, and in light of the lack of extra funds heading towards heritage following the government’s spending review, this is the double whammy: English Heritage’s ability to fund historic buildings will in real terms continue to decrease, as will the HLF’s. A vigorous defence of the HLF must be mounted.

After a long and rather frustrating period, the SAVE Trust is now the proud owner of one derelict concrete Castle in central Bridgwater. Listed at Grade II*, this 1850’s concrete show-home exhibits a number of innovative uses of concrete, some of them sadly rather too visible though failures of various aspects of the buildings (such as the roof, floors, a couple of windows etc.)

The building represents a huge challenge for SAVE - it will cost approximately £500,000 to repair the building as shell. Given a market value of roughly half that, we are left with a deficit £250,000, some of which will be covered by grant aid, and the local authority’s townscape heritage initiative. Should you fancy being knight with a shining chequebook for the concrete castle, you know who to contact. Please also help direct us to any concrete enthusiasts in the world of architecture and construction.

With any luck, the building should get a mention in a new TV series called Restoration, currently being filmed. The programmes will look at buildings at risk across the UK and there will be a chance for the public to vote for their favourite, which will then receive funding towards its repair. What this says about the other buildings, Lord only knows, but this sort of serious publicity for buildings at risk shouldn’t be sniffed at.

The Bath pilot scheme is now underway, testing techniques, service, people and all sort of other considerations. Key amongst these are the insurance and health and safety concerns which could have well strangled this vital initiative at birth. The Department for Trade and Industry sponsored research (also supported by English Heritage and others) is kicking off with a module looking at best practice, to be carried out by the University of Western England, and will be followed by other modules shortly.

Maintenance is now creeping up the conservation agenda, with proposals at English Heritage for a whole range of committees and groups to grapple with the issue, as well as a vastly increased budget. Meanwhile, the IHBC have been busy formulating some guidance on maintenance which is of course to be welcomed, and will no doubt be incorporated into the emerging canon on maintenance.

The SPAB’s National Maintenance week starts on Friday 22nd November, when Maintain hope to blitz the gutters of a street in Bath, hopefully with some form of celebrity lashed to a ladder. (‘we may be in the gutter but we’re looking at the stars’ quipped one Maintain’s directors) That old mantra "staving of decay by daily care"……