Memorandum by Latham Architects (UWP 114)
ENGLISH HERITAGE INSPECTORATE
You asked me to comment upon whether the English
Heritage Inspectorate hinder Urban regeneration when considering
the re-use of historic buildings and sites.
English Heritage is a body represented by many
people of differing backgrounds, character and philosophies. Legislation
regarding historic buildings is comprehensive and yet, to the
uninitiated, its application may appear arbitrary or even incomprehensible.
The primary purpose of the legislation is to
protect historic buildings by ensuring their significance is understood
and recognised and the impact of potential changes to the fabric
or place are considered and if thought to be detrimental, prevented
or ameliorated.
PHILOSOPHY
In most cases there is more than one philosophy
that might be applicable to the repair, restoration, rehabilitation
or re-use of a historic building or historically sensitive site.
There are archaeological, historical, social, spiritual, economical
and physical aspects to be considered of both the place and the
context. Different people naturally put different weights on these
different aspects. Someone trained as an archaeologist may well
adopt a different philosophy to a surveyor aware of building economics.
Either might be employed by English Heritage.
Academia will continue to debate over the relative
merits of "repair not restore" against "removal
of later accretions in order to restore the original". Clearly
neither one could be applied in all cases. The issue is not really
black versus white, but more likely which shade of grey. The need
to agree a philosophy differs with the status of a building. A
property in care, or a National Trust property, may be the subject
of a rigorous conservation plan prior to the adoption of a philosophy.
Even then controversy may remain (such as the restoration to its
original appearance of Upark House by the National Trust following
the fire).
For more simple buildings, listed primarily
for group value, the understanding of its fabric may be simpler.
But for buildings not to be maintained solely for visitors, the
nature of the proposed re-use should be taken into account. The
requirements for use as a house, shop, school or office will not
only be different from each other but may also depend upon the
prospective user as to the nature of that re-use.
For example, consider an 1860's Country house
in Suffolk extended in the early part of this century, requisitioned
in the War with further additions and then used as an agricultural
college with additional buildings erected in the grounds. In this
case my client wanted to use the house as a large single residence
wishing to recreate something similar to the original and to remove
the later additions. We had to go to appeal to win the case. The
argument was put forward that all the later, 20th Century additions,
were an intrical part of the history of the place and should be
retained. My argument was that they could be retained if the property
were to be used for multiple residence units or as it had planning
permission for (but no buyers) as a hotel complex, but that equally
the later additions could be removed, if as in this case, there
was a proposition to return the building to a single residential
use.
The point of this true anecdote is to emphasise
that where a property is not to be retained in care for display
to the public then its potential for re-use is an equal consideration
to that of the historic fabric when identifying which conservation
philosophy is most appropriate. My advice is (and I have given
this advice in a key note speech to the Institute of Historic
Building Conservation) that a Conservation Officer or English
Heritage Inspector/Architect should, in most cases, be able to
identify more than one appropriate conservation philosophy for
a building, the choice of which will depend upon the nature of
the proposed use, the wishes of the user, funder, public etc and
of the context within which the building sits. By this I mean
not just the physical context but the social, economic and even
spiritual context which may cause a different philosophy to be
accepted. Conservation Officers and English Heritage Officers
should therefore retain an open mind as to which is the acceptable
philosophy to be adopted and then to provide advice as to the
most effective way in which a given philosophy can be implemented.
TECHNIQUES
My next point is regarding implementation. It
is again to do with the interpretation of philosophy but this
time regarding the detailed use of materials. Once again there
are differing opinions between utilising traditional techniques
of repair (eg rebuilding elements of collapsing structure) and
more modern techniques (possibly involving stitching with modern
material—eg resin rods). Once again, in the wider scheme
of things either approach might be successfully adopted in many
cases. Where this is so, the decision on which techniques to adopt
should be taken by the building owner and his advisers (especially
where the advisers have specialist qualifications and experience)
and not by the Conservation Officer or English Heritage. It is
their role to advise on the acceptable ways in which the adopted
technique can be implemented. It is the owner and their adviser
that will be liable for the results of their decisions.
"REAL TIME"
AWARENESS
Thirdly it is important that any advice is given
within the constraints of realistic timetables. The National Trust,
or English Heritage when implementing schemes of conservation
may take several years, firstly to decide how to undertake a project
and then to implement it. Business investment on the other hand
needs to move quickly to respond to the market place and to have
certainty in order to make sound business decisions. It is important
therefore that clear, concise advice is given at an early stage
by the Conservation Officer or English Heritage which is then
adhered to even though the Officer representatives may change
during the implementation process. Some Officers, particularly
when administering grants on behalf of English Heritage, act as
if they are the owner, sole funder and responsible architect for
a project when of course they are nothing of the sort. Their contribution
can sometimes be a very minor proportion of the total funding
and they carry little, or no liability for their actions. Demanding
further samples which may take several days to cure before they
can be inspected on a high scaffold for a relatively minor element
of a major building project can sometimes reek havoc with the
programme causing claims for delay and lack of information which
far exceed the total grant amount. Because of other commitments
the officer concerned may not return for another fortnight to
make a further inspection. Such control methods would only be
acceptable where the issue concerned is germane to the whole project
and of great significance, yet some officers operate this way
more out of habit than consideration. (See attached file note
re: "Ceramica").
BEST PRACTICE
Let me be clear, the problems I have outlined
apply to perhaps no more than half of English Heritage's employees
and probably a slightly higher percentage of Conservation officers.
The fact that the remainder choose to act in the spirit that I
have recommended, ie with an open mind, a flexible attitude, and
an understanding of the needs of the client, the potential range
of design options, and the economics of implementation, only proves
that what I am requesting is reasonable and achievable.
What is needed is client orientated training
for officers in the field with best practice guidelines that include
the points referred to above.
MONITORING
There also needs to be devised a means by which
a complaint, or a request for a review, can be made when faced
with an intransigent officer, without simply increasing the animosity
from an officer the applicant is already finding difficult. I
am not suggesting a fully blown appeal system but some form of
second opinion that can be called upon by another officer, independent
of the first, to either confirm, or amend, the opinion of the
first in an effort to find a way forward by consensus.
Derek Latham
March 2000
| 
