Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 9 May 2001