Memorandum by Evelyn Cook (CAB 22)
SUMMARY
Our historic buildings are a finite resource.
While not opposed to new architecture, it should not be at the
expense of the historic environment. Concern is expressed at the
way in which CABE's Design Review Panel appears to be working
outside of its remit and apparent expertise where the historic
environment is concerned and not only commenting on the quality
of a proposed development, but actively engaging in making judgements
on the quality of the historic architecture it is intended to
replace. This is illustrated by a discussion of issues surrounding
CABE's involvement in the process which led to the decision to
demolish Span 4 at Paddington Railway Station, an important part
of a Grade I Listed building.
It is recommended that CABE's panel, if this
is to continue, expands to include those with specific historic
buildings expertise and an in-depth knowledge of the laws and
Government Planning Policies relating to historic buildings and
wider areas and that it engages more fully with other bodies which
have expertise in these areas:
"Do not sacrifice what future generations
will value for short-term and often illusory gains."
HM Government Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning
and the historic environment.
INTRODUCTION
1. I write not as a representative of any
organisation, but as a concerned individual member of the public.
I am, however, a member of several historic building conservation
organisations, and while not professing major expertise I have
knowledge of the charters, laws and Government planning policies
which exist for the protection of historic buildings and areas.
I am also a historic transport enthusiast, with an interest in
the architecture of railway buildings.
2. I am not opposed to quality modern architecture.
The innovative buildings of today will become our admired historic
buildings of the future. Much built in the 20th century has huge
architectural and/or historic merit, as is now recognised by inclusion
in our national lists of buildings, thanks in part to the work
of and expertise embodied in national building conservation organisations.
However, in building new we must not lose sight of the importance
of the work of past eras, and strive to retain it. Government
policy on the historic environment recognises that our historic
buildings are a finite asset, and the listing process and the
designation of conservation areas (as in the 1990 Act) was designed
to afford protection. Sadly commercial interests and those who
have no regard for our history often ensure that too much bulldozing
still takes place.
3. I was born in Newcastle upon Tyne. That
city, in the 1960s and 1970s, the era of T Dan Smith and John
Poulson, as with many northern towns, had handsome historic buildings,
perfectly capable of retention and re-use, torn down and replaced
by buildings of dubious architectural merit in the pursuit of
building "the Brazilia of the north". I cite buildings
such as John Dobson's Eldon Square, and his fine Royal Arcade,
along with others. Today the loss of these buildings is regretted,
and Newcastle, along with Gateshead, another town with its heart
torn out in recent decades, is recognising that regeneration can
also include conservation—retaining and adapting our historic
buildings to new uses to add to the variety of our townscapes.
Examples include the Baltic in Gateshead, a former grain store
now a major centre for contemporary art, and the regeneration
of the Grainger Town area of Newcastle, using the expertise of
people such as David Lovey, former Historic Areas Adviser for
English Heritage NE. However, those buildings now demolished
cannot be replaced; historic buildings are a finite asset. Alongside
this retention of historic buildings of course new architecture
is being constructed. Time will be the judge of its quality. Thoughtful
commercial organisations and civic leaders alike, however, are
recognising that retaining the historic interest of our built
environment alongside the new also has financial as well as social
benefits.
4. Thankfully Newcastle has also abandoned
its "Pathfinder" initiative, a move which could be considered
elsewhere in the north, and further demolitions halted of the
unlisted 19th century terraced houses of sturdy build which can
and should be retained and refurbished. They are pleasing and
on a human scale and the sort of homes in which many want to live.
The human costs of bulldozing homes and familiar landmark buildings
and surroundings and re-locating entire settled communities I
experienced first hand in my teen years; I hoped that lessons
learned from that time would ensure these mistakes were not repeated.
Sadly, this is proving not to be the case. The environmental costs,
in terms of junking finite resources, also need to be considered
when assessing any perceived benefits in bulldozing buildings
and rebuilding new.
5. Such retention, adaptation and re-use
of our historic buildings, which we must and should do for future
generations to have some link with our nation's history and provide
continuity and stability, is at the heart of our system of listing
buildings and designating conservation areas. However, the interface
between the Government's policies for the retention and adaptation
of historic and interesting buildings and the building of the
new appears to being skewed at the moment by some of the work
of CABE.
THE WORK
OF CABE'S
DESIGN REVIEW
PANEL (WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE
TO THE
EFFECT THAT
IS HAVING
ON THE
HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT
AS A
RELEVANT TOPIC)
AND ITS
RELATIONSHIPS WITH
OTHER NATIONAL
AND LOCAL
AGENCIES
6. CABE's remit for its Design Review panel
I understand is to review the quality of a building design in
isolation. It appears to possess no particular remit or expertise
to additionally judge the quality or importance of historic buildings
and areas affected by the development on which it is commenting,
and the impact such a development may have. It apparently has
few formal links with other bodies within which much expertise
resides regarding the historic environment—and in this I
would extend the scope beyond English Heritage, with whom it has
some dialogue although it appears at times to be an uneasy relationship,
and include our national amenity societies, SAVE Britain's Heritage,
other interested organisations, and indeed many local civic societies.
Yet in a wider view the adverse impact of new and unsympathetic
developments on historic areas can be huge. This seems to be a
major failing. CABE appears out of its depth at times in this
area of our built environment. It would also seem, to an outsider,
that some who serve on CABE have limited understanding of, or
sympathy with, the ethos underpinning Government policies in existence
to protect our historic buildings and areas.
7. The Design Review process in itself is
therefore a cause for concern. It appears to be at times used
by commercial developers, who have much financially to gain from
new development, and little regard for the wider public benefit
of retaining our historic buildings, to gain endorsement by CABE
for schemes which go against the spirit and indeed at times the
letter of the Government's Planning Policy Guidance 15 Planning
and the historic environment. Thus formal endorsement by a
public body, ie CABE of the quality of a scheme can skew the balance
in planning decisions between retention of listed buildings and
key buildings in conservation areas and demolition and replacement.
8. Additionally, there have been occasions
when, in my view, CABE has also exceeded its remit to comment
on new design, and denigrated the existing building also, despite
having apparently little formal expertise on historic buildings
represented on its membership and no requirement to formally consult
other organisations. This has, as stated in 7 above, had a major
impact on subsequent planning decisions, and ultimately led to
the decision to demolish important historic architecture which
I feel could and should have been retained and incorporated into
new development, as Government planning policy states to be eminently
desirable.
9. I cite as a particular concern (although
not an isolated case) the situation at Paddington Station, 1852-54,
listed at the highest grade, Grade I, one of our most magnificent
pieces of historic railway architecture, embodying within its
structure so much which characterised the pioneering age of railways,
which set standards of great engineering allied to a concern for
high quality design for railway buildings, great and small. Paddington,
along with other listed stations such as Newcastle Central and
York, is a wonderful feat of engineering, architecture and handsome
decoration, made particularly fine by its four glorious roof spans.
As with most historic buildings, Paddington grew and developed
to accommodate growing demand for rail travel; it is a not a work
of a particular moment in time, nor indeed of one person, and
it should not be regarded in isolation from other railway buildings
which were being constructed around the country in the great age
of railway expansion.
10. This is not the place for a history
of glass and metal buildings, which were a marvel of the pre-Great
War era, eg the Crystal Palace (Paxton 1851 for the Great Exhibition)
other huge glasshouse designs, and in railway trainsheds, but
many have now been demolished and what we have I believe we should
treasure and ensure that they remain for the future. However,
some background context on Paddington is required.
11. The trainshed roof structure which covers
spans 1, 2, 3, and, with some adaptation, 4, at Paddington Station
has its basic design developed from that at Newcastle Central,
where John Dobson, drawing on the inspiration of other glass structures
of the time (Decimus Burton and Richard Turner's Palm House at
Kew, with its curved roof, was begun1835) and the experience gained
from previous structures where he had used glass and metal for
roofs (eg the Listed Grade I Vegetable Market at Grainger Market
in Newcastle upon Tyne 1835, although destroyed by fire in 1901
and replaced with a different design of roof) and utilising technology
devised by Thomas Charlton of the Gateshead ironfounders Hawks
Crawshay for the High Level Bridge. Dobson developed the process
of using curved metal supports rolled from sheets (they are not
cast as is often mistakenly supposed—rolling was in fact
a cheaper process) and covering over the railway lines and station
buildings to afford protection for stationary trains and passengers
with a sequence of soaring and elegant linked curved glass, wood
and metal spans:
"Newcastle Central is one of the great achievements
of the Railway Age and provided the climax for the career of John
Dobson, one of the most distinguished architects to have practised
in north-east England. It was conceived in 1846 and opened by
Queen Victoria in 1850 . . . Prior to Newcastle Central few designers
had exploited the visual potential of station trainsheds as an
expression of space."
"Newcastle Central's trainshed shares with
the Dublin ironfounder Richard Turner's Liverpool Lime Street
(completed 1849 and later replaced) the distinction of
having been the first to be designed and built in Britain employing
curved wrought-iron ribs to support an arched roof . . . Both
the Dobson and Turner roofs proved highly influential, an early
tribute to the former being its use in a modified and embellished
form by Brunel at Paddington Station. "
Dr Bill Fawcett, A History of North Eastern
Railway Architecture, Vol 1 The Pioneers 2001 NERA
"The use of curved non-iron principals for
the roof, with its three arches each spanning 60 feet, was, as
Dobson himself noted, `a new style of roofing'. Much imitated
subsequently, as at IK Brunel's Paddington Station, London (1854),
this technique was achieved by rolling the iron out between bevelled
rollers. This saved the considerable expense of cutting the iron
out of flat plates of iron, a virtue illustrative of the architect's
practical approach to engineering and constructional matters."
Thomas Faulkner and Andrew Greg John Dobson
Architect of the North East 2001 Tyne Bridge Publishing
12. Paddington Station and Spans 1, 2 and
3 are a combined effort—the engineering skills of IK Brunel,
the architectural expertise of Sir Matthew Digby Wyatt; and input
from Owen Jones. Brunel did not invent the construction used in
the roof—he developed and adapted the work of Dobson at
Newcastle Central. There are certain differences, but it is certainly
not entirely original work. It is recognised that Brunel, at Bristol,
had realised that the trainshed was an important and integral
part of the design of a station and a key element in the pleasure
of travel brought about by the advance of the railways. Obviously
at Paddington this desire to provide a beautiful and functional
building was continued. However, it must also be stated that Brunel's
design as originally built had certain design flaws, which had
to be rectified later, when it was found that the structure was
leaning. The original cast iron columns were replaced by hexagonal
steel stanchions 1916-24.
13. In the north as elsewhere, Dobson and
Brunels' work was further adapted by NER Chief Architect Thomas
Prosser RIBA for York Station, 1877 and indeed two further spans
of similar, although developed, design were added to Newcastle
Central 1892-94 by the then NER Chief Architect William Bell.
These are listed as Grade I along with the rest of the station,
which also by then had the addition of Prosser's great portico.
14. At Paddington, a need for increased
capacity led, in 1914-16, to the addition of Span 4, joining onto
the three earlier spans. It was probably the work of WY Armstrong,
Chief Engineer of the GWR; although not a slavish copy of Spans
1, 2, and 3 (it is constructed from steel rather than iron) it
is again a soaring arched structure of distinction and of its
time, using some engineering elements of the earlier spans, yet
designed and decorated to carefully blend with and complement
Spans 1, 2 and 3 to which it is attached. Together, all four spans
make a magnificent trainshed roof. Shockingly, although Spans
1, 2 and 3 have been carefully restored in recent years, Span
4 has, despite being an integral part of a Grade I building, been
neglected and hidden from view for the past decade by scaffolding.
I believe this to be the last great trainshed span to be built
of its type, and it makes up 25% of the station interior. Bill
Fawcett, in his History of North Eastern Railway Architecture,
Vol 1 p 62, has a picture, with the caption "Detail of Paddington
Station, showing the Warren truss at the junction of the Brunel
roof with the 1914-16 Span 4. This is identical with the trusses
at the valleys of the other spans".
15. When Paddington was given Grade I listing
in January 1961 doubtless its connection with Brunel was part
of the reason for such status. Its listing description, however,
clearly recognises that it is work of many individuals and a building
which has evolved over time. The lawn and the offices along Eastbourne
Terrace are specifically included also, even though "much
altered" from the original. Newcastle Central is also listed
Grade I and is the work of a number of people also. I believe
that these buildings were listed and are valued in the main for
their intrinsic engineering, historic and architectural interest,
regardless of who designed them. International charters on conservation
and the system of listing in England make it clear that buildings
are listed in their entirety, and all significant and quality
additions over time are to be regarded as part of that listing,
valued and conserved. Indeed, most listed buildings consist of
the work of more than one era—buildings do develop and are
added to over time.
16. In recent times Network Rail decided
that it needed to alter Paddington for a variety of reasons and
build new offices, shops etc to bring in more revenue, despite
the glut of empty office space in London. Although not within
the scope of this submission, although further information can
be forwarded if required, there is much which I perceive to be
flawed in what then developed. Network Rail and its architects
Grimshaw Associates devised a scheme retaining Spans 1, 2 and
3, which dispensed with Span 4, despite this being an integral
and elegant part of a Grade I listed building, which should have
the highest level of protection, claiming all manner of "public"
(although which section of the public is not clear) benefits for
the new scheme (and presumably major financial benefits for Railtrack).
I have no doubt a scheme could have been devised which would have
incorporated a repaired Span 4 into it, as Government guidance
demands, but this was apparently never properly explored, and
the "bulldoze and replace" scheme was the preferred
option.
17. The new design went through the Design
Review process, and was apparently duly pronounced excellent.
At that point however CABE acted outside its apparent area of
expertise and commented also on the quality of the existing structure
of Span 4, which I understand it bizarrely derided as "pastiche"
and dismissed as not worthy of retention. Although images of the
proposed interior were minimal, it decided that the new build
would complement and blend with Spans 1, 2 and 3 in a far superior
manner than the Grade I listed Span 4.
18. A representative of CABE, architecture
journalist Paul Finch, then proceeded to engage in public debate
regarding Paddington with Adam Wilkinson, Secretary of SAVE Britain's
Heritage, a body horrified by the demolition proposals for obvious
reasons, on Radio 4's Front Row in July 2003 (an archive recording
is available via the internet).
19. What I heard during this debate appalled
me. Mr Finch dismissed Mr Wilkinson's very valid concerns and
undoubted expertise regarding international charters and English
law on the protection of historic buildings, the attraction and
importance of Span 4 as an integral part of a Grade I listed building,
and the desirability and indeed capability, in terms of adaptation
and re-use to the benefit of the traveller, of retaining this,
and displayed in turn singular lack of concern for, and knowledge
of, the laws pertaining to listing buildings. He seemed to feel
that listing cathedrals and their additions over time was acceptable,
and that is really what Grade I listing protection is about, but
the same laws did not really apply to Paddington, as Span 4 was
only "technically" part of the Grade I listing, despite
it clearly being included in the listing description. He stated
that Span 4 was "only listed as Grade I as it was attached
to Brunel's work" (ignoring the input of others into Paddington)
and stated Brunel's work "is the work of a great genius"
the other work is not. He also, in my view, went way beyond the
remit of CABE, and must surely have had some undue influence on
those listening, speaking as a representative of a publicly funded
body.
20. Span 4 and its demolition is a hugely
controversial matter; the President of ICOMOS International, Prof
Michael Pretzer, wrote to English Heritage, stating that "As
Paddington Station forms part of the proposed Great Western Railway
World Heritage Site, the demolition of such an integral element
of the station, reflecting the rapid development of railways in
Britain, is not acceptable and could threaten the inscription
of this site on the World Heritage List."
21. Westminster Council, faced with an application
for the largest demolition of a Grade I listed building anywhere,
had to consider the claimed public benefits for a section of the
public to be gained by allowing its demolition (although I believe
similar benefits may have been achieved by a scheme retaining
Span 4 if the wider commercial interests of Network Rail had not
also been involved) against the long-term public interest of retention.
It had also to weigh up the importance of Span 4. I gather what
tipped the balance in favour of demolition was CABE's endorsement
of the new build ("a magnificent scheme" according to
Mr Finch on Radio 4) and its comprehensive dismissal of Span 4
as "pastiche" and of no architectural or historic merit.
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
22. This is not an isolated case, but it
is a hugely serious one. To allow demolition of a major and far
from unimportant (in architectural and historic terms) part of
a Grade I listed building and replace it with work of unproven
merit, when it could and should be retained into any new scheme,
is a disturbing national precedent. It calls into question the
protection supposedly afforded to Grade I listed buildings. The
fact that CABE went beyond its remit in this case to so very publicly
dismiss the importance of Span 4 and promote a replacement building,
without there being any official membership representing conservation
bodies on CABE to provide an expert opinion, is a cause for great
concern.
23. The membership of CABE at the moment
does seem to be weighted in favour of those with development and
new architecture expertise and interests. If CABE is to continue
to pronounce on the quality of a proposed development, without
any apparent balancing overview taking into account the broader
interests of that building's effect on existing architecture and
its surroundings, which process then facilitates the needless
destruction of our important built heritage, that is in my view
an unacceptable state of affairs and one in need of rectification
sooner rather than later.
|
