HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW

The Heritage Protection Review

The government first made a commitment to review the way we protect our historic environment in The Historic Environment:A Force for our Future (). The consultation paper Protecting our Historic Environment: Making the System Work Better () set out the govern- ment’s proposals for improving this system and objectives to deliver: • a positive approach to managing the historic environment, which would be transparent, inclusive, effective and sustainable and central to social, economic agendas at a local and community as well as national level • a historic environment legislative framework that provided for the management and enabling of change rather than its prevention. The resulting government report, Review of Heritage Protection:The Way Forward (), included a series of short- and long-term measures. The first of the short-term objectives was imple- mented in April , with the handing-over of responsibility for processing listing applications to English Heritage. Other long-term measures will require primary legislation and work on the Heritage White Paper is under way, with a provisional publication date for autumn .

The core proposals of the Heritage Protection Review are:  A new unified Register of Historic • complex entities that comprise many Sites and Buildings of England (RHSBE) similar or several different assets offering a holistic approach to the statutory • assets of a similar type in single ownership protection of the historic environment or management, but in dispersed locations through a single designation regime and • assets that are better managed alongside new overarching definition of ‘historic other regimes (eg in the natural environ- assets’. ment).  A reformed heritage consent regime  New statutory requirements relating that will be implemented by local authori- to Historical Environment Records. ties, with assistance from English Heritage. Local authorities will be required to It will build on the best of the present maintain or ensure that they have access systems and is likely to distinguish between: to an HER that meets nationally defined • below-ground (and water) archaeology standards. These are likely to relate to data and monumentalised structures protocols, interoperability and the inclusion • historic buildings and structures suited to in HERs of: adaptive re-use • a local section of the RHSBE and local • historic landscapes and seascapes. sites and buildings at risk registers • relevant data from the national RHSBE  Voluntary ‘heritage partnership maintained by English Heritage agreements’ that provide an alternative • details of the local coastal and marine management regime for: historic environment(where relevant). • large assets

Abbreviations used in this issue DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government (formerly ODPM) DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport HAR Historic Asset Record HER Historic Environment Record HPA Heritage Partnership Agreement HPR Heritage Protection Review LPA Local Planning Authority ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now DCLG) RHSBE Register of Historic Sites and Buildings in England

2 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW Transforming Heritage Protection English Heritage and the Heritage White Paper Peter Beacham Heritage Protection Director, English Heritage

After three years of consultation and testing, the government is about to recommend how England’s heritage protection system should be modernised.

We are at a decisive moment in the process statutory management agreements; and improv- of reforming the way we protect and manage ing local authority delivery based on statutory our historic environment. After three years of Historic Environment Records (HERs). The review, consultation and testing the Heritage response to the consultation indicated a broad White Paper will soon set out the govern- consensus firmly in favour of these proposals ment’s thinking on the way ahead, including and government accepted the force of the legislative change. Whether this White Paper argument in their decision report Protecting the will succeed in transforming the system and Historic Environment:The Way Forward in : it help change perceptions about the sector, only became a Labour Party manifesto commitment time will tell. English Heritage believes there is for the  general election. a strong case for decisive and radical change to Not the least of the necessary reforms will affirm the vital role of the historic environment be the increased openness and accountability of in our local and national life. the system: one of the reasons why the present Why reform? Some fear if we embark on system is criticised is the perception that it does major change we shall risk eroding the statu- not measure up to the demands of modern tory protection for the historic environment governance and human rights legislation in so hard won over the last century. This cannot several important aspects, especially the listing be the case. The government gave an assurance and scheduling processes. What is more, the at the start of the Heritage Protection Review proposed reforms have been thoroughly tested. (HPR) that there would be no diminution of Over the last two years, and at government’s current levels of protection: English Heritage request, English Heritage has been working and the sector will hold government to account out how these changes would apply to real-life to ensure that pledge is kept. And the sector sites, buildings and landscapes. We did not itself is now robust enough to argue its case choose the easy targets, rather we went for from a position of strength and common some of the most complex and difficult. We purpose. It has come of age in drawing were also looking for owners, managers and together its disparate threads to become a local authorities with whom we could explore coherent force concerned as much for our a better way of working in partnership and future as our past. developing a shared vision for the future English Heritage believes the case for major management of assets over the long term reform is proven. The government’s consulta- instead of fire-fighting on individual designa- tion paper Protecting the Historic Environment: tions and heritage consents. Making the System Work Better of  laid down So we chose London Underground as well as the main planks of reform: unifying the desig- British Waterways; Cornwall County Council nation regimes into a new Register of Historic Highways Department as well as the National Sites and Buildings in England (RHSBE); Trust; Centre Point and the University of East stream-lining heritage consents; offering Anglia alongside Arnos Vale cemetery and the

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 3 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: transforming heritage protection

Lake District National Park; Darnall Steel- greater consistency of practice, building on our works in Sheffield and York City Walls; the recent local capacity building initiatives such as Godolphin, Weld and Holkham estates; and, of Historic Environment Local Management and course, to show we intend to lead by example, Historic Environment Champions. The clearer one of our own sites, Kenilworth Castle. The designation base builds confidence about what reformed system would also apply to ecclesiasti- is being protected, and why. Making local cal sites and buildings and the marine environ- authorities the single gateway to the new ment. So we are currently extending our pilots heritage consent process gives local planning to embrace examples of these at Canterbury authorities (LPAs) an increased sense of owner- and Rochester cathedrals and precincts as well ship of the system with English Heritage as groups of parishes in the dioceses of Bath engagement as appropriate. And the require- and Wells and Lincoln. And the marine envi- ment that every local authority will have a ronment will be the subject of parallel UK- statutory duty to establish, or have access to wide legislation under the current Marine Bill. an HER will be a crucial base for all this, What is emerging is encouraging and positive. especially since the links to the e-heritage and The new designations will significantly clarify e-planning worlds will become ever more the significance of the historic assets: that in turn important: our research shows that making gives much enhanced certainty to owners and HERs statutory will be affordable at modest managers about what matters and why, and investment levels. whether there are degrees of significance that The government is currently researching can help guide future management and develop- other aspects of the implementation of the ment. The consent process itself could be much reformed system with a particular focus on simpler and less confusing with overlapping resources for local delivery. English Heritage designations stripped out, regulation more believes an invest-to-save approach will prove sharply focused and open to more scrutiny. essential. There are demonstrable efficiencies Where they are appropriate, statutory manage- to be recovered from the reforms outlined ment agreements – currently termed Heritage above, but they require up-front investment: Partnership Agreements (HPAs) – eliminate for example, HPAs involve significant set-up unnecessary regulation by the pre-agreement of costs but could run for  or  years recoup- certain works and develop effective partnerships ing that cost many times over in savings with between owners, managers, local authorities and pre-agreed consents. English Heritage believes English Heritage. Amenity groups have gener- the historic environment deserves a statutory ally found the opportunity to engage in the system that recognises the increasing compe- drafting of such HPAs as a constructive way of tence and maturity of the sector, its partners continuing their vital role of scrutiny. and stakeholders: the evidence for our case is Most significantly of all, it is local delivery set out in the following pages. A once-in-a- that is potentially strengthened, so achieving generation opportunity must not be missed. © London Underground

The interior of Cockfosters station on the Piccadilly Line.

4 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: Designation base The Unified Designation Base and Register of Historic Sites and Buildings for England

A single integrated register will be the foundation of the reformed system for protecting England’s historic environment.

system, particularly where multiple assets of REFORMING THE SYSTEM different types are grouped together. The case studies in this edition of Conservation Bulletin The most significant innovation of the demonstrate how these new approaches have reformed system is the creation of a new kind been effective in improving the understanding of unified designation that brings together the of complex historic entities and facilitating their former scheduling, listing and registration management. regimes. For the first time, it will attempt to enshrine in legislation and process the recogni- The unified designation base tion that the historic environment is often a complex entity, composed of several comple- The new approach will allow historic assets to mentary parts. For that reason, its significance be identified more flexibly and comprehen- and effective management may be obscured or sively, and their significance more clearly diminished if it is fragmented among disparate assessed. Even the apparently most straight- designation and control regimes. forward asset – a single building, say – may have This fundamental concept sits at the heart of associated land or structures which contribute the reformed system and gives rise to its key to its significance, but which have only limited features: recognition, or contested protection under the • the RHSBE will be the place where comple- current system. Sometimes a group of assets are mentary historic assets are brought together better identified and understood together – for under one register entry, and their complex instance a traditional farmstead, or a group of interrelationships and relative significances related industrial buildings, or the remains of flagged with clarity; processes such as those at the early steelworks • a new system of heritage consent will arise at Darnall, Sheffield. The merits of a unified directly from such unified designations; approach are particularly clear for those very • ‘joined-up’ management of historic assets complex sites in which multiple designations are through HPA is a very practical manifestation currently adjacent or overlapping. These might of the unifying principle. perhaps involve a group of listed structures in a The new Heritage Consent and Heritage registered setting, and underlain by scheduled Partnership Agreements are discussed in the remains – as in the case of the Museum Gardens articles that follow, while here we look in more and St Mary’s Abbey Precinct in York. The detail at the unified system and the Register inconsistencies, complexities and frustrations itself. that may all too easily arise in the assessment and A wide-ranging series of pilot projects and management of such complex areas can be case studies has allowed English Heritage to removed in a system that allows for their holistic test, on a variety of complex sites, approaches and integrated identification. to unified designation which come as close to Mapping will have a particularly important the integrated assessment and management of part to play in ensuring clarity. Its use to define these sites as can be achieved under the current the extent of the registered site, to set out the

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 5 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: designation base

boundaries of individual assets and to identify heritage protection is a determination to areas of differing character and significance, has provide increased openness and clarity. The been successfully rolled out in the pilot projects. new Register, in both its local and national At the point of designation, mapping will also sections, will be a prime agent in achieving have the extremely significant role of signalling this. It will be a first point of contact, it will be the appropriate regulatory regime to be applied easily accessible, it will set out comprehensively to the various component parts of the site. what is designated and why, and it will explain clearly the regulation and management mecha- The Register nism attached to the registered asset.

The Register will comprise two parts: Further work • a ‘main section’, compiled by English Heritage, that includes nationally significant While we have made significant progress on heritage assets, incorporating all existing listed, the format and processes surrounding the new scheduled and registered assets (parks and Register, there is substantial work still to be gardens and battlefields), with the addition of done. The question of how we review and World Heritage Sites; transfer existing designations into the new • a ‘local section’, compiled by local authorities, Register is a key issue. How the new designa- that includes conservation areas and other local tion base triggers subsequent control mecha- designations such as local lists. nisms also needs careful development. At For the main section, multiple related assets English Heritage we are now working with our will be grouped together under a Register partners to determine how best to present Entry ‘wrapper’ that explains the context of the information for owners and also how our own entire site and allows a holistic description of its data can be effectively shared with others such importance. For the first time important inter- as the National Monuments Record and local relationships will be made statutorily explicit. HER systems. Sitting below the wrapper would be a series This work has involved staff from across of Historic Asset Records (HARs) that would English Heritage, local authorities, owners and set out the details of the component assets of managers and amenity groups; partnership is a the larger entity. Non-complex entities – the vital element both in developing the new majority – will be entered on the Register as a process, and in its subsequent operation. All simple HAR, with no overarching wrapper. who have worked and commented on the Every HAR will be fronted by a Summary of development of the unified system have Importance that sets out explicitly, clearly and contributed strongly to our progress to date on briefly what it is that makes the building or this linchpin of reform. site worthy of designation. English Heritage Sarah Buckingham and Paul Jeffrey already employs Summaries of Importance for Heritage Protection Department, English Heritage new designations under the current system; their huge benefits in clarifying and simplifying the designation process should brook no delay. Darnall Works, Sheffield. Feedback so far has indicated that the increased An internal view of the openness and clarity is appreciated, as is the Grade II* crucible work- sharper definition of what is and is not shop – just one of the designated. numerous designated Most consideration so far has been given to but sadly neglected the development of the main section of the structures that make Register – the forthcoming heritage White up this complex and Paper will need to offer more detail on local historically important designation. The local section of the Register, 19th-century industrial compiled by local authorities against criteria site. and guidance prepared nationally by English Heritage, will present an opportunity to iron out some of the inconsistencies seen in current designation and management practice through England as a whole, and to raise standards over- all. It may also allow local designations to bene- fit from the greater integration, clarity and flexibility of the reformed system as a whole.

The driving force behind the new system of © English Heritage

6 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: designation base

Arnos Vale cemetery cemeteries like Arnos Vale difficult places to The HPR is premised upon an integrated run. The crematorium installed here in the approach to the historic environment. We have s provided some profit, but when this a singularly rich inheritance to champion: from facility lost its licence the owner, responsible prehistoric sites to Cold War aerodromes; from for the safety of visitors, closed the cemetery architectural masterpieces to much-loved altogether. Locals felt excluded from a vital communities. Just how we divide up the green space; mourners and relatives felt shut myriad places that deserve statutory designation out; Bristolians and visitors from beyond is one of the questions asked by the review. At likewise felt deprived of an asset of national Arnos Vale cemetery, we set out to find out importance. whether our approach to historic landscapes Statutory designation is intended to safe- was the right one. guard the survival of places of special interest: Arnos Vale is one of the best known of early at places like Arnos Vale, one senses all too Victorian cemeteries. Opened in , it clearly the reasons for our widely admired consists of a steeply sided dell set on the eastern systems of heritage protection. They formed edge of Bristol. An existing garden was taken the justification for the compulsory purchase over by the commercial promoters of the order that was subsequently served by Bristol cemetery, and elegant Greek Revival chapels City Council. A trust was established to take and lodges were built (to the designs of Charles over the running of the place, backed up by a Underwood). Elaborate private monuments highly motivated friends organisation. soon followed. The result was an elegiac land- Our mission was to check whether the scape, in which planting, landscaping, architec- designations we already had were fit for ture, sculpture and inscriptions all combine to purpose. The relevant designation regimes here create an atmosphere of emotional tenderness were listing and the Register of Parks and and religious devotion. As the tombs grew in Gardens. Were they integrated sufficiently? Did number so this atmosphere grew in intensity. they do the job of celebrating special interest The mercantile might of Bristol found its well enough? funereal expression in Arnos Vale, and the Listing had been done in two phases: as part memorials testify to family pride and to social of the Bristol re-survey, and subsequently as a ambition. It easily stands comparison with the spot-listing trawl that picked up a number of great London cemeteries such as Highgate and omissions (inevitable, given the overgrown Abney Park. nature of the place and the sheer density of the In recent years, however, the cemetery has memorials, estimated at some , in fallen on hard times. Dwindling reserves and number). The HPR pilot study undertook a rising maintenance obligations make private whirlwind review of the tombs, and concluded © Roger Bowdler, English Heritage

Arnos Vale cemetery, Bristol. An elegiac landscape where the overall significance transcends the sum of its individual land- scaping, architectural and sculptural components.

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 7 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: designation base

that the right ones had been selected for desig- entry for its contextual approach. nation. The Register of Parks and Gardens One of the more important conclusions to entry was fairly recent, and certainly stood up be drawn from this pilot project is that the to scrutiny. A management plan by Nicholas designatory basis that listing and the Register Pearson Associates helped greatly, too. provide is essentially sound, but that approaches And yet something was missing: the separate need to be brought together if true significance approaches failed to give an overall sense of the is to be flagged and specialness celebrated. The totality of the place. The landscape entry prospect of a unified Register of Historic Sites studiously avoided mentioning monuments, and Buildings of England enables these aspira- while the list entries scrupulously avoided all tions to be met. mention of setting and context. Not that this is Roger Bowdler to be wondered at: designations have hitherto Heritage Protection Department, English Heritage been kept very separate, each with their own distinct mission. And yet one cannot but feel that a major opportunity exists to do things Rochester Cathedral and Precinct: better. an ecclesiastical pilot project in Designation should identify special features, north Kent and shed light on their claims to special atten- tion. This could be architectural, or sculptural, The Rochester pilot project examines how the or historical: list descriptions are replaced with HPR might impact on the Church of England’s HARs, which serve as the prompts to shared management of its estate in a cathedral-close understanding and have conservation and environment. It aims to test new methods of educational uses. Some might think it invidious assigning significance to some of our nation’s to single out memorials for special attention, most precious assets. Collaboration with project rather than the totality, but some tombs will partners, including the Dean and Chapter, the always warrant a more bespoke approach to Cathedral Fabric Commission and Medway their care, and designation can help identify Council, has been a key factor in the design of priorities for repair work and interpretation. a useful and usable new system that could bring The landscape is treated as an element in its real benefits to future management of the own right, but more care is taken to connect cathedral and precinct. the tombs with their setting, and vice versa. Rochester, on the banks of the River And all the individual elements are now Medway in north Kent, has a long and signifi- placed within a Register Entry, which owes cant history as both a cathedral city and port. It much to the Register of Parks and Gardens is the second oldest episcopal see in the country © Veronica Fiorato,Veronica © English Heritage

The Grade II mid-18th to 19th-century former Diocesan Registry on the Bishop’s Palace site, Rochester which incorporates part of the medieval precinct wall.The current list description makes no mention that the ground beneath it is of national importance.

8 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: designation base

The Bishops’ Palace area, Rochester.The central building range incorporates material from the south range of the 15th-century palace. Note the fabric and blocked windows of the gabled end elevation. © Veronica Fiorato,Veronica © English Heritage

(after Canterbury), founded in AD , with archaeological significance of the cathedral and the present cathedral dating from the th precinct. century. Although Rochester’s precinct is The reassessment of the site of the palace of partially protected by current legislation, with the bishops of Rochester, to the south-west of  listed buildings and  scheduled monuments, the cathedral, proved a valuable test-bed for the there are also notable gaps, which include areas new-style documentation. The area has a long of nationally important archaeological remains time depth from the early rd to the late th that have no protection under the current centuries and contains a range of nationally system. In addition the existing documentation important historic assets. These include: the is poor. Scheduling descriptions are brief and buried archaeological remains of the early rd- do not provide an adequate understanding of century Roman town defences and the th to the archaeological significance of the precinct. th-century city wall; a mid-th-century Some listed buildings had been assessed without building, possibly an early bishops’ house; the benefit of internal inspections and their buried and upstanding remains of the Bishops’ descriptions are therefore incomplete and, in Palace from about ; th to th-century some cases, inaccurate. However, the existence domestic properties partly re-using earlier of a Cathedral Conservation Plan (Keevill fabric; and the medieval precinct wall, which ) provided an invaluable springboard for defines the western edge of the site. This area is fieldwork in late . partially designated in the form of three Grade The first stage of the project was to research II-listed structures, one Grade II* building and and compile new-style designation documenta- a scheduled monument. The latter extends tion for the precinct area, the form of which only to one-third of the land parcel and the had been devised by earlier pilot studies and monument description does not even mention was further developed at Rochester. In essence the presence of the palace! The current docu- this removed divisions between current listed mentation does not provide an accurate under- and scheduled assets, rightly blurring the standing of the significance of the elements of boundaries between what was traditionally the site, nor does it provide any concept of the described as architectural or archaeological. An development of the whole. added advantage was the opportunity to study Our three main principles for the new-style groups of buildings and monuments, an document were that it should be accessible, approach lacking in the current listing system, and that it should explain the entire Bishops’ which greatly enhanced understanding of their Palace complex both spatially (horizontally and interrelationships. Finally, the pilot provided vertically) and temporally. This would enable the opportunity to raise the profile of the the occupier of an individual property to

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 9 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: designation base

understand what was significant about their part Centre Point tower at of the site in architectural, archaeological and the heart of London’s historical terms, as well as appreciating how West End was built in their element was a part of a larger story about 1961–6 to the design the history and development of the western of Richard Seifert and precinct. It is also worth stressing that in place Partners and is now a of five different listing and scheduling descrip- © Delcia Keate, English Heritage Grade II-listed building. tions and maps, the pilot project proposed one HAR and one associated map for the whole Bishops’ Palace area, significantly simplifying the paperwork for the Dean and Chapter and tenants. Work is ongoing, and the partnerships, both at Rochester and with the Cathedral Fabric Commission, are developing. However, the pilot has already offered the chance to amalga- mate archaeological, historical and architectural designation approaches, to review existing arrangements and to work collectively towards a system that makes integrated management more attainable. Veronica Fiorato Heritage Protection Department, English Heritage REFERENCE upgrading of services. If they are listed, this can Keevill, . Rochester Conservation Plan, . Parts 1 & 2. Keevill Heritage Consultancy mean significant numbers of applications for listed building consent for often routine works. While the jury is still out on the quality of  What makes Centre Point special? much s commercial architecture, the accel- erating pace of redevelopment, where proposals Centre Point stands at the intersection of to demolish buildings less than  years old are Oxford Street, Charing Cross Road and now commonplace, dictates that we must be Tottenham Court Road and is one of central ahead of public taste if we are to preserve the London’s most prominent landmarks. It was very best products of this generation. The thor- built in – to the design of Richard Seifert ough reappraisal of the entire Centre Point and Partners, and was listed Grade II in , complex has confirmed it not only as an excep- when a proposal threatened to alter its appear- tional and innovative piece of s design, but ance. The slender, slightly convex -storey also as a building with a distinct hierarchy tower is supported on distinctive ‘wasp- where relative levels of significance can be waisted’ pilotis clad in grey ceramic mosaic. readily identified and demarcated. The new Technically advanced, and sculpturally striking, HAR not only expands the existing list descrip- the building marked a high point in the English tion, which concentrated on the external archi- high-rise. Centre Point is not just an office tecture, but seeks to communicate more clearly block, but was designed as a multi-use what is special about Centre Point and thus complex. An elegant, curtain-glazed first-floor better informs the process of managing future link connects the tower to a lower block to the change. east, with ground-floor shops, a bank at the Centre Point is listed for its architectural north end and a pub at the south, two tiers of interest and innovation. The tower, widely offices and six storeys of maisonettes above. To acclaimed as one of the finest high-rise compo- the front of the tower is a pool with concrete sitions of the s, was a deliberate departure fountains. All form part of the listed building from the smooth regularity of International and are therefore subject to listed building Modernism towards a more inventive, sculptural control. approach, admired at the time and since for its Centre Point was selected as a pilot project confidence and originality. Not only is the because it exemplifies some of the key issues tower itself of interest, but also its relationship which heritage protection reform seeks to with the link and rear block, each element being address. Modern commercial buildings in multi- individually expressed to identify its discrete ple occupancy, as well as private flats, are almost function. That said, we are also more explicit constantly undergoing refurbishment and that the architectural quality of the ensemble

10 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: designation base

The Godolphin estate: a new framework for understanding and designating the historic environment Godolphin House is one of Cornwall’s most important houses, sited within a historic land- © Delcia Keate, English Heritage scape that has developed over centuries. Here we have been able to explore new ways of approaching the interpretation and designation of historic assets. The substantial mining wealth and the politi- cal power of the Godolphin family from the th century onwards led to the development of an estate to match the family’s status. The house, with fabric dating back to the th Centre Point, diminishes at the rear block, which is patently century, stands within early formal gardens. The mezzanine standard ‘s commercial’ (it was in fact The wider landscape includes a late th- entrance lobby conceived as part of a superseded scheme the century deer park, within which are the with mosaic-clad tower of which had a very different elevational remains of prehistoric and medieval field pilotis and treatment). Its importance as a component of a systems, prehistoric enclosures, early tin mining distinctive planned ensemble, in terms of its scale, massing and th-century rabbit warrening. There are paving. and relationship to the link and principal tower, also important tin- and copper-mining remains is none the less fully recognised and should help at Godolphin and Great Work Mines, which inform future planning proposals. provided much of the family’s early wealth. Internally, the special interest lies principally The Godolphin estate was chosen as one of within the public areas of the tower and link the pilot projects to test the application of the block. The original mezzanine entrance lobby, proposed heritage protection reforms because reached by an external stair, is the most impres- of its diverse range of assets. Under the present sive space. Here, the deeply tapering upper legislative system there are  listed buildings sections of the massive pilotis rise dramatically on the estate – four listed at Grade I – and from white marble and black terrazzo paving. much of the area is designated as a Grade II* The interior of the link block is also impressive Registered Park and Garden. It also lies within – on either side curtain-wall glazing is the Tregonning and Gwinear districts, which constructed of large sheets of ‘armour’ glass are part of the Cornish mining area proposed with central steel bosses, from which tapering for World Heritage status. Land to the west and glass fins project upwards to the ceiling. south of Godolphin House is in an The overwhelming majority of the interiors, Environmental Stewardship scheme. Although however, patently lack special interest, and this there are presently no scheduled ancient is made explicit in the HAR. The offices, monuments at Godolphin, an assessment report always plain and functional, have been altered. produced by Cornwall County Council in The maisonettes, shops and pub have been  identified a number of nationally impor- refurbished many times and do not have tant archaeological remains. Additionally, features of note. The bank has been converted research in the s by English Heritage on to a café and similarly has no original features the non-ferrous metals industries has resulted in of interest, apart from a mosaic decoration by recommendations for the statutory protection Jupp Dernbach-Mayern. of most of the estate’s mining remains. The Centre Point pilot has been invaluable The pilot project was set up in partnership in evolving a more rigorous approach to how with the National Trust, the Schofield family we assess significance in large modern, mixed- and Kerrier District Council. Fundamental to use sites, and how we communicate their the project was an assessment of all aspects of the claims to special interest. An HPA has been estate’s historical development and importance – drafted, but changes of ownership and the issue whether traditionally considered to be archaeol- of local authority resources have made us aware ogy, historic buildings or designed landscape. of the challenges that delivery of HPAs will The aim was to demonstrate the significance, sometimes bring. The designation lessons, and protect the integrity, of the whole historic however, are clear. landscape at Godolphin, if appropriate, rather than having the current artificial demarcation Delcia Keate between individual listed, registered or nation- Heritage Protection Department, English Heritage ally important archaeological remains. The pilot

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 11 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: designation base

Godolphin House, one of Cornwall’s most important houses.The magnificent early 17th- century colonnaded north front was a remarkably advanced architectural treatment for a relatively small country house. © Jill Guthrie, English Heritage work has effectively demonstrated that for Godolphin, and together these form a single complex sites where there are multiple designa- Register Entry for the whole estate. tions that closely relate to each other, a two-tier Grouping archaeology, historic buildings approach to designation proves invaluable. This and designed elements of the landscape where involves identifying and designating individual appropriate within a single Register Entry assets, or grouping those that are inter-related allows for a more contextual description of the whether physically or historically, in HARs. way assets relate to each other and the way a These are accompanied by a single Register complex site has developed as a historic entity. Entry, which provides an overarching descrip- This ensures that the significance of the key tion of the site and its significance, as a whole. assets are understood and valued not only in In terms of the proposed new-style Register, their own right but also within a wider Godolphin House, its associated forecourt struc- historical context. Here at Godolphin the key tures, th-century stables and late th-century to the site’s importance is its historical land- formal gardens can be gathered under a single scape: the coherence of a complex but HAR as a coherent group of spatially and histor- understandable pattern of important remains. ically related assets. Elsewhere on the estate, the The move towards unified designation and a standing and archaeological remains at holistic description enables recognition of the Godolphin Mine (including three listed build- significance and integrity of the site in its ings) can also be grouped together, reflecting the entirety, which in turn increases understanding significance of the whole mine complex not and explains why assets are designated, leading only for its contribution to our understanding of to the provision of better information and the development of mining techniques but also greater engagement by owners, managers and for its strong historic interest through association professionals.  with the Godolphin family. In all, HARs Jill Guthrie were produced for the significant components at Heritage Protection Department, English Heritage

The Godolphin estate in Cornwall. The key to managing a complex site of this kind is to understand its historical landscape. © English Heritage

12 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW Streamlined Consents

A unified system of heritage designation will only work if it is supported by a streamlined consent regime.

The current system of scheduling ancient SIMPLIFYING THE PROCESSES monuments is underpinned by a very strict regulatory regime. This assumes little change When the DCMS published its response to the will occur to a structure or site, or that any consultation on reforming the heritage protec- change that is allowed will receive the closest tion system, it set clear objectives. Aside from scrutiny. A regime of this kind finds it philo- the unified Register, there is to be a unified sophically difficult to accommodate radical consent regime to manage assets, administered change, and cannot readily respond to frequent whenever possible locally and at the ‘heart of and diverse operations relating to fabric. While the community’. The current system, despite its it is eminently suited to the management of untidy growth and complexities, has many buried or static remains, it is cumbersome and strengths, but it is also apparent, especially to unduly restrictive for buildings and structures those of us with a day-to-day engagement with with an active use, or the capacity for adaptive it, that there is room for improvement. reuse. By contrast, the listed-building-consent As designatory mechanisms for protecting regime, geared as it is to management of the buried, built and landscape heritage change, is sometimes felt to be insufficiently evolved, so did mechanisms for their manage- rigorous in terms of the preservation of our ment. Indeed, as awareness of the value of most important and fragile historic assets. This different elements of the historic environment has led in the past to assets being scheduled has grown, so too have unique management rather than listed, or given dual designation. systems evolved to address the perceived needs The scheduling regime is at its most inflexi- of each group. The result is a series of parallel ble when applied to complex sites containing systems, each with its own conceptual frame- numerous assets, mostly standing structures of work of values. This problem is compounded differing age, relative significance, function, by some asset groups being located in the wrong maintenance and development programmes. system – for example, considerable numbers of Though the schedule will state at some length standing buildings and structures are scheduled the significance of the asset, it will not define as ancient monuments. Without a grading it by grade. Ironically, a hierarchy of signifi- system to suggest their relative significance, cance of assets within the site will only become these assets are subject to a regime which has apparent if elements are listed at different grades little engagement with the local community as well as being scheduled. Furthermore, the and which may moreover be inappropriate to different components of the asset, often varying their particular needs.

Higher New Bridge, Cornwall. Now famous for being both scheduled and listed – twice – and at different grades, this structure is currently subject to the close management of scheduled monument consent. All works, including vegetation clearance and the smallest areas of re-pointing, need separate applications for consent, submitted directly to the Secretary of State. It is proposed that in future these works can be formally pre-agreed, and undertaken at the

discretion of the County Council. Anne Lovejoy,© English Heritage

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 13 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: streamlined consents

widely in date and function, are all subject to conservation areas, have led to a further prolif- the same management regime. An example is eration of regulatory regimes. Applicants seek- provided in the case study of Kenilworth Castle ing planning permission involving demolition (see page ). in conservation areas have to secure separate While listed-building and conservation-area approval of conservation-area consent, often consents are firmly lodged within a planning little more than a duplication of the material system based upon democratic decision-making submitted in their planning application. balanced by expert opinion and oversight, the scheduling process remains a closed operation, A streamlined approach managed by government departments and agencies. While the origins of this are well- The main benefits of a streamlined consent understood, it sits increasingly at odds with a regime will be the abolition of the artificial world that puts decision-making in the public distinction between archaeology and standing domain, and as close to a local level as is practi- buildings and the ability to differentiate assets cably achievable. on the principle of their appropriate manage- Despite the strengths of the current manage- ment. Assets could in future be defined by ment regimes, some elements of the historic categories: below-ground and marine archaeol- environment do not receive the degree of ogy and monumentalised structures forming protection they merit because they fall outside one group, and historic buildings and structures all of the available criteria. For example, areas capable of adaptive reuse forming the second. of archaeologically sensitive land adjacent to A union and classification of this kind would designated areas are vulnerable to unregulated effectively end the confusion on dual designa- excavation. By contrast, designed landscapes, tion, and reduce the stress on a regulatory long recognised as a highly significant group regime manifestly not suited to the effective within the heritage canon, receive protection management of active assets. It would also through being deemed a ‘material considera- significantly simplify the process for all tion’ in the planning process, yet receive no those involved. protection for specific trees or other assets, nor Where appropriate, the streamlined consent for the replanting of significant structural regime could facilitate statutory management elements of a designed scheme. agreements for a range of heritage assets. With Parallel local-authority designations, like the capacity to pre-agree a range of operations, © David Morgan,© David English Heritage

The Fursdon Estate, mid-Devon. Control of felling of specimen or veteran trees (above) and the replanting of orchards, seen on the top left of the 1842 tithe map (below), could be one option for the new consent regime.

14 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: streamlined consents

including both repairs and alterations, these listed buildings the estate includes or bisects  would move the management of heritage assets World Heritage Sites,  Historic Battlefields,  firmly into the st century. This is a manage- Registered Historic Parks,  scheduled monu- ment environment based on true partnership. ments, more than  sq km of conservation With a thorough understanding of the signifi- area and thousands of below-ground archaeo- cance of a site and mutual agreement on a range logical deposits. of operations to be undertaken, an owner or Much of the British Waterways estate is  manager will be able to progress a programme years old and its continued existence requires of works, initiated at their discretion, with the careful management, conservation and repair. full confidence that it has the support of all British Waterways is helping to pilot an HPA stakeholders engaged in the process. for the historic site of Foxton Locks and This unification would bring management of Inclined Plane on the Leicester Line of the all nationally designated heritage assets firmly Grand Union Canal. within the ambit of local government, with the HPAs are one way to ensure that significant appropriate input from English Heritage in the heritage assets are appropriately managed. case of higher-graded listed buildings. The Following restructuring in  British grading of previously scheduled assets would Waterways now has designated Heritage also bring monuments firmly within the Adviser posts at each of its  waterway busi- national designation framework, act as a meas- ness units that manage its estate. Front-line ure of relative national importance, and help to expertise is central to British Waterways’ prioritise English Heritage’s engagement in heritage management strategy and is essential to their management. preparing for changes to the heritage protection Because the new designation system will be regime in England, including the development supported by maps that identify all significant of HPAs. British Waterways is particularly elements of the site and establish ‘zones of interested in developing HPAs as a way of control’, it will in future be possible to provide increasing self-regulation and of reducing the control for elements of a site that are at present bureaucracy involved in making repeat consent unprotected. Although careful consideration applications to proceed with certain works to needs to be given to the balance of regulation historic assets. and the rights of the owner, licensing and With support from the Heritage Protection recording of finds in specified areas may, for Team at English Heritage, British Waterways is example, be a reasonable means of regulating piloting an HPA for the site of Foxton Locks metal-detecting. Co-opting the Tree and Inclined Plane in Leicestershire. Foxton is a Preservation Order regime used in conservation multi-designated historic canal site. It is a areas may likewise be considered an appropriate conservation area and contains listed buildings approach in registered landscapes, as could tree- that are still operational, the disused site of a planting schemes leading to the reinstatement unique inclined plane classified as a scheduled of avenues or orchards. monument, and associated archaeology, some These proposals, in conjunction with parallel of it from pre-canal eras. The site is popular moves to combine planning permission and with visitors and includes a working boatyard, a conservation-area consent, will bring us closer teashop and a public house, which British to a regulatory system truly fit for purpose in Waterways has developed as part of its joint- the st century. venture programmes. The first step in preparing the Foxton HPA David Morgan was for English Heritage to draft a unified Heritage Protection Department, English Heritage Register Entry and designation site map of the kind that would be needed under the proposed heritage protection legislation. Other building blocks of the HPA are the Foxton Locks Heritage Partnership Foxton Locks and Inclined Plane Conservation Agreement Plan, which deals with the significance of the site, and British Waterways’ own framework of British Waterways is a statutory public corpora- heritage policy and principles, operating tion created by the Transport Act . It was instructions and heritage standards for physical established to operate as a nationalised industry works. The proposed Foxton HPA takes its cue on a commercial basis. British Waterways owns from existing management agreements and its ,km of inland waterways and is responsible essential component is a ‘traffic light’ system for the third-largest estate of listed buildings in relating to activities that will be undertaken or the United Kingdom. In addition to , may be planned for the site. These include

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 15 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: streamlined consents

Foxton Locks, Leicestershire. British Waterways and English Heritage have developed a pilot scheme for the streamlined management of this multi-designated historic canal site. As well as being a conservation area, the site contains listed buildings that are still operational, a unique inclined plane classified as a scheduled monument, and associated archaeol- ogy, some of it from pre-canal eras. © British Waterways Board Waterways © British operational works, maintenance works, or that auditing should be carried out by the development. A red light signals activities that British Waterways’ Head of Heritage and by an will require consent from either English English Heritage Inspector, and should concern Heritage or the local planning authority itself with ensuring accountability and compli- (Harborough District Council). These could ance within the terms of the HPA. include investigative works, rebuilding of lock The British Waterways estate – linear, scat- walls or installation of facilities such as water tered with repeated structural forms and build- points or electricity bollards. An amber light ing types that are often close in date and little indicates activities given consent via the HPA altered – is a classic example of a historic envi- that will require notification to the LPA before ronment in single ownership. British being undertaken, perhaps by exchange of Waterways feels that it lends itself to a series of email, for monitoring purposes so that a record HPAs. Hopefully, the template HPA for exists. Examples include tree lopping, re-gating Foxton will be adopted and fine-tuned, because locks or towpath resurfacing. Green light activ- British Waterways’ aim is to roll out further ities will be those that it has been agreed do not HPAs, perhaps ultimately covering entire canals need consent applications. with significant numbers of heritage assets. The success of the HPA depends on its Success relies on people and British Waterways agreement by accountable and appropriately is confident that it has the right people. qualified officers from British Waterways, Working with its partners, including English English Heritage and the local authorities, and Heritage, British Waterways is keen to engage its support by stakeholders and other interested further with what is perceived as a central parties, including, for example, the Foxton plank of the new heritage protection regime for Inclined Plane Trust and the Old Union Canals England. Society. A protocol setting out the terms of Nigel Crowe the HPA forms part of the proposed package Head of Heritage, British Waterways and a timescale is suggested for reviewing and auditing its effectiveness. It is recommended

16 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: streamlined consents

Kenilworth Castle,Warwickshire: a of listed buildings, a registered park and garden complexity of designations and the locally designated conservation area. In addition to the complexity of designation, Kenilworth Castle is one of England’s premier ownership of the sites and their settings is also castles. Its history stretches from its foundation divided: the castle is in the guardianship of by Geoffrey de Clinton under royal patronage  English Heritage, some of the adjoining land is in the s, through the major and innovative in the ownership of Kenilworth Town Council works by John of Gaunt in the th century, to  and some in private hands, and the adjoining the th century when it was fit for Queen abbey site is in the ownership and management Elizabeth, or rather for her favourite Robert of Warwick District Council. Dudley, Earl of Leicester, to woo her in palatial At the moment if anybody wishes to under- surroundings. It had only a small role in the take new works they might need to apply for a Civil War and was subsequently slighted. The bewildering variety of consents. To begin to tourists began to arrive in the th century,  understand just what is covered by each regime with the first guide-book published in . they will first have to discover and obtain Prominence in the national consciousness came copies of the designations, which could involve once again when it featured in one of the great  several phone calls to different people. works of popular th-century fiction, Sir The planning system then generates five Walter Scott’s Kenilworth. This book, published  separate control regimes. These are: scheduled in , considerably raised the castle’s profile monument consent, handled by the DCMS as a much-visited ruin. with the advice of English Heritage; class  At the heart of the site lie the red sandstone consent for English Heritage’s own works ruins of the castle and residential apartments within the guardianship area determined by defended by extensive earthworks, and the English Heritage; the LPA deals with planning now-drained lake with its associated complex permission, which would be required for many water-management systems, which doubled as building works, and with listed-building a moat and a dramatic setting for the castle. consent for the occupied buildings; and finally Adjoining the castle there is another large there is possibly conservation-area consent, also protected site, Kenilworth Abbey, also founded  handled by the LPA. Because of the high level in the early th century by Geoffrey de of the designations, each of these regimes will Clinton. The significance lies not just in the involve a wide range of consultees. obvious aesthetic and historic qualities of the The difficulty for any owner of any part of upstanding remains and landscape, but also in the site is to identify just what consents might the buried archaeological deposits. be involved in any particular operation, and This complex site is subject to a wide variety where to begin the process of making an appli- of designations covering the many aspects of its cation for works. The process could involve significance. The national designations include the DCMS in London, English Heritage in several scheduled monuments, a small number

Kenilworth Castle. A classic view of the castle from the south, across the former mere. © Nick Molyneaux, English Heritage

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 17 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: streamlined consents

Kenilworth Castle.The 16th-century stables which are part of the scheduled monument. © Nick Molyneaux, English Heritage Birmingham and the LPA at Leamington Spa been recognised in many parts of the world (Warwick District Council), with the DCLG (such as the use of the  Agreement in the (through the Government Regional Office) also USA). But has their impact been assessed? having an input at some stages. The York City Walls were chosen for an A new system would have the benefit of HPR pilot project because of their complexity, bringing together all these differing designations both in terms of overlapping designations and into one comprehensible package with a degree the number and variety of their stakeholders – of clarity currently unavailable to the wide from local authority and charitable trusts to variety of owners, and guidance as to the private and commercial owners and tenants. significance to be attached to the various parts The city walls are designated as scheduled of the site. A unified regime would mean that monuments and listed buildings, but where there was a one-stop shop to start the process, both designations apply, scheduling takes namely the LPA, with a single application form precedence. Any works to, or alteration of a to cover all the different forms of consent. The scheduled monument requires scheduled decision-making process would be in one monument consent from the Secretary of State place, with all the necessary expertise being fed at the DCMS, as advised by English Heritage. in from both local and national advisers to For a number of years English Heritage has ensure a well-informed decision based on the provided grant aid to the City of York Council knowledge now available to the owner and the for major works to the city walls. Because ‘controllers’. these are carried out under the terms of The clarity that could be delivered by such a Section  of the  Ancient Monuments new system would enable us all to achieve a and Archaeological Areas Act, and because much clearer and more transparent process for they are grant aided by English Heritage, the the management of sites of this kind of excep- applicant does not need to apply for scheduled tional significance. monument consent. However, there are numerous occasions Nicholas A D Molyneux when the City of York Council needs to carry Team Leader and Inspector of Historic Buildings, out maintenance work or repair damage caused English Heritage,West Midlands Region by accident or vandalism, and in these circum- stances the works would normally require scheduled monument consent. Because this York City Walls kind of work would be supported by English Heritage and can be identified in advance, it Management agreements are already familiar makes sense for it to be pre-agreed and classi- tools in England, particularly with regard to fied as if it were undertaken by management scheduled monuments. The conservation agreement. All the experience gained from potential of management agreements has also previous Section  works (repair techniques,

18 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: streamlined consents

Located out of the public the end of the pilot project assessments, an eye, the Anglian Tower in internal audit considered different aspects of the York had become a focus effectiveness of the agreement system and its for serious anti-social potential to deliver sustainable management behaviour. English Heritage solutions. Of particular interest was the amount and the City Council tried of time that it saved. Four enquiries had been to solve the misuse by received about works to be carried out under making the building the York Walls management agreement, all of inaccessible.The blocking which would normally have required separate works were all carried out scheduled-monument-consent applications. under the Management The time for each of these can be broken Agreement. down as follows: • Drafting of agreement and specification ( days), including specialist advice from the English Heritage Inspector of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings Architect, and  day’s involvement from the City of York works team. • Time for pre-application discussion ( hours); writing advice note to DCMS ( hour); English Heritage casework involvement ( hour); City 

© English Heritage of York staff filling in the form ( hour). • Processing an application by the DCMS and mortar mixes and finishes, access, archaeo- its transit to English Heritage ( weeks or logical recording, etc) can be culled from the more). existing documentation and assembled into an On receipt of the consent application the agreed specification. This can then be used as Inspector of Ancient Monuments now has  the base for the pre-agreed works; additional days in which to give advice to the DCMS categories can be added, or discussion held as to (previously it was  months). If we use the total the suitability of one-off pieces of work being time available ( days) and then multiply all included as part of the agreement. the above times by  (the number of potential What does this mean in terms of time saved applications), this comes to a total of  work- and the general efficiency of the process? At ing days, or  days per application. Confirma- tion of the commencement of works can be The York city wall done by card, giving English Heritage two adjacent to Bootham weeks in which to make a response if necessary Bar, a popular visitor (should the works be deemed outside the destination that needs agreement); confirmation can be by email, regular maintenance to and thus the time saving is considerable. keep it safe. But are the benefits of management agree- ments all to do with saving time? What about local delivery? In the case of the York Walls, the management agreement process speaks volumes not only about the growing trust between agencies and individuals, but also the maturity, at all levels, of the heritage sector itself. The new heritage agenda stresses partici- pation and empowerment, and the manage- ment agreement process fits perfectly into this agenda because it marks the decline of paternalistic policing and the growth of integrated management. Dr Keith Emerick Inspector of Ancient Monuments, English Heritage, Yorkshire Region © English Heritage

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 19 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW Heritage Partnership Agreements

New-style management agreements could offer owners the chance to manage their heritage sites more efficiently.

to undertake a number of pilot studies. These PILOTING A NEW APPROACH began in  and where appropriate have explored the potential of statutory management There has been an increasing appreciation in agreements – currently named Heritage the heritage sector of the potential of manage- Partnership Agreements. As the pilots ment agreements that set out guidelines for the progressed, ideas and questions developed management of a historic site or monument about how HPAs might work in practice, their over a given period. The forerunner of these is form and when they might be used. the agreement brokered in  by Ipswich Part of the assessment of HPAs involves Borough Council, in conjunction with English understanding what benefits they might bring. Heritage, for the Willis Corroon building in This is the crucial question for potential signato- Ipswich. There have been others since, notably ries to agreements: can HPAs help them more a recent agreement for the Barbican in London. efficiently to manage the heritage environment? For the archaeological environment, manage- The pilot projects show that the communication ment agreements are well established. Under involved in setting up a partnership helps to Section  of the Ancient Monuments and develop a beneficial relationship that will stand Archaeological Areas Act, , financial and all in good stead. HPAs should bring clarity, so non-financial management agreements can be that all parties understand how the site will be agreed. In Yorkshire, for example, English managed over the period of the agreement. For Heritage has more than  non-financial sites that have a number of owners, or which agreements with the Forestry Commission. come under more than one planning authority, Generic scheduled monument consents can also an agreement can also bring greater consistency be agreed with owners to cover things like to management decisions. maintenance or damage caused by vandalism. Furthermore, the pilot projects show that In  English Heritage and the ODPM these benefits of management agreements can published Streamlining Listed Building Consent, be significantly enhanced if, in addition, the which in part assessed the use of management HPA is used as the vehicle for granting consent agreements for the historic built environment or waiving the need for repeated applications. (Paul Drury Partnership ). The corollary is that there may also be financial The government was not breaking entirely advantages if the time and cost of setting up the new ground, therefore, when it set out in The agreement is less than that needed for the Way Forward the view that in future ‘statutory consent applications that the HPA replaces. management agreements could be employed It will be for the LPA (and English Heritage wherever that approach would work better where appropriate) to determine the extent of than the system of individual specific consents’ the works given consent via the HPA. It is (DCMS ). These would go one step unlikely that HPAs would be used for consent- further than the current regime by being legally ing to significant works, but would instead be enforceable under the proposed new heritage reserved for those of a straightforward or repet- protection legislation. Specifically, it is itive nature to be undertaken within the life- suggested that the law might allow LPAs to time of the agreement (three or five years grant consent or to waive the need for consent perhaps). LPAs have obligations to undertake via the agreement. consultation on applications for consent, and To test the proposals set out in The Way the same is likely to be true for HPAs. Forward the government asked English Heritage There has never been an expectation that

20 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: Heritage Partnership Agreements

Higher New Bridge, St Stephen’s by Launceston Rural, Cornwall.This late medieval bridge, depicted in full on page 13, is listed Grade I as well as being protected as a scheduled monument. Meanwhile, the early 19th-century mile- stone in one its refuges is separately listed as a Grade II structure. © English Heritage

HPAs could be widely applied, rather it was Inland Revenue’s Heritage Relief (Conditional thought that they could benefit particular sites. Exemption) Scheme. It may also be relevant to The pilot project at RAF Scampton, for exam- refer to natural-environment designations ple, showed that an urgent need to expand and where they need to be taken into account. refurbish the base made an HPA an inappropri- The form of the appendix that has emerged ate option. By their nature HPAs are not suited from the pilots is not unlike a conservation to situations of immediate, rapid change. At plan. Unlike a conservation plan, however, it Scampton it also transpired that the low will probably contain a works programme or number of designations made management development strategy, as a means of moving guidelines a more sensible option than an HPA. from an understanding of the historic interest In theory HPAs can be applied to sites of any of the site to agreed consents for specific works. size but the biggest benefits will be found on Negotiations regarding a new HPA would large and complex sites and estates, or sites in ideally coincide with a review of the statutory dispersed locations with monuments of the protection of the site, undertaken by English same type, perhaps under a single ownership. Heritage. This would ensure that the under- The pilot project on Cornish bridges is an standing of the registered area and its historic example of the latter, where the form of works assets, as translated into designation, is up to to scheduled and listed bridges, often needed as date for purposes of the HPA. The designation a consequence of damage by vehicles, has been documentation and mapping should be agreed via a pilot HPA. included in the agreement. In cases where this If the sites to which an HPA might be did not happen, the HPA would need to applied can vary, then the complexity of the address any discrepancies between the existing HPA might be able to vary too. The ambition designation statements of importance and the is that an HPA should not be an onerous docu- current understanding of the site’s significance. ment to put together. The precise form that The pilot projects have demonstrated that HPAs will take cannot be confirmed until the there could be a role for HPAs in managing the new legislation is finalised, but they are likely historic environment but more discussion is to have two essential parts. The first part, needed before the government can decide how signed by the partners, will specify the works they might be included in the new legislation. If permitted by the HPA, while an appendix and they are introduced, the sector will determine accompanying maps will explain the historic whether or not they are a useful addition to the importance of the site, its present condition, palette of options that is available to those who the principles for its conservation and the own and manage the historic environment. programme of proposed works. Tony Calladine The pilot project at Holkham Hall in Heritage Protection Department, English Heritage Norfolk demonstrated how HPAs might be based on existing management documentation REFERENCES Paul Drury Partnership . Streamlining Listed Building rather than needing to be developed entirely Consent: Lessons from the Use of Management Agreements. from scratch. This material needs to be rele- A Research Report. London: English Heritage and vant, complementary to any other material ODPM drawn upon for the HPA, and sufficiently DCMS . Review of Heritage Protection:The Way detailed. A conservation plan is one example, Forward. London: DCMS but others might be documents drawn up for Countryside Stewardship Schemes or the

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 21 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: Heritage Partnership Agreements

Creating and using a conservation management plans. The university saw this as development strategy: an opportunity to influence prevailing opinion. the UEA experience Suitable though a straightforward conservation plan may be for many historic sites, it does not Since its foundation  years ago, the match the needs of a dynamic institution that is University of East Anglia (UEA) has enjoyed a ever changing. Accordingly, after discussion unique campus – one that has contributed to its with English Heritage, the university developed international reputation and well-being. Sir the concept of the Conservation Development Denys Lasdun’s outstanding architecture is set Strategy (CDS). in an exceptional, albeit incomplete Master The university’s CDS describes itself as ‘a Plan, so it was inevitable that parts of UEA novel approach to conservation planning … would be listed when they came of age in more ambitious than a typical conservation plan October . It may come as a surprise, there- [because] by adding opportunities for change, it fore, to learn that the university resisted listing mitigates the planning uncertainty faced by and the protection it offers. It argued that no UEA due to the significance of its existing such protection was necessary – it had always building stock’. It ‘sets out principles and poli- valued and maintained its buildings and could cies for the care of the university estate, and point to ongoing consultations with English identifies opportunities for development’. It Heritage as a demonstration of the quality of its ‘deals with conservation issues’ but as ‘only one care. It felt listing was an encumbrance rather factor that must be taken into account’ when it than an aid to a successful and growing institu- ‘identifies opportunities for change’. It ‘gathers tion. The university is still of this view and is together principles of good practice’ and aims keen to see the proposed changes to the legisla- to ‘be a practical guide for action’ reflecting ‘a tion planned for . As Professor Andrew range of present-day informed opinion on Saint observed, one cannot apply the same rules conservation-related issues at UEA’. as for traditional listed buildings to the manage- By January , the university had ment of modern buildings, due to the implica- appointed Cambridge Architectural Research tions of modern materials, and the need to (CAR) to generate its strategy. CAR has renew or replace any that fail. considerable experience in creating such Just one month after listing, English Heritage guidance and the university has its own Estate persuaded the university to participate in its and Buildings Division, where in-house archi- listing reform study, by undertaking one of the tectural and management skills are available pilot studies for the proposed conservation to take forward a project of this kind. As a

The University of East Anglia’s internationally admired campus is now supported by a Conservation Development Strategy drawn up with the help of English Heritage and other interested organisations. © English Heritage

22 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: Heritage Partnership Agreements

consequence, UEA was fortunate to be able to Holkham Hall: managing change on a take ownership of the process of creating the country estate guidance from the outset. Following thorough archival research, Holkham Hall was selected by English Heritage including records held by Lady Lasdun, inter- as the subject of an HPR pilot project at the views were conducted with many who were start of the review process. The Holkham Hall involved with the creation of the campus – estate was happy to be involved. The pilot including Ted Cullinan, the project architect offered the opportunity to examine whether an for the ziggurats. Current expert opinion was HPA could address the circumstances of a sought and the university’s own community country estate, and to explore the idea of inter- was surveyed through a questionnaire. As a operability: that existing analytical or manage- consequence, CAR built an authoritative ment material might form the basis of an HPA picture of the campus and how it should be that would in turn grant consents given on the maintained in the context of change and devel- basis of it statutory force under the proposed opment. Through a number of drafting stages, legislation. the university and CAR sought comment from Holkham, home of the Coke family and the the Norwich City Council (NCC), the Earls of Leicester, was built between  and Norwich City Design Quality Panel, the  by Thomas Coke, st Earl of Leicester. Twentieth-Century Society, the Norwich The estate is situated on the north Norfolk Society, the Yare Valley Society and, of course coast near Wells-next-the-Sea, and covers an English Heritage itself. Having consulted area of approximately  hectares. It is, as widely and made adjustments to the CDS, the the entry in the Register of Parks and Gardens university expects to put it before the Local puts it, ‘one of the principal landscape parks Planning Committee for its formal approval in in England’, the design of the Grade I house June . emerging from a collaboration between Even before its formal adoption, the univer- Thomas Coke, Lord Burlington and William sity and NCC are using the CDS. It is provid- Kent. ing guidance for those engaged in day-to-day Holkham estate includes a number of listed maintenance. It is constantly proving its worth buildings, a registered landscape, several sched- in relation to defining the legitimacy of refur- uled ancient monuments, and a conservation bishment projects in relation to listing. Its area (the Model Village of Holkham). They co- usefulness has been demonstrated in supporting exist with other, non-heritage, national and an application for listed building consent for a local designations. There are some  entries in major multi-million-pound refurbishment of the present statutory list in the Holkham area. the famous ziggurats, where both consultation Thirty-two of these have been gathered into time and administrative activities were reduced. the  HARs for the purposes of the new Future development opportunities are defined Register Entry, which includes a separate HAR in the context of conservation. And it provides for the registered landscape. the strategic context for approaching the ulti- Holkham is a modern country estate, and has mate goal of eventually completing the a staff that runs its affairs. As well as being a maestro’s Master Plan. major visitor attraction, Holkham is a ,- Although initially reluctant about listing, the hectare agricultural business and a major local university believes that the CDS is working landlord, and in recent years has diversified into well and would recommend the approach to other activities. The estate’s heritage assets, at other similar institutions. The document is any point in time, will be undergoing some more informative and accessible than the old- kind of physical change. style listing statement and of much more prac- Holkham Hall benefits from the Inland tical use to those responsible for the care of the Revenue’s Heritage Relief scheme, which gave campus. The university intends to publish it as rise to a Heritage Landscape Management Plan a guide for those working on the campus and that was prepared in , and is due to be as a book for wider enjoyment. The university revised and updated. This plan, it was thought, expects the CDS to be sewn into an HPA and might form the basis for an HPA but would now looks to the DCMS to provide the legal need to be modified to provide a more detailed framework. analysis of the historic structures of the estate, Joseph N Saunders and more concise objectives. Estate Development Director, University of East At first sight, Holkham Hall would seem to Anglia be an ideal candidate for an HPA. Its estate contains a variety of heritage assets in the same ownership that experience ongoing adaptation

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 23 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: Heritage Partnership Agreements

Holkham Hall, Norfolk, in its landscape setting. © Crown copyright.© Crown NMR in response to the changing needs of an estate consensus exists, there may be a value in run as a business. This change involves regular recording the basis of it by means of an agree- interaction with the statutory authorities, and ment about, say, conservation method and could be assessed and codified in an agreement what is acceptable by way of typical or repeti- regarding permitted works. It would seem tive change to assets. Circumstances and people equally possible to add to this a list of objec- change, and an HPA can help underpin clarity tives for future work, along with an agreed and continuity regarding conservation objec- approach to the conservation of the estate’s tives. Nothing remains constant, even in a listed buildings. Such an HPA would sit along- place as well run as Holkham. side and be linked to an enhanced Heritage Kevin Murphy Landscape Management Plan, giving force to its Director, KMHeritage objectives and strategies. However, the estate is content with the London Underground Heritage Landscape Management Plan as it stands and feels that it provides an adequate London Underground (LU) is responsible for framework for the management of its heritage more than  listed buildings among the  assets. The estate’s experience of the statutory stations that form part of the world’s oldest planning and listed building processes is a posi- Underground system. The network ranges tive one and it has good relations with English from mid-Victorian train sheds, such as at Heritage and its local authorities. The estate is Farringdon, through the familiar ox-blood-red familiar with the policy and legislation relating terracotta façades of the Edwardian stations by to planning and listed buildings, and is used to Leslie Green to the buildings of the s that developing projects that require statutory were overseen by the Adams, Holden & consent. Pre-application discussions have Pearson partnership. These latter stations, usually resulted in schemes being successfully designed under the aegis of Frank Pick, proved negotiated prior to submission. to be seminal examples of both station architec- It is not clear, therefore, that the estate ture and corporate identity and many are build- would at present benefit from an HPA. ings of international importance. While there are clear financial benefits from a They are, however, functioning, working Heritage Landscape Management Plan – in that Underground stations that continue to trans- it brings with it the tax relief provided by the port, and are thus ‘visited’, by tens of thousands Conditional Exemption – Holkham does not of customers every day. As Pick and Holden believe that there is any significant problem in intended, they are still our ‘shop window’ and the present system of statutory control that form, for many, the entrance to London as a might be addressed by an HPA. For the estate, city. Listed or not, all our buildings are impor- the system works. tant to us as they not only form part of our Holkham demonstrates that HPAs are only unique built heritage but are also part of our appropriate in certain situations, and, perhaps, ‘brand’ – a valuable asset worthy of care, atten- ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Much depends tion and development. They are also buildings on the specific circumstances of the heritage that are undergoing a vast amount of moderni- asset and the context of control. In many sation and refurbishment following decades of instances, owners will need to be persuaded to neglect. The Underground – the arteries of the invest time and effort in preparing an HPA. world city that is London – also has to manage But the virtuous circumstances described with, and plan for, the highest passenger figures here do not exist everywhere. Even where in decades. All these varied demands highlight

24 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: Heritage Partnership Agreements

The exterior of Oak Wood station on the Piccadilly Line. © London Underground

the need for a close relationship between LU, work or alteration – for example, a procedure its InfraCo partners (who manage the system negotiated with English Heritage for dealing for us), English Heritage and local authorities. with ceramic tiles will help to manage similar One of the things I have most often heard situations that arise on many stations. This said about a ‘Listed Building’ was that we, as highlights other possible advantages of HPAs owners, no longer had any ‘real say’ in it as a that we are keen to foster, including a more building – as if we had abdicated or lost such consistent approach to the conservation and responsibility. This never was the case, but development of stations that form part of HPAs are, in many ways, about owners feeling thematic groups but that fall within the bound- empowered to reassert their responsibility for aries of more than  different local authorities. buildings and to do so in an open and agreed These agreements come at an interesting way that benefits all stakeholders. time for LU. We now have a better focus on LU is privileged to have formed part of the our buildings and their long-term futures than HPA trial and we have been happy, as owners, for many years. At present works of this kind to feed back our comments on the plans. It has require numerous applications to different local also helped us to focus our thoughts on the authorities and to English Heritage. For us needs of the buildings and thus in turn to artic- there are distinct advantages in being able to ulate how we can best balance our require- agree, in advance, methodologies for dealing ments and responsibilities. with ‘day-to-day’ maintenance of our stations For LU the opportunity to be involved in in a way that actually benefits the buildings as the trial was another example of the increas- historic structures. ingly harmonious working relationship we have HPAs could also form part of a raft of with English Heritage. For us the agreements processes that bring together existing knowl- are a logical step forward from our regular liai- edge, company standards and requirements and son meetings with English Heritage. On many legal obligations. They may, for example, levels, these have helped both organisations. encourage us to draw up Station and Heritage We can bring our knowledge of our buildings Maintenance Plans to help us care for and and operational requirements to a forum that develop our buildings, both as working stations gives us access to English Heritage’s unique and as historic structures in their own right. In skills and assistance. Through this process we the longer term I am hopeful that we, as a have been able jointly to articulate our vision company and as an important owner of such for Underground stations to other stakeholders, structures, will be able to help move forward such as local authorities. Knowledge also brings the debate about the use and maintenance of other benefits, such as a greater awareness of historic buildings. the context of a station. An agreed series of Mike Ashworth processes for similar groups of buildings thus Design & Heritage Manager, London Underground mitigates against piecemeal or inconsistent

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 25 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: Heritage Partnership Agreements

RAF Scampton built to standardised designs and are thus unex- ceptional in architectural terms. However, the RAF Scampton, located just a few miles north site as a whole is one of the best-preserved of Lincoln, opened in  as a bomber station, ‘expansion period’ sites in England and its and remains in military use to this day. Its asso- historical associations make it unique. Under ciation with the Dambuster Raids of  the proposed new system, the whole site could makes it Bomber Command’s most famous be entered as a single entry in the RHSBE and base of the Second World War. It also played different management regimes applied to the an important role in the Strategic Bomber component areas. Offensive and the daylight raids in support of In parallel to the pilot project, English the Allied offensive in Europe. During the Heritage commissioned two independent stud- s it was developed as a V-bomber base, ies from external consultants: an operational and was one of only two bomber airfields that history and gazetteer of surviving structures were adapted early in the s to handle the (Francis ) followed by a characterisation Blue Steel missile (the other being RAF report (Atkins ). Drawing on these reports, Wittering). RAF Scampton is thus one of the English Heritage identified  component areas most historically significant airfield landscapes of the site and compiled documentation for in England. these in the form of HARs. Ranging from a RAF Scampton was selected by English buried Roman villa to Cold War structures, Heritage in April  as one of  pilot sites these include all of the s’ airfield buildings. where the new system of heritage protection The decision to adopt RAF Scampton as a would be tested. Although none of the build- pilot project coincided with an announcement ings were then listed, four of the hangars were by the MoD in  that the base would be recommended for listing at Grade II. This was reactivated and that various operational units subsequently confirmed by the DCMS in would be relocated there during the period to December . Scampton was chosen as a . Several projects began in  to adapt pilot because its significance was proving diffi- existing buildings for the use of some of the cult to identify and protect through the existing incoming units. However, a subsequent minis- tools, ie listing or scheduling of individual terial announcement in March  confirmed structures. The original RAF buildings were that the development plans for the base had

Aerial view of RAF Scampton showing the dramatic imposition of the 20th-century airfield on the earlier agricultural landscape. © English Heritage

26 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: Heritage Partnership Agreements

The Officers’ Mess at RAF Scampton, built to a standard Air Ministry design. Although not listed, this is subject to conservation manage- ment policies. © English Heritage

been reviewed and were to be scaled back. As listing controls and in the context of the a result, previous plans for intensifying the use complex operational needs of the RAF, has of the site and for various new buildings have been a great challenge. A series of site meetings, been dropped. The RAF Aerobatic Team, the attended by all the stakeholders and chaired by Red Arrows, will continue to occupy one of GHEU, has been successful in resolving all the listed hangars. contentious issues where development or Conservation management guidelines, setting financial pressures have been in conflict with out policies for managing change in each of the conservation objectives. The agreement of a  historic asset areas, have been drafted by the development framework is thus a considerable Government Historic Estates Unit (GHEU). achievement, and sets a useful example for other This guidance has been developed in consulta- complex sites. The lessons of the pilot project tion with the RAF, Defence Estates and West will be formally assessed by DCMS and fed back Lindsey District Council. The agreed approach into the HPR during . For Defence Estates, allows the operational development of the base this pilot has demonstrated the potential of a to continue, through selective demolition of conservation management approach, linked to those buildings that do not have a sustainable the Integrated Land Management Plans that are future, while adopting conservation-based poli- being prepared for MoD sites. cies for new development, alterations and land- Will Holborow scaping. The next step is for the guidelines to Head of the Government Historic Estates Unit, be formally adopted by the RAF and Defence English Heritage Estates. In due course, they could form the basis for a formal management agreement, REFERENCES subject to the necessary legislative changes and Atkins, W S . RAF Scampton Characterisation Report. the agreement of all the organisations involved, Report for English Heritage Francis, Paul . RAF Scampton:An Operational History including the LPA. and Gazetteer of Surviving Structures. Report for English Agreeing how much of the site can be demol- Heritage. Airfield Research Publishing ished or altered, in the absence of statutory

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 27 Delivering a streamlined heritage protection system will be all about people working together in closer local partnerships.

philosophy to achieve 'appropri ate manage­ IMPLEMENTING THE REFORMS ment'. These changes in delivery contribute to a more holistic approach to management of The system of protecting and managing the historic environment, a more transparent, England's historic environment is about to efficient and robust system that serves its local change. For the histori c environment sector community. this provides a signiftcant opportunity to While historic environment service delivery improve delivery, efficiency and efrectiveness will need to adapt to maximise new opportuni­ ofse rvices, as well as better ways of working ties, it will also need to overcome difrerent chal­ together, engaging with loca l communities and lenges. At a practical level, one ofthe biggest locally valued assets. Whether our system of challenges to implementing these reforms will heritage protection is truly reformed, and a be in terms oflocal authority capacity. Any new success, depends not only on national policy, models for historic environment service delivery but also on individuals and partnerships will not only need to be clearly defined and engaging at local level, to deliver an improved enable local objectives to be met but will need service that enables our heritage to be better to be appropriately resourced. Along with the understood, valued, cared for and enjoyed. evaluation ofthe English Heritage pilot projects, It is the local level, the 'coal£1ce' of conser­ DCMS has commissioned research on local vation, where the reforms will be put to their delivery, which is nearing completion. The toughest tests; if the system does not function results ofthis research are to be fed into the properly, historic sites, buildings and land­ Heritage White Paper. Final evaluation is not scapes, and the archaeological resource wilJ yet complete, but preliminary results have been disappear, or undergo inappropriate change. positive in demonstrating the benefits of the The challenge is to find a way of working that proposed reforms, such as new designations, an builds on the strengths of the existing system improved consent process and heritage partner­ and makes best use of the outstanding knowl­ ship agreements. edge and dedication of local histori c environ­ The Heritage Protection R.eview should also ment services, while introducing more be considered in the wider context ofcurrent flexibility to the structures within which they government reforms to public services and the deliver that service. local government modernisation programme. The responses to the H eritage Protection At the hea rt of this agenda i~ the improvement Review consultations were highly informative. ofservices through national standards, devolu­ Along with the very positive support for the tion and delegation to the front-line, commu­ reforms, many noted that the general trend in nity engagement, fl exibility and more choice the sector was already moving in this direction. for service users. One of the government's key Broad implications include closer working primities is to create sustainable communities­ bet\:veen archaeology and conservation special­ places where people want to live and that ists, greater control within local authorities on promote opportunity and a better quality of life decision-making, clarification of the historic for all. The historic environment positively environment services role and structure, part­ influences many relevant local activities includ­ nerships with parallel disciplines to ensure the ing regeneration, housing, education, economic contribution of heritage to local development development and comm unity engagement. and social economic objectives, increased T here is also an expanding body of research consultation and community involvement in that shows a growing appreciation of the role decision-making, as well as a clear conservation of he1itage in social and economic develop­

28 I Conservation bu/leti11 ! Issue 52: Summer 2006 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: local delivery

the technical details of which items ofstreet clutter could be removed. This exercise will be continued across the district and is very much in the spirit of English H eritage's Streets fo r All campaign, which aims to create a sense of place through retaining and refurbishing histo ri c features. There has already been some success with local authority performance measures w ith the introducti on of Best Value Performance Indicator 2 19 on conservation areas in 2005. However, English H eritage is already gearing up for post- 2008/9, when the current C omprehensive Performance Assessment system will change, to ensure the histori c environment is fully covered in the new regime. This includes jointly develo ping and piloting regional commentari es, self-assessment English Herit age ment amongst non- heritage professionals. and peer-review systems with other Non welcomes the DCMS's The sector can build on this strength by Departmental Public Bodies within the commrtment to review work ing in partnershi p to encourage ali gnment DC MS fa mily. current rneffectrve and cont1ibution of heritage issues into local The Heritage Protection Review throws up legislat ive frameworks development and socio-economic objectives. many challenges to the sector in terms oflocal for conserving the T his can be delivered at a local level through delivery; however, this opportunity to invest in historic environment. At Community Strategies, Local Development the future cannot be missed. It is essential that Breedon-on-the-Hill, Frameworks, Local Strategic Partnerships local authorities, English H eritage, D C MS and Leicestershire, quarrying (LSPs) and Local Area Agreements. For exam­ other interested partners work together on the has removed part of the ple the work of South Kesteven LSP demon­ fo rthcoming H eritage W hite Paper to ensure scheduled Iron Age hill­ strates how partner bodies working together that the organisational structures all ow efficient fort, known as The can achieve benefits for the historic envi ron­ deli very and that the resources are in the right Bulwarks, as well as ment. T he problem ofstreet clutter was places to enable this to happen. English damaging the setting brought to the attention of the LSP , who then H eri tage is already investing in local authorities, ofthe Grade I church agreed it was an area of some level of interest through provision of grants, guidance and on t he hilltop. to all parties (highways, district council, town training. In one year English H eri tage has partnership, police and pati sh councils) . T he recruited more than 18 I Histm;c Environment County Divisional Surveyor, who was repre­ C hampions, mostly elected members, w ho sented on the LSP, was then able to advise on provide leadership for heritage issues within their authority. Eq ually impressi ve, in the past GrangerTown in year the Historic Environment Local N ewcastle is an Management (H ELM) project has published I4 acclaimed example poli cy documents on a w ide range of heritage of how the historic issues, trained more than I ,ooo local authority envrronment contributes members and officers and attracted more than to a wide range of 12o,ooo visitors to the HELM website. Both local actrvities, including these initiatives have strong support at the regeneration, economrc D C MS, D C LG and D efi:a and this greater development and degree of focus on the historic environment community engagement. delivers real benefits for everybody. English Heritage will continue to develop this capac ity­ building progra mme to ensure that local authorities are equipped with the resources, knowledge and skills to make the most of their historic environment and in the context ofa changing heritage protection system. Deborah Lamb Director of Policy and Commu11icatio 11 , English Heritage

Issue 5 2 : Summer 2006 I Conserv:nion brd/etirr I 29 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: local delivery

Darnall Works: adventures in Sheffield's East End

Darnall Works was the only industrial site chosen to take part in the H eritage Protection R.eview pilot study. From the start, different challenges and issues were likely to ari s<.: from those experienced by other participating ~i L es . Darnall Works is a complex site and has been in continuous industrial use from its establish­ ment in the 1830s. It contains fi ve listed build­ ings, fi·om a modest gate-keeper's cottage, to the Grade II* large C rucible Melting Shop; the large Crucible Shop and adjoining furnaces are scheduled as an ancient monument. The initial mapping of, and research into, the site quickly demo nstrated that there was much to learn about Darnall Works. Tht.: pres­ ence ofa glass furnace, which appeared to survive well into the period when th e wider site was devoted to steel production, threw up Simultaneously, Sheffi eld City Council The Darnall Works, the intriguing possibility that it was adapted for began master- planning fo r the regeneratio n of Sheffield. The listed the production of blister steel, the raw material the Lower Don Valley: the 'Darnall, Attercliffe buildings of this histori­ of C rucible Steel. Glass furn aces, with their & Tinsley Neighbourhood Development cally important early signature bottle shapes, are similar in form , Framework'. Mayflower Technology Ltd I 9th-century steelworks although much larger than the cementation launched a bid for European Objective T fund­ will play a vital role in furnaces that were used to create blister steel. ing, w ith the support of Sheffield C ity Council the regeneration of the Elsewhere on the site, the research uncov­ and others, to allow the expansion ofan already Lower Don Valley. ered evidence for the abandonment ofcoke for successful, hi- tech laser-cutting business. The fu el in favo ur ofgas. Similarly, the proximity of result was L 1.7 million ofgrant from Objective D arnall Works to the Sheffield to R.otherham 1 and English Heritage, as part ofa £ 7 mill ion Canal may have been important for l3 enjamin regeneration package. Huntsman, the inventor of C rucible Steel in The key lesson of the study was the answer 1740, who lived and worked close to the future to the question 'Why is something listed, or site of Darnall Works. scheduled?' The HAR. impressed upon all Darnall Works sit~ in the East End of co ncerned the significan ce of the site and its Sheffield in the Lower Don Valley, which compo nent clements. The pilot study became a ca me tO be the hub of the Sheffield steel indus­ catalyst for the rebirth of D arnall Works. It try and in turn, at its height in the 1870s, the allowed the site owners to gain a greater under­ heart ofthe 'Workshop of the World'. A standing of the complex, as well as highlighting century later, the decline of the Sheffield steel to the master-planners the importance of the industry as an employer had a devastating effect works as a linchpin for the regeneration of the on Damall. Although Sheffield still produces Lower Don Valley. South Yorkshire O bjective nearly as much steel today as it ever did, the 1 also recognised the value of bringing an number of men it employs i ~ only a tiny fi·ac­ important but redundant set of indmtrial bnilrl­ tion of the former workforce. ings back into use. Darnall has a significant population ofSouth In signing up to the pilot study, the joint Asian origin, who migrated to Sheffield to take owners committed themselves to working with on the plentiful jobs that were to be had in the Sheffi eld C ity Council and English H eritage to steel industry during the 1950s to 1 970s. The e nsure that the historically and archaeologically contractio n ofthe steel indust1y was a body important parts of the site were protected. blow to an already deprived community. A local W here other potentially invasi ve proj ects are syndicate took on part ofthe site, around the planned, these w ill be developed in a sensi tive time the pilot study started, as Darnall Works manner, w ith the necessary permissions in Ltd. T he company set about work on their part place! ofthe site with gusto: in the case ofo ne listed Finally, the pilot study gave the Urban building a little too much gusto. Refurbishment Design and Conservation Team an insi ght into work started before a valid listed- building­ the nature ofheritage protection for the fore­ consent appli cation had even been lodged! seeabl e future , and an understanding o f how

30 I Conservation illlllrtill I Issue 5 2 : Summer 200 o HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: local delivery

the new system could assist in simplifying the Cornish bridges, milestones and management ofcomplex sites and estates. wayside crosses: managing Craig Broadwith designated highway furniture Principal Col/senJatioll a11d Desi_(?ll Q[ficer, Urba11 through a Heritage Partnership Desij!.11 m1d Conservation Team , S li ~[field City Agreement Co r111ril Our highways have evolved over centuries, if not millennia, through their use by pedestrians, I he Darnall Works, pack animals and relatively small vehicles. The Sheffield: Daniel infi·astructure that carries them forms an integral Doncaster's part ofthe history oftravel through the land­ cementation furnace. scape. C urrent management ofthe road system faces challenges in caring for the historic and biodiverse heritage that li es within road corri­ dors. Not only must it take account of quantum changes in the size and volume oftraffic, but it has also to provide for the sa fety ofcurrent users. It is therefore crucial for highway managers and their contractors to make provision for the proper care ofthese heritage assets. Many bridges, milestones, wayside crosses and other structures are listed or schedul ed, and in some cases both. The consent regimes associated with statutory designatio ns can be cumbersome, a situation that helps neither the managers of the structures, nor the heritage professionals involved in the consent procedure. While statutory protection must be respected, the Heritage Protection Review recognises the need to rationalise the procedure. Cornwall County Council (CCC), North Comwall District Council (NCD C) and English H eritage agreed to participate in a pilot project to test the potential increased effi ciency f of an HPA between highways managers and I those operating statutory consent procedures. } The project covered a sa mple ofdesignated @ bridges, milestones and wayside crosses across North Cornwall District, managed by CCC Crucible Steel Highways and subject to consents from N CD C C rucible steel was ofvery high and (listed building consent) or English Heritage uniform quality, much sought after for use (scheduled monument consent and some listed in edge tools, cutlery, dies, and high­ building consent). precision instruments such as clocks and In brief, the HPR project team compiled watches. It was produced by melting individu::tl HARs, in co-operation with the down poorer quality steels in clay or CCC HER and others including the Milestone graphite crucible pots, which were heated Society. They also prepared specifi catio ns for in holes above coke-fired fumaces. The works of maintenance and repair for each class unique design of these furnaces allowed ofasset, with input from English Heritage, the higher temperatures needed to drive CCC bridge engineers and the Milestone impurities and greater amounts of carbon Society. It was proposed that by incorporating out of the steel. Despite the introduction accurate records of the structures and their of H enry Bessem er's improved converter special archaeological , architectural and historic process in 1856, crucible steel was still interest and approved work specifications in an being poured as late as the 1970s because HPA, all parties could be liberated from exces­ of the wide range ofspecial- quality steels sive consultation and consent procedures. In that it could provide. particular, they would be ass ured through the HPA that, for an agreed range ofworks, the structures would be appropriately managed.

Issue 52: Summer 2006 I Conservation b111letin I 31 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: local delivery

Bridges H istoric bridges range from simple Milestones are among lintel or clapper constructions to complex the most distinctive multi-arched structures. Some are both listed features of our roadside and scheduled, a situation that can lead to heritage, but are fragile confusion with regard to consent requirements, and need careful and inefficiency in obtaining consents. A single management in the face designation for all heritage assets would ratio­ of 21st-century road n ::tlise this. Bridges are the regular victims of pressures. traffic damage and repairs required for health and safety reasons may be carried out on desig­ nated structures without formal consent. However, it is important that these works, as much as planned strengthening or general maintenance that requires consent, use correct methods and materials. Inappropriate repair in the past is not uncom mon; the proposed HPA would ensure that it does not happen in future. Milestones Milestones and way markers are important elements of the history of travel, and demonstrate considerable local distinctiveness in their materials and styles, as well as more stan­ dardised fo rms along national routes. They are at risk of deterioration, damage, theft and inap­ been carried out to repair and reset som e propriate relocation and it is important that the through a programme of Monument consent requirements are clear. In Cornwall the Management jointly funded by English Milestone Society has carried out invaluable Heritage, Cornwall Heritage Trust and CCC, work enumerating the milestones that survive but, sited where there is permanent risk of along our many roads. Work is also under way damage by traffic and verge and hedge mainte­ to review maintenance of their distincti ve nance, it is necessary to establish an effective appearance and to reclaim 'lost' milestones that management regime for the class as a whole. have found their way to other parts of the The specifications for maintenance and repair country. As well as clari fy in g the requirements in the pilot HPA thus clarify appropriate for consent, the pilot has identified mainte­ materials and methods, and the specialist nature nance and repair regimes that would be part of the work that may be required. of the proposed HPA. It has also highlighted In conclusion, the pilot has enabled County inconsistency in the current designation of Council highways engineers to work with historic roadside stru ctures. historic environment professionals in the Wayside crosses These evocative symbols of district and county councils and colleagues the hazardous nature of travel before th e fi·om English Heritage to examine concerns on formalisation of routes are at similar risk to both sides, to review consent procedures and milestones. Their variety of form represents not provide specifica tions for appropriate works. only local development ofstyles, but also the Preliminary figures from the pilot suggest use oflocally distinctive materials. Work has that time spent by all parties preparing and

Trekelland Bridge, near Launceston in Cornwall. This early 16th-century road bridge over the River lnney was described by Charles Henderson as 'one of the best preserved and most beautiful of Cornish bridges'. It is currently both listed and scheduled, but has frequently been a victim of traffic damage.

32 I Conservation bt~lletill I Issue p: Summer 2006 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: local delivery

processing listed-building-conse nt and sched­ dramatic tower and roof; the Victo rian StJohn uled- monument-consent applications could the Evangelist with its screen depicting the be reduced to approximately one-sixth. This story of Noah's Ark; and smaller churches such would represent a saving of some three months' as StJohn's Staplegrove, where the spacious work for one person over a four-year period; churchyard conveys a sense of rural continuity. in addition there would be considerable savings A group ofchurches in the Lincolnshire Wolds in the logistical costs of handling each applica­ in the Diocese of Lincoln will offer the oppor­ tion. All parties recognise the efficiencies that tunity to look at the c h alle nge~ presented by could accrue from the more integrated and rural churches. streamlined approach of HPAs. These churches and cathedrals, w ith their Veryan Heal local advisory committees, LPAs, the Church Manager, Historic Enviromnent Policy, Advice and ofEngland's Cathedral and Church Buildings Division and English Heritage are working biformation, Cornwall Co unty Cot~ncil together to seek a more integrated approach to control and management. The Church's Ecclesiastical controls and Heritage control systems balance care and conservation Partnership Agreements of the buildings with worship and mission. We fully recognise the responsibility to care for our How does a cathedral with an extensive rich inheritance of buildings that encapsulate historic precinct or a parish church deal with the history, art and architectural ac hievement the multifarious layers ofconsents needed from of centuries; but their prime role is and has different regulators? Church ofEngland been as places of prayer, which must also grow churches and cathedrals (a nd those ofsome and develop if that purpose is to remain fi·esh other denominations) have comprehensive and vibrant. The extended community use of control systems over their buildings - but can our sites and buildings is also an important we simplify the overlap of controls? And how part of our mission and will require building can they be adapted to dovetail with the effective partnerships. proposed changes to the secular system? This We arc glad that last year's decision docu­ is what our pilots with two cathedrals and ment fi:om the DCMS on the 'Ecclesiastical two dioceses seek to test. Exemption' recognised the strengths of these Ecclesiastical buildings come in all shapes and systems: yet we all wish to make them as sizes: smalJ parish churches; large churches with streamlined and effective as possible. But local extensive churchyards, lychgates, churchyard authorities and DCMS and DCLG, with walls and ornate table tombs; cathedrals in English Heritage, also exercise controls on precincts containing listed buildings, clergy listed buildings and sc heduled monuments housing, monastic remains, and commercial or within the churchyard or precinct, and are school buildings. Many are in conservation consultees (though not decision-makers, unless areas. The range is huge. planning permission is required) on proposals Take Canterbury Cathedral: at the heart of for changes to the church or cathedral itself. the worldwide Angli can Communion, associ­ The overlap of these systems has long been a ated with St Augustine, Thomas aBecket, and source of confusion and even frustration: which many other giants of Christianity, with more consent comes first? Suppose different decisions than a million visitors each year, a tht;ving conflict? And is it really necessary to make sc hool, and archaeological potential on virtually separate applications to carry out very similar every inch of the site. Or Rochester Cathedral works again? near by, a site embodying I ,400 years of The pilots aim to address these questions. continuous worship since 604, only 7 years First, they seek deeper understanding ofthe site after Augustine came to Canterbury. With the involved, through revised Register Entries and castl e opposite, it became the focus ofthe HARs explaining why the site matters as well as town: yet the castle has lost its original func­ its architectural or historic features (see Veronica tion, while the cathedral remains in vibrant Fiorato's article on pages 8-10). Secondly, they daily use for its original purpose. Less visited seek to identifY in partnership the types of than Canterbury, it is nevertheless a fascinating work likely to come forward repeatedly for and complex site w ith historic buildings and approva l, and to agree the parameters under archaeological remains. which they might be allowed. Some works will The churches of the Taunton Deanery in the never suit this approach: new buildings and Diocese ofBath and Wells span work from the major alterations will always need consideration Middle Ages to the present day: major town in great detail by all parties in the traditional churches like StMary Magdalene with its way. But a pre-agreed framework may well ease

Issue 5 2: Summer 2006 I Conservation l111llctiu I 33 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: local delivery

The prec1ncts of Canterbury Cathedral are an ideal site for piloting new partnership arrangements.

consideration ofmatters like opening up previ­ was used for axe manufacture as Group VI, and ously disturbed service trenches; consoljdating this group accounts for more than 20 per cent walls to a pre-agreed specification; or minor of all Neolithic stone axes sampled. The expo­ repairs. We are confident that the C hurch's legal sure of tuff has been traced in a narrow band systems w ill enable appropriate fl exibility, where over a distance of 1 9km of very high and the ground rules can be agreed, to cope with the rugged terrain and the Jxe-factory sites have more comprehensive designation of the whole been the subj ect of two intensive programmes site that the new system will bring. of archaeological investigation. The first Setting up the pilots takes time and effort. comprised a detailed survey by the National English Heritage is helpfully bearing the cost of Trust and Lancaster University Archaeological the designation work, but the meetings in volve Unit in the 1980s, which was followed by a resources including the time of cl ergy, adminis­ programme of sample excavation and radiocar­ trators, volunteer churchwardens, and profes­ bon dating by a team from Reading University. sional advisers. We hope that this initial input The archaeological significa nce of these sites wi ll quickly repay itself in time saved later is without question and it is therefore surprising through stream.lined processes. If so, these pilots that in the past they were not designated as may well provide a template which other Scheduled Ancient Monuments. In fac t sc hed­ churches and cathedrals will wish to follow. uling documents were drawn up in the late Paula Griffiths 1980s but were not finalised due to uncertain­ Head ofthe Cathedral and Church Bui/di11gs ties over the status of the sites under the Di11ision, Archbishops' Cmllcil Ancient Monuments legislation. Also without question is the threat to the survival of the stone-axe-factory sites posed by intensive The Lake District Central Fells: public access, particularly in the Langdale fe lls, protecting Neolithic stone­ which has resulted in severe localised footpath axe-factory sites erosion and damage to axe-chipping floors. Scree running, removal ofstone-axe rough­ The Neolithic stone-axe factories in the outs as souvenirs and grazing pressure ha ve also Central Fells of th e Lake District are probably contributed to damage to the sites in the past. the best-known si tes of their type in Britain. The Lake District stone-axe £1ctori es are Rough-out axes were produced here over a located within the Lake D istrict National Park, 2000-year period and distributed through the on land that is owned or managed by the British Isles and Ireland. The Council for National Trust. Over the years, archaeological British Archaeology's Implement Petrology staff from both organisations have collaborated programme has designated the volcanic tuff that on conservation measures for these sites,

34 I Consnvatio n b111/etin I Issue p: Summer 2006 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: local delivery

Examples of Group VI Work over the last two years has included roughout and polished gathering together relevant data, defining stone axes from the heritage assets and boundaries. assessing signifi­ Lake D1strict. cance and producing a comprehensive HPA. More than 300 individual features were identi­ fi ed, including quarries, shelters and working hollows, together with a number of prehistoric ring cairns and medieval shielings. For ease and clarity of description these have been divided in r 1 separate HAR.s covering the entire area. A large part of the mountainous terrain in w hich the stone-axe-f.lctory sites are located is already covered by a number ofstatutory desig­ nations including Site of Special Scientific Interest status, but these focus o n natural envi­ ronment issues :md access rather than th e historic environment. Production of the HPA offered for the first time an opportunity to characterise threats to these important archaeo­ including archaeological rnitigation of footpath logical remains and to define management repair work. In addition, inclusion of many of prescriptions specifically targeted at their the axe-factory sites in the Lake District preservation. Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) scheme The range ofskills and knowledge available has enabled a reduction in grazing and a regen­ through the project group has f:1cilitatcd the erati on of turf cover in sensitive areas. production of a comprehensive HPA document An opportunity arose in 2004 with the incep­ that w ill underpin management of the Neo­ tion ofthe HPR., for the Lake District Central lithic stone-axe-f.lctory sites by the National Fells stone-axe-factory sites to be the focus of Trust and Lake District National Park one ofthe pilot projects arranged by English Autho rity. The management prescriptions Heritage to test arrangements for possible new and consent regime cover works w hi ch are legislatio n. A project briefwas developed by frequently undertaken in this sensiti ve upland English Heritage and a project team assembled regjon, including footpath repairs, stone ofrelevant English H eritage staff and local stake­ collecting and boundary maintenance. The holders, including the Lake District N ational HPA w ill assist in raising the profile and Park Authority and the National Trust. importance of the stone-axe-f.1ctory sites while avoiding unnecessary obstacles for routine land management that does not have an archaeological impact. However, it will also provide a new level of protection through the requirement of consent for new intrusive works and for removal ofarchaeological materi al (eg axe rough-outs, waste flakes) from the surf:'\Ce of the regjstered area. This pilot project has provided a model for the producti o n ofan J JAR and an HPA for an extensive and complex archaeological area through a successful working partnership between English H eritage staff and local stake­ holders. The HPA is now ready to be signed by the Lake District National Park Authority and the National Trust and will provide a new statutory framework for the protection ofsom e ofEngland's most distinctive and important prehistoric archaeology. John Hodgson, Senior Archaeolo,_eist, Lake District National Park Authority Pike of Stickle showing the erosion of the south Jamie Lund, Archaeologist, 'ational Trust 'orth scree. l#st Regio11

Issue )2: Summer 2006 I Consct·vation lmlletill I 35 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW New Ways of Working

The prospect of a modernised protection system is encouraging heritage professionals to transform their own working methods.

Principles of selection academic authorities. Named ‘monument class Just what is it that makes a building, a site, a descriptions’, these have long been publicly garden or a battlefield special enough to available and go a long way towards explaining warrant designation? Statutory protection the claims to importance that a scheduled site depends on a shared appreciation that aspects of possessed. In more recent years ‘step reports’ on our historic environment deserve an extra level different facets of industrial archaeology – from of vigilance. Public enjoyment of the past has stone quarrying to the chemicals industry – set never been greater than it is today. This pres- out current understanding in some considerable ents English Heritage and the DCMS with an detail. This detailed work builds a secure and opportunity to communicate better with the enduring basis for designation decision-making. present-day guardians of historic places, and We are committed to continuing work on share our understanding as to why their prop- archaeological principles of selection, and align- erty merits inclusion on the lists, schedules and ing them with other designated elements of the registers that comprise our present designation historic environment. approaches. A DCMS consultation, Revisions to Where more clarity is required as a matter Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings: Planning of urgency is in the realm of listing. Around Policy Guidance Note , took place last year. , existing list entries cover approximately Owners and occupants alike of designated half a million buildings and items: but the buildings and sites deserve to be treated with formal published guidance on selection is respect. Openness of process has been one of confined to a few paragraphs in Planning Policy the central tenets of the HPR throughout. The Guidance  (PPG ). arbitrary imposition of legal restrictions on the English Heritage’s Understanding Listing freedom to enjoy one’s property at will is one booklets of the mid-s, on subjects as thing; the highlighting of solid claims to histor- diverse as East Anglian farms, pubs and ical or architectural notice, and its conse- Manchester mills, constituted the first sustained quences, is quite another. Modern governance effort to communicate our appreciation and demands that the reasons for decisions and designation of certain building types. What is restrictions are fully explained, and made now needed is coverage of the whole range of against published criteria. So the preparation of buildings and structures. This work is now in new principles of selection has formed an hand, informed by the findings of the  important strand of work for the Heritage public consultation. This will assist not only Protection Department. with the determining of new requests for desig- English Heritage takes pride in its research nation, but will endow the huge body of exist- achievements, but it must be acknowledged ing listings with a fresh note of contextual that our energies have been applied unevenly understanding. This will assist all parties – across the full range of archaeological and owners, architects, managers, local authorities historic features. In terms of setting out its stall, as well as designators – in the positive manage- archaeology has led the way. Scheduling ment of these very special places. imposes very precise restrictions on designated Our approach has been to supplement the archaeological sites, so it was important to overarching principles enshrined in PPG  communicate the importance of a site to the with two levels of supporting guidance. We owner in order to establish a good working have created  separate building-type cate- relationship and encourage positive manage- gories, from agricultural to the utilities (see ment from the outset. box opposite). The vast subject of housing has Essays on various aspects of the archaeological been broken down into five separate areas. resource were commissioned from recognised Within each category, we have created outline

36 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: new ways of working

principles of selection, which offer the essential guide to the particular qualities we look for in assessing candidates for designation; beneath these are longer supporting essays, termed ‘selection guides’, in which we provide an outline of the historical development of each type, and some expanded consideration of designation issues. Aspects such as design qual- ity, decoration, plan form, rarity, technological interest, historical associations, materials, intact- ness and others can all be discussed, thereby de- mystifying much of the designation process. We are also aware that we will need to keep abreast of ever-changing understanding and perceptions and make sure that the lists remain fit for purpose. We can then amplify our coverage of certain key areas through supporting publications that follow on from the Understanding Listing book- lets. Topical themes such as schools, libraries, farm buildings and shops all suggest themselves as priorities. Electronic publication makes the dissemination and updating of such material ever more attainable. Thanks to the vital assistance of colleagues in the Research and Standards Group, the selec- tion guides for buildings are now in hand. The exercise has two important benefits. Not only will it usher in much greater openness to the © English Heritage proceedings, it also speeds up our designation A comprehensive series of English Heritage ‘selection work. Principles of selection are thus crucial to guides’ will in future help to de-mystify the process the vital matter of identifying what requires through which historic buildings and places are designated. special care during the planning process. Roger Bowdler Heritage Protection Department, English Heritage

Listed Building Types Agriculture Domestic 5: vernacular Buildings in Gardens, Parks and Urban Education Spaces Health and Welfare Commemorative Industrial Commercial Law and Government Communications Maritime and Naval Culture and Entertainment Military Domestic 1: country house Places of Worship Domestic 2: suburban Sport and Recreational Buildings Domestic 3: town and terraced houses Transport Domestic 4: 20th century Utilities

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 37 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: new ways of working

Comprehensive and easily accessible information about the historic environment will be vital to the success of the modernised heritage protection system. © English Heritage

Historic Environment Records environment. These were started in shire counties in the mid-s, but following on Running through the proposals for heritage from successive local government reforms have protection reform is the underpinning require- been developed in coverage and scope. Today, ment of access to high-quality information reflecting their archaeological origins, the about the historic environment. This is encap- majority of HERs do not hold comprehensive sulated within the government’s proposal to records of the built historic environment and introduce statutory status for HERs. If heritage even fewer hold maritime records, both of protection reform is to bring about the benefits which will be needed for successful implemen- expected, all of those involved in the manage- tation of heritage protection reform. ment, ownership and understanding of the Local-authority conservation officers do not historic environment have to be able to access have the same well-developed tradition of consistent and current historic environment collating material in central databases. information and therefore develop a common Information generated in dealing with historic understanding. buildings often ends up on the planning history In English Heritage we have been working files or in a separate filing cabinet or database. together with colleagues in local authorities and However, those few HERs that do consistently government departments to understand the collect and hold this information demonstrate current situation regarding HERs and look at that it is not the material per se which precludes ways in which these may be developed in the its inclusion. There is a need to develop and future to underpin the implementation of extend the existing standards and guidance to heritage protection reform. The working party ensure that it is applicable to all of the compo- has drawn heavily on representation from the nents of the historic environment. Institute of Historic Building Conservation and E-government, and in particular e-planning, the Association of Local Government has set out the direction that the government Archaeology Officers from the local authorities, expects local authorities to take in dealing with staff from both the DCMS and the ODPM the general public. As a result, the information (now DCLG) and with English Heritage staff base for the historic environment has to be held drawn from differing parts of the organisation. in a digital form that is accessible and searchable Together with a project looking at the capacity through the internet. It is recognised that of local authorities to undertake heritage initially some of the information held about the protection reform, these have formed the local historic environment will not be available digi- delivery aspect of heritage protection reform. tally; however, this percentage should reduce Local authority HERs and their predecessors, over time. the Sites and Monuments Records, are well- The working party is in the process of established sources for the management of understanding how the existing systems used by the archaeological components of the historic local authorities may be made fit for purpose

38 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: new ways of working

when heritage protection reform is imple- mented. This will involve developing the necessary standards and benchmarks, develop- ing the content and ensuring interoperability with other local authority systems, initially those in use in the planning departments but in time spreading throughout the authorities. Colleagues are working on a separate initiative, the Heritage Gateway, which will provide a structure that links the national with regional and local statutory and non-statutory records to provide comprehensive coverage while at the same time enabling the thematic cross- searching of many local authority data sets. In parallel with the technical development, the working party has been looking at the changes that will need to be accommodated by the individuals using and contributing to the system. This work includes developing models for different delivery structures. In the process it will be necessary to examine models that Design:The Holmes Wood Consultancy Wood Design:The Holmes would merge the existing provision into regional data providers, or even a single which aims to help people develop their national one. At the same time, other models understanding of the historic environment, to would see the existing structures further sub- value it, to care for it, and to enjoy it, both divided and the overall number of systems now and in the future. We intend to enable increase. This situation reflects the tensions and promote sustainable change to the historic between the economies of scale brought about environment and help local communities to by merger and the counterbalancing problems care for England’s familiar and cherished places. associated with distance between the local In February this year, we issued an initial authority heritage adviser and the record – and brief consultation on the headline Conservation all of this overlain by the possibilities of further Principles as a range-finding exercise to draw local government reform. out some of the key issues we ought to address Dave Batchelor in more detail in the consolidated document. Head of Local Authority Liaison, English Heritage We are particularly grateful for the number of responses to this initial exercise and for the English Heritage’s Conservation depth of thought they represented. As a result, we have refined the wording of the Principles Principles themselves in the light of widespread support Delivering English Heritage’s Conservation for their scope and general direction. In addi- Principles, Policies and Guidance forms a vital leg tion, we have also refined the draft Policies and of our three-pronged approach to what we Guidance that underpin them by taking into have termed ‘constructive conservation’. The account many helpful suggestions on scope other two legs are the establishment with and detail. government of heritage protection reforms fit The resultant consolidated draft will be for the st century, and building capacity and issued for a formal, full-length consultation competency across the heritage sector. The lasting  weeks, and readers have the Conservation Principles are designed to spell out opportunity to review our current work in one place, in a comprehensive fashion, the and make further comments. fundamental beliefs and policies that should Copies of the consultation document will be underpin our own standards of practice in the found at www.english-heritage.org.uk/conser- broad field of conservation. vationprinciples. Replies to this second stage can The need for a conservation policy and state- also be sent to us as an annotated copy of our ment of principles goes to the core of our document, by letter addressed to Sally Embree, business and our plan to exert leadership and Conservation Principles, Conservation provide consistency and transparency in all we Department, English Heritage,  Waterhouse do. These objectives are now enshrined as a Square, – Holborn, London  ; or key plank of the English Heritage Strategy e-mail us at: conservationprinciples@english- –, Making the Past Part of Our Future, heritage.org.uk.

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 39 HERITAGE PROTECTION REVIEW: new ways of working

Our intention then is similarly to revise the separate research for its own English new draft in the light of written comments Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for received and those provided at our regional the Sustainable Management of the Historic focus group meetings, and to publish a final Environment. The affinities between the two illustrated version in . projects, with their separate purposes, were Sally Embree immediately striking. But despite the potential Conservation Department, English Heritage for overlap, there has been a constructive artic- ulation between the two processes and suffi- cient dialogue to ensure that they are Stewardship of the complementary, sharing common vocabularies historic environment: where appropriate, and distinct in approach negotiating principles and practice where necessary. As the Stewardship project has matured, the Since , the Institute of Field Archaeologists initial model for a Standard and Guidance has (IFA), the Institute of Historic Building progressively evolved. The first concept was of Conservation (IHBC) and the Association of a high-level standard applicable to all roles and Local Government Archaeological Officers activities that would overarch two more (ALGAO) have felt the need for a suite of specific standards for ‘curatorial’ activities, one common guidance for practitioners, embracing for the archaeological aspects of the historic all aspects of the historic environment in all environment and the other for the historic built four countries of the United Kingdom and environment. It is a measure of the extent to covering the full range of conservation tasks. which thinking in the sector has moved Initial scoping of a project in  envisaged forward, that the lead bodies and their Advisory building on the model of ‘Standard and Panel have now abandoned this model in Guidance’ documents developed by the IFA favour of a single, integrated framework for from the mid-s. best practice. It was recognised early on that any work on The notion of a fixed standard with measur- developing such a standard would need to be able outcomes has also been reviewed and at all-embracing, covering best practice across the the time of writing is now structured as simple archaeological, historic building and landscape Guiding Principles informed by key concepts communities in the public and private sectors. and supporting detailed guidance. The next A commonly agreed framework would be steps in refining and testing this framework will much more useful than simply quality assur- be through national and regional working ance. The IHBC, IFA and ALGAO view it as a groups, who will peer review drafts in a series matter of central importance to strengthening of workshops. The crucial question for all the partnership across professional groupings and to many interest groups in the historic environ- harmonising approaches to key professional ment sector is whether the generalities of the issues such as accreditation and regulation. The Guidance document work adequately for their title of ‘Stewardship’ was chosen – understand- particular situations. What emerges from this ing and caring for inherited historic assets on stage may look rather different again but, as the behalf of present and future generations, a shape of a modernised heritage protection broad concept that is capable of extension from system continues to evolve, it is right that this the ethical behaviours of professional and guidance for the next generation of stewardship voluntary practitioners, to those of owners and engages dynamically with that process. managers. Gill Chitty, Head of Conservation, Council for In parallel with the first stages of the devel- British Archaeology opment process for the Stewardship standard and guidance, English Heritage commissioned David Baker OBE

40 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  News from English Heritage

European Heritage Summit The proceedings of the conference will be Between  and  April English Heritage relevant to anyone involved in looking after hosted (with the assistance of an anonymous the heritage, or who is interested in how ideas donation) the first meeting of the heads of the of ‘public value’ can be applied to cultural European (EU) heritage agencies on the initia- heritage. Copies* are available from English tive of English Heritage Chief Executive, Dr Heritage Postal Sales at the address on the back Simon Thurley. The event was attended by cover of this issue of Conservation Bulletin.  representatives from EU countries (including * Clark, K (ed), Capturing the Public Value of Heritage: the four UK home countries) and resulted in an Proceedings of the London Conference – January . Action Plan, which states that the group will: English Heritage (). Paperback,  pages. ISBN:    ; Product Code: ; £ continue to meet as the European Heritage Forum to exchange experience, ideas and best practice, to strengthen and support existing networks dealing with heritage and tourism and carry out the following specific Capturing actions. ) to make a high-level public state- the Public Value ment of the outcomes of this meeting, ) to of Heritage develop common statistical information on European heritage by strengthening our THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LONDON CONFERENCE 25–26 January 2006 commitment to HEREIN and other avail- able tools, ) to commit to using the new European Heritage Forum to exchange information and to share best practice on all aspects of the management of the historic environment and its sustainable use, ) to develop as a specific publication from the European Heritage Forum an analysis of the economic and social benefits of investment in the historic environment, including sustainable tourism. It was also agreed that the forum should meet annually (hosted by different member organisa- tions) and should establish a -year rotating secretariat. Further information and related papers from the Summit are available on www.english-heritage.org.uk.

Capturing the Public Value of Heritage Historic Environment Local On – January more than  people came Management (HELM) website together at the Royal Geographical Society to update discuss the ‘public value’ of heritage. Organised by the Heritage Lottery Fund, English Since its launch in March , the HELM Heritage, the National Trust and the DCMS, website has developed as a comprehensive the conference focused on the question of how resource for historic environment decision- we capture the value of heritage. We know makers. Annual figures for – have shown that people care about it, and that funding a sharp increase in use, with , unique it generates all sorts of social and economic visitors to the website. benefits. The bigger challenge is to present that In July  HELM will launch a pilot online evidence in a way that is relevant both to the learning project aimed specifically at local public and to politicians. authority Historic Environment Champions.

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 41 Delegates from 21 countries to the first European Heritage Summit attended a dinner at Eltham Palace hosted by English Heritage Chairman, Sir Neil Cossons. © Alexandra Coxen, English Heritage

A key aim of the pilot will be to evaluate the make approximately six grants a year, of effectiveness of HELM training and guidance in between £, and £,. an online format. HELM eLearning will provide Projects likely to be favourably considered a range of interactive courses on local heritage will be those associated with listed or scheduled management issues in a more accessible and buildings, their related gardens and grounds, or personalised way than ever before. A brief those located in a conservation area. To be introduction to HELM eLearning can be eligible projects must contribute to a sustainable viewed at http://www.helm.org.uk/elearning. future for the building and provide some public In the future, the HELM website will benefit, typically in the form of a degree of feature more best-practice case studies from public access. local authorities nationwide, some examples of Christopher Taylor, Chairman of the which have been covered in recent publications Country Houses Foundation, says, ‘The such as Heritage Works and Shared Interest. trustees are aware of the huge backlog of New HELM publications will continue to repairs that is putting many historic buildings at be published, alongside more links to local risk. Funding from mainstream sources is in authority guidance and up-to-date news of short supply and many projects receive only training and education schemes run by English partial funding or do not qualify for assistance. Heritage and its partners. We hope to be able to help where others cannot and no doubt will have a difficult time Protecting and Preserving and deciding which of the many deserving projects Making Accessible our Nation’s we can support.’ Heritage For further information please contact Amanda Witherall, Country Houses The Chairman and Chief Executive of English Foundation, Bloxham Mill, Bloxham, Banbury, Heritage gave evidence to the Culture, Media Oxon  ; tel:   ; fax:   and Sport Select Committee on April. The  ; email: info@countryhousefounda- questioning from the committee members tion.org.uk. allowed key messages on heritage protection reform, modernisation, resources and Stone- Cllr Hilary Nelson, henge to be re-emphasised. David Lammy, the Historic Environment Minister for Culture, and Baroness Andrews, Champion for North the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Norfolk District Council. ODPM (now DCLG), presented evidence at English Heritage’s first the same hearing. The committee has begun national conference for work on preparing a report on all the evidence it local authority historic has received, which will be published later in environment champions the year. will take place on 12 July.

The Country Houses Foundation The Country Houses Foundation, formed as a grant-giving charity in , has launched a scheme to assist the repair and restoration of buildings in England considered of historic or

architectural significance. Trustees expect to © English Heritage

42 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  The National Monuments Record News and events

The National Monuments Record (NMR) Below are some recently completed projects is the public archive of English Heritage. It and notice of work in progress. includes more than  million archive items A recent desk-based enhancement of the (photographs, drawings, reports and digital maritime record used Dutch sources to include data) relating to England’s historic environ- several wreck sites of Dutch warships sunk ment. The following information gives details during the wars of the late th century. The of web resources, new collections (catalogues Historic Environment of Liverpool Project, a are available in the NMR search room in partnership between English Heritage and key Swindon) and outreach programmes. stakeholders in that city to record the historical, Contact the NMR at: economical and architectural development of NMR Enquiry & Research Services, National Liverpool, is under way. Enhancements to the Monuments Record, Kemble Drive, industrial heritage datasets include ongoing Swindon  ; work to record textile mills in the Keighley tel:  ; fax:  ; area of West Yorkshire. One of these sites is email: [email protected]; the architecturally impressive Dalton Mills, web: www.english-heritage.org.uk/nmr which was recently used as a backdrop in the BBC drama series North and South based on the Heritage Gateway novel by Elizabeth Gaskell. Projects based on unique NMR archive material, English The Heritage Gateway is a new sectoral website Heritage surveys and publications also aim to that will help to deliver the integrated local and add information on Victorian cemeteries and national record as the information base to workhouses: such information is often support the HPR. Established as a partnership requested by customers pursuing genealogical between English Heritage, the Association of research. Records for lidos and open-air swim- Local Government Archaeological Officers and ming pools have also been enhanced, drawing the Institute of Historic Building Conservation, on Liquid Assets (by Janet Smith, published by Phase  of the project has created an information English Heritage, ). resource for the historic environment at For further information please contact Robin www.heritagegateway.org.uk. Page, tel:  ; email: Development of the Heritage Gateway is [email protected]. ongoing. Phase  of the project, due to be  launched in April , will provide an online ViewFinder cross-searching mechanism allowing users to query English Heritage and the NMR’s ViewFinder is an online picture resource draw- ing on the NMR’s national photographic datasets, HERs and other key online resources   within the sector. collections. It contains more than , For further information contact Cat Cayley, images, with a programme to add more each tel:  ; email: year. It can be accessed at: www.english- [email protected]. heritage.org.uk/viewfinder. The following important collections of historic photographs Online resources from the NMR have recently been added. The family photographic firm of Alfred PastScape Newton & Son was based in Leicester. Its Pastscape, the publicly accessible online version output covers much of the country, but it is of the national database of monuments best known for recording the building of the recorded at the NMR, is regularly updated. Great Central Railway in –. The NMR Updates can be accessed at: holds , negatives, which provide a valuable http://www.pastscape.english-heritage.org.uk. historic record of life in the communities the

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 43 Top left: Saltdean Lido, Brighton, East Sussex, was opened in 1938. 258P/07 © English Heritage. NMR

Top right: The monument Peter Williams © English Heritage.NMR Peter to Dean Fotherby (died 1619) was just one of the tombs in Canterbury Cathedral recorded by Bill Brandt for the new railway cut through. (The images of the National Buildings construction of the railway are mostly held by Record in 1941. the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester AA42/01330 & Rutland.) Nathaniel Lloyd (–) was a successful s to , when the firm closed and the businessman who trained as an architect in negatives were acquired for the NMR archive. middle age. His particular interests were the To date, more than , items have been history of the English house, brickwork and catalogued, covering the years from the s topiary. He published monographs on all three to the s. Many images capture the glam- themes, making extensive use of the camera in orous interiors of the s, including the his research. The NMR holds his collection of homes of Fay Wray, Arthur Askey, Flora , glass-plate negatives. Robson, Lord and Lady Mountbatten, Will Bill Brandt was already a noted photographer Hay and many others. Wartime coverage when he was commissioned to work for the includes air-raid shelters, air-warden demon- National Buildings Record (NBR), formed in strations, bomb damage, servicemen’s clubs and  to document buildings and monuments of shop displays on wartime economy. Many architectural or historical significance in case of photographs record post-war exhibitions bomb damage. He worked on the project until designed to kick-start the British economy. . He photographed churches, other build- Shop and house interiors show contemporary ings and streets in Chichester, Canterbury, furniture design. A wonderful series shows the Rochester and Colchester, and Spencer House Festival of Britain in  under construction in London. The NMR holds  of these and in use, and there are displays for the images. Coronation in . For further information please contact For further information about the collection Andrew Sargent, tel:  ; email: please contact Helen Shalders, tel:  [email protected]. ; email: helen.shalders@english- heritage.org.uk. NMR cataloguing The Lavender Hill Mob: photographs by Celebrities of an earlier Millar and Harris era: the actress Fay Wray, photographed Film stars pictured in their homes, photographs at her home at 20 taken for Vogue and House Beautiful. What are Grosvenor Square, these images doing in the collections of the Mayfair, by Millar & NMR? The answer lies in the Millar and Harris Harris on 24 September collection, the current cataloguing project from 1935. CC011729 the NMR’s historic architectural archive. Millar and Harris were a commercial photo- graphic company based in their later years at Lavender Hill, Clapham. Their extensive client base included not only glamorous magazines but also architects, interior designers, construc- tion companies and industrial engineers, government agencies, department stores, hotels and restaurants, as well as private individuals. The collection, comprising approximately

, items, covers the period from the early permissionReproduced by of English Heritage.NMR

44 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  Legal Developments Moving buildings

One of the things that has surprised me in application of Antique Country Buildings Ltd) and my work for English Heritage is the relative Others v Leominster DC []  PCR . frequency with which proposals are made to Readers may recall that this case concerned a dismantle listed buildings and structures and listed barn which was dismantled without listed rebuild them elsewhere – or even to move a building consent with a view to exporting the structure intact to a new location. component parts to the USA – presumably to These cases have caused confusion in the be re-erected there. The local planning author- past. After all, surely a building ceases to be a ity issued a listed building enforcement notice building once it is taken apart and divorced requiring the building to be restored to its from the land forming its address (often former state. In that case, the would-be referred to by heritage professionals as the exporter of the parts argued precisely that, once ‘legal’ part of the listing)? Not so, the High dismantled, the parts could no longer be Court, in the shape of Mr Justice Sullivan, considered to be a building. The judge ruled last year in the case of Judge v First disagreed and held that for the purposes of the Secretary of State and another [] All ER (D) then  Act, ‘the word “building” is  (Apr). perfectly capable of meaning something which The case concerned the proposed relocation had been a listed building but has since been of a statue of Sir Samuel Sadler as part of demolished’. Mr Justice Sullivan agreed, hold- comprehensive redevelopment proposals for the ing that it was ‘irrelevant’ whether the parts centre of Middlesbrough. Included in the ceased to be part of the land. proposals was the redesign and remodelling of Mr Judge sought permission to appeal to the Victoria Square, in which Sir Samuel’s statue Court of Appeal and was refused. Lord Justice stood. Buxton added the following comment: Middlesbrough Council applied to the First True it is, of course, that the [listed building Secretary of State for listed building consent for consent] code in terms does not deal with the what they described in their application as the moving of a building. But I find it impossible ‘relocation’ of the statue. Consent was granted to say that such a step is excluded from the subject to conditions requiring the method of code – that is to say, excluded from any dismantling the structure to be approved and possibility of receiving listed building the structure to be re-erected in its proposed permission [sic] – merely by the fact that an new location within one year of the consent. object of this sort is to be moved rather than This decision was challenged by Mr Judge left in place. If that were the case the barn on a number of grounds, but the one that referred to in the Leominster DC case would concerns us here is that the First Secretary of have ceased to be covered by the code, so State had no power under the Act to grant that permission could not have been granted consent to ‘relocate’ the statue. It is true that under the code, as soon as any part of it was that term is not used in the legislation, which dismantled. That, in my judgement, cannot refers only to demolition of buildings. But s. be right. provides for conditions to be imposed requiring (among other things) ‘the reconstruction of the At least one commentator has stated that this building … with the use of the original materi- point ‘makes clear that when a listed building als so far as practicable’. Mr Justice Sullivan has under a listed building consent been gave Mr Judge’s argument fairly short shrift and dismantled and re-erected, the re-erected pointed out that the two processes expressly building remains listed’. This certainly goes envisaged by the Act – demolition and recon- beyond the view that English Heritage has struction – amounted to relocation. previously taken, ie that the parts remain He considered the earlier case of R (on the listed but that the re-erected whole needs to

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 45 be re-listed on its new site. It certainly seems to fourth edition is in Mynors’ words ‘hopefully, me that, practically speaking, at minimum, the up-to-date as at st January ’. list entry would need to be amended to reflect Key changes that will undoubtedly assist the the new address. Of course the important issue practitioner include the inclusion for the first is what view will the DCMS take? That time of diagrams and illustrations of some key remains to be seen. ‘curtilage’ cases. I am in no doubt that these will help anyone who wants to understand this potential minefield of a subject. I myself for the Review of Charles Mynors, Listed first time only truly understood the Calderdale Buildings, Conservation Areas and case when I saw the illustration of its layout. (I Monuments had never understood why anyone would think Many practitioners have long regarded Listed that a row of cottages on the other side of a Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments by bridge over a valley from a mill could be in the Charles Mynors* as an invaluable reference mill’s curtilage until I saw how narrow the work. It is probably the only published work valley was and that the cottages were parallel to providing comprehensive coverage of the law the mill rather than as I had always envisaged relating to what we have in the last few years the relationship. A picture really does paint a come to know as the historic built environ- thousand words.) ment. So should practitioners invest in the Mynors has also thoughtfully re-ordered fourth edition of the book, which was parts of the book to make it more easily usable published in May? My answer is a resounding by practitioners. Instead of separate chapters ‘yes’ – and not just because Mynors was kind covering each of the different legal regimes in enough to ask me to review his drafts and turn (listed buildings, conservation areas, sched- gracious enough to consider some of my uled monuments and so on) the new edition suggestions. orders its chapters according to the key ques- The main reason is simply that there have tions any owner contemplating changes to his been, over the years, significant changes in this property needs answered: area of law. Mynors himself notes that this • What consents and permissions do I need? fourth edition, at  pages, is about twice the (The book makes far greater reference to plan- length of the first, published in  – not least ning permission, which is in many, if not most because of the plethora of Regulations, cases in addition to specific ‘heritage consents’.) Circulars and Court cases since then. The • How do I get them? • What will the decision-maker take into account in deciding whether I should get permission? • What are my rights of appeal? • What happens if I carry out works without consent? Finally, Mynors has also covered for the first time the similar but subtly different versions of heritage law in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which will be good news for practitioners in those jurisdictions. All in all a ‘must have’ for any practitioner’s book shelf. Nigel Hewitson Legal Director [email protected]

* Mynors, Charles, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Monuments. th edition, Sweet and Maxwell (). Hardback,  pages. ISBN:   ; price: £

46 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer  New Publications from English Heritage

Clash of Arms by Julian Humphrys Some battles have had a lasting effect on the history of this country and remain strongly etched in the public consciousness. Others are relatively unknown – even to the people living on or near their sites. Clash of Arms examines  very different English battles and explains how vital, often unpredictable and sometimes overwhelming factors may have influenced their eventual outcomes. Each chapter contains fascinating contemporary accounts and special sections cover themes such as weapon develop- ment, changes in battlefield tactics, biographies of influential leaders, and how studying the landscape can aid our understanding of a battle. Lavishly illustrated with maps, contemporary pictures, historical re-enactments and photo- graphs of the battlefields, Clash of Arms is the story of how men at war changed a country forever. PRICE £20.00 + P&P ISBN: 1 85074 9388 / PRODUCT CODE 51058 Diary of a Victorian Gardener: Hardback, 208 pages William Cresswell at Audley End Miraculously discovered at a London fleamar- ket, the diary of William Cresswell is a saved treasure. This unique and fascinating record highlights his work in the extensive gardens at Audley End in Essex, and his earlier employ- ment in Streatham. Not only does the diary give us insight into the daily tasks and concerns of a journeyman gardener at a great country house, but it also provides a glimpse into contemporary events and Cresswell’s everyday life, from the wooing of his girlfriend to his regular participation in church and village activities. Published in full for the first time with a detailed glossary, as well as a history of Audley End, this fully illustrated book will make an ideal gift for anyone interested in gardening and social history. PRICE £12.99 + P&P ISBN: 1 85074 9884 / PRODUCT CODE 50999 Hardback, 128 pages

Issue : Summer  | Conservation bulletin | 47 Publications may be ordered from English Heritage Postal Sales, c/o Gillards, Trident Works, March Lane, Temple Cloud, Bristol BS AZ; tel:   ; fax   ; email: [email protected] Please make all cheques payable in sterling to English Heritage. Publications may also be ordered from www.english- heritage.org.uk collection of seaside photographs from up and down the English coastline. The English Buildings Book The book features every type of seaside, by Philip Wilkinson and Peter Ashley from fishing villages with quaint harbours The English Buildings Book is the most compre- packed with boats, lobster pots and seagulls, hensive single volume on English architecture to resort towns with piers, grand hotels and for the general reader. Where most general pavilions. books on English buildings are arranged For too long the English seaside has suffered chronologically, this one is arranged by build- from a bad press, accused of being tatty, cold, ing type and use. More than  buildings are grey and windswept, but Peter Williams finds described and illustrated in colour, ranging the seaside to be warm-hearted and welcoming, from the architectural icons – such as castles, about having fun, riding the rides and seeing cathedrals and country houses – to the less the shows. noticeable but equally fascinating buildings of PRICE £9.99 + P&P our towns and villages – parish churches and ISBN: 1 905624 02 6 (978 1 905624 02 7) meeting houses, shops and hotels, town halls PRODUCT CODE 51230 and market halls, windmills and lighthouses, Paperback, 176 pages barns and bars. There are plenty of examples of each type and style, allowing the reader to follow the evolution of architecture from the Saxon Conservation Bulletin appears three times a year. period onwards. And there are also the archi- It is printed on recycled paper. tectural ‘eccentrics’ – houses shaped like aircraft  – hangars, mills that look like palaces, stations or Product Code:  cinemas in the shape of s radio sets. The Subscription enquiries: tel:   ; book is an architectural feast, from beginning email: [email protected] to end. Additional copies: [email protected] PRICE £35.00 + P&P Guest editor: Peter Beacham ISBN: 1 85074 9698 / PRODUCT CODE 51078 Editorial and project management: Whimster Associates Ltd; Hardback, 392 pages tel:  ; email: [email protected] Original design: Boag Associates Ltd Layout: Libanus Press Ltd The English Seaside Printed by: Hawthornes Ltd by Peter Williams Web version: www.english-heritage.org.uk Available in paperback for the first time, The © English Heritage  English Seaside captures every vestige of English English Heritage is the Government’s lead body for the historic holidays by the sea. Gaudy beach huts, model environment. villages, amusement arcades, funfairs, fish and English Heritage,  Waterhouse Square, ‒ Holborn, London ECN ST chips – all are represented in this evocative

48 | Conservation bulletin | Issue : Summer 