CONSERVATION PLAN
OLD SESSIONS HOUSE 22 CLERKENWELL GREEN LONDON EC1R ONA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The Old Sessions House is one of the finest and most important historic buildings in Clerkenwell. Constructed in the late eighteenth century as the Middlesex Sessions House for the magistrates’ courts, it is a high-status building intended to dominate Clerkenwell Green and its surroundings. In 1860 onwards it was re-modelled and extended to present grander elevations to the newly laid out Farringdon and Clerkenwell Roads. Following the relocation of the magistrates courts in 1920 the premises became the headquarters of Avery Scales, and in the 1970s the building was acquired as a Masonic Lodge who occupied the premises until 2013. The new owners, Ted and Oliver Grebelius are therefore only the fourth proprietors in a 235 year history.
2. This Conservation Plan evaluates the historic and architectural significance of the building and its surviving fabric. It sets out the risks and opportunities in the context of the building’s condition, status and current conservation policy. It makes proposals for the repair and enhancement of the building, including a strategy of phased work. It suggests how improvements can be made to the setting of the building within the surrounding environment of Clerkenwell Green and Farringdon Lane.
INTRODUCTION
3. This Conservation Plan for the Old Sessions House, Clerkenwell Green, has been commissioned by Oliver and Ted Grebelius, who acquired the building in late 2013. The Plan aims to inform and direct an appropriate way forward to re-use this important historic building and its immediate environs.
4. In terms of its scope, it seeks to explain the development and alterations over time of the building’s fabric. It evaluates the significance of the building as a designated heritage asset. It sets out to explore opportunities and priorities for repair and restoration, bearing in mind the aspirations of the new owners but in consultation with the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer of the local planning authority, the London Borough of Islington.
5. This document has been prepared by Alec Forshaw, IHBC, MRTPI, appointed as successor to Philip Davies by Oliver and Ted Grebelius as their historic building consultant on this particular project in March 2014. From 1975 until 2007 Alec Forshaw worked for the London Borough of Islington where he was Principal Conservation and Design Officer from 1988 until 2007.
6. Although this document follows the format recommended by the Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage, it has not been prepared with any grant application in mind, and therefore contains no financial or feasibility content.
UNDERSTANDING THE HERITAGE ASSET
A successor to Hicks’ Hall
7. From Tudor times, if not earlier, the Middlesex Magistrates held court in the Castle and Windmill taverns at the bottom end of St John Street, near the Smithfield Bars, just outside the jurisdiction of the City of London. In 1612 a purpose-built Sessions House was erected in the middle of the widest section of road at the expense of Justice Sir Baptist Hicks, and named Hicks’ Hall in his honour. From its small ground-floor court room, local justice was administered. Its greatest claim to fame was the trial in 1660 of twenty-nine of the ‘regicides’, those who had condemned Charles I to death in 1649. Most of these were found guilty, hung, drawn and quartered.
8. By 1770 St John Street had become too busy and noisy for court business, and the premises were cramped, run-down and incapable of expansion. T.H.Shepherd’s beguiling ‘retrospective’ view of Hick’s Hall (Illustration 1), drawn decades after its demolition, is probably more charming than it actually was. The Magistrates agreed that the existing premises were wholly inadequate and that new premises were urgently required. Initially the Magistrates contemplated expanding and rebuilding on their existing site, but the proximity to Smithfield livestock market made this impractical.
The site
9. Thomas Rogers, the Middlesex County Surveyor and Architect from 1773 to 1802, was commissioned to draw up alternatives for relocation. Various sites were considered, including Ely Place off Holborn, but in December 1777 a group of buildings forming an island at the west end of Clerkenwell Green were purchased, freehold, for £2,000, a total of £11,000 having been allocated as an overall budget.
10. Clerkenwell Green and its surrounding streets were already built up after the Great Fire, as shown by Ogilvy and Morgan’s detailed map of 1676 (Illustration 2). This clearly shows the island group subsequently acquired. They included various old houses, sheds and the Nag’s Head Tavern. Most suitably it presented a seventy foot frontage to the Green.
11. It seems likely that a good reason for choosing the Clerkenwell Green site was its proximity to the existing penal establishments in Clerkenwell. A prison known as the Clerkenwell Bridewell had been built in 1615 just north of St James’s churchyard as an overflow to the London Bridewell south of Fleet Street. By 1685 a second new prison had been built next to the Clerkenwell Bridewell to relieve chronic overcrowding in Newgate Gaol. Its purpose was to hold those charged or awaiting trial, hence its name, the House of Detention. Soon after, Clerkenwell Bridewell moved to a new larger site further north at Coldbath Fields, and was renamed the Clerkenwell House of Correction. It was notorious for its gigantic human treadmill. The site is known today, somewhat ironically, as Mount Pleasant.
12. In 1774 the House of Detention was greatly enlarged, included new underground cells, to the designs of Thomas Rogers. From here it was just a few hundred metres to Clerkenwell Green. Pink’s Map of Clerkenwell (Illustrations 3 and 4) and Richard Horwood’s detailed map (Illustration 5) show all three institutions in close and convenient proximity.
Original 1779 design
13. Rogers’ initial architectural proposals for the new court house were rejected by the magistrates, who wanted an architectural competition. However, having vetted the eleven entries, they chose Rogers, but then proceeded to meddle with the details and specification. One of the rejected entrants to the competition, the disgruntled architect John Carter, claimed that Rogers had actually stolen his ideas. 14. Externally Thomas Rogers concentrated his architectural endeavour on the east frontage, facing the Green. The magistrates had opted for the most expensive materials for the façade – solid Portland stone with Doric columns. The remainder was to be brick with stone dressing for the windows. The Palladian style was unquestionably the fashion of the time – a completely symmetric composition of central portico and pediment above five bays of windows, and a rusticated ground floor. At the request of the Duke of Northumberland embellishments were added, notably five panels of symbolic sculpture in the style of Adam featuring reliefs of ‘Mercy’ and ‘Justice’ flanking a profile of George III. The eminent Joseph Nollekens was hired for £100 to make the sculptures, using Portland stone, and the Middlesex County armorial scimitars carved in the pediment. It appears that Nollekens entrusted the job to John Baptiste Locatelli and his apprentice, John Rossi. At much the same time the Duke insisted that the front elevation columns were changed from Doric to Ionic.
15. Construction commenced in the summer of 1779 but work was delayed by severe winter weather and the Gordon Riots of 1780. The building was not completed for occupation until July 1782. The completed main facade was depicted in 1799 as an ‘exemplar’ (Illustration 6) in George Richardson’s New Vitruvius Britannicus, published in 1802. Illustrations 7 and 8 show the Sessions House in its context in Clerkenwell Green at the end of the eighteenth century. Thomas Hornor’s view of 1813 shows the Session House in an even wider panorama (Illustration 9). Pinks’ engraving (Illustration 10) appears to be later, probably about 1840 judging from the dress of those in the street. Writing in 1828, Thomas Cromwell described the façade as “an elegant design. The sides and rear, being of brick, make but a plain appearance, though the former have each a projecting centre and pediment”.
16. Internally the plan form had three principal spaces. From the main elevated entrance on Clerkenwell Green the vestibule opened into a grand central hall (see plan in Illustration 11), rising the full height of the building and surmounted by a coffered dome in the style of the Pantheon. This magnificent space, 34 feet square, was intended for general public access – prosecutors, witnesses, prisoners’ friends and family, the press - and was surrounded on three sides by open corridors providing circulation to other parts of the building. A double-flight staircase at the west end lead to the first floor court room (see Illustration 12). Originally the wall between the court room and the hall was also open, divided only by two giant columns, such permeability being a requirement at the time of retaining the ancient tradition of ‘open court’. This did not last long. The magistrates complain of noise and unruly behaviour from the hall and by 1783 Rogers had installed a transparent barrier in the form of a glass and cast-iron screen, with sashes for ventilation (see Illustration 13). A peculiar feature of the courtroom, which endured, was the long semi- circular magistrates’ bench running around and above the floor of the court, with a spectators’ gallery above. The impression on the visitor was of entering a sunken well (see Illustration 14).
17. Once sentenced, convicted prisoners were taken down to cells in the basement (hence the origin of the expression ‘being sent down’) before being taken to the appropriate penal institution. There have long been rumours of tunnels connecting the Sessions House to the basement cells of the Clerkenwell House of Detention, but no evidence has ever been found, at either end, and it seems likely, however compelling, to be an urban myth.
18. At the east end, overlooking the Green at first-floor level, was the third main space, the ‘Great Room’, which served as a function and dining room for the magistrates. It originally stretched the full five-bay width of the building and was approached by the ‘grand staircase’ on the south side of the building. In 1788 the ceiling was lowered and the room partitioned to create two ante-rooms, making the main space easier to heat. At the same time, various alterations were made to improve ventilation and lighting in the court room, including new skylights. Illustration 15 is an east-west section through the building showing how the three main spaces originally inter-related.
19. The old dilapidated Hick’s Hall was pulled down very soon after the new Sessions House opened. A carved oak chimneypiece was salvaged and moved into the new building (see Illustrations 16 and 17) where it was placed in the front ground floor room to the left of the entrance vestibule. It displayed the coats of arms of James I and Sir Baptist Hicks. When the courts in Clerkenwell closed in 1920, the chimneypiece moved with them to the new Inner London Crown court, Newington Causeway, where it survives to this day. The site of Hicks’ Hall at the bottom end of St John Street provided extra and much-needed space for livestock waiting to pass through the toll gates before entering Smithfield Market. In the twentieth century it became a traffic island, housed an unsavoury gents’ toilet, and is now a motorcycle stand.
Alterations 1859-60
20. As London expanded, so did the volume of work for the courts and custom for the prisons. In 1846 The Middlesex House of Detention had been largely rebuilt, retaining some of the original basement cells but greatly enlarging the capacity above and below ground. This was executed by William Moseley, a successor to Thomas Rogers as County Surveyor. He in turn was followed by the architect Frederick H. Pownall who added further cells in 1853-4.
21. By 1850 the court and ancillary facilities in the Sessions House were increasingly overcrowded and inadequate. The ground floor committee room had already become a second court. The magistrates had even considered demolishing the Sessions House, selling the site and building a new complex next to the House of Correction at Mount Pleasant. However, proposals for the construction of Farringdon Road and a new cut-and-cover Metropolitan railway, released land which enabled the potential expansion of the Sessions House in situ.
22. Frederick Pownall’s initially ambitious plans of 1855 were scaled back owing to budget constraints and works carried out 1859/60 were confined to internal improvements. Pownall converted the first-floor function and dining room to a new court room, lowered the ceiling, and created a new grand dining room above it with a bold roof extension. The panels in the new coffered ceilings to both these new rooms contained grills and apertures to provide ventilation and heating.
23. In the entrance hall, Pownall enclosed the corridors on the north and south sides to create more office space. More significantly he replaced the original double staircase with a single stair leading to a generous balcony with a stone floor, supported on iron beams and piers, running round the walls to access the second court. The railings protecting the balcony were decorated with the Middlesex coat of arms and ornate gaslights at the corners. Iron columns were added below to strengthen the structure, as a precaution for the large numbers of people crowding into the new court. Pownall added glass into the dome to improve natural lighting, added Ionic columns and commissioned Domenico Brucciani to model plaster classical figures to adorn the upper niches in the walls. These eight figures represented Wisdom, Equity, Law, Justice, Truth, Commerce, Innocence and Mercy.
24. Pinks’ admirable view of the ‘vestibule’, drawn in 1881 (Illustration 18), is taken from the door of the main court looking back to towards the front entrance. Its accuracy is verified by a 1914 photograph (Illustration 19) which shows the new east end of the great hall with the entrance door into the second court room. Pownall also altered Rogers’ glass screen to the main court room, making the lower part solid and inserting two additional doorways with elaborate door cases off the balcony. Generally Pownalls alterations were considered by contemporary critics as rather heavy in character. Even the amiable Pinks thought the quality of the existing work to be “vastly superior to the new work”. Illustration 20 shows the new long section from east to west following the alterations Attic storeys were also added in the roofs, with a variety of roof lights. These small slate-clad hipped roofs are generally not visible from the street.
25. Externally the mono-fronted nature of the Sessions House, with its grand east front and its plain brick sides and back, had long been criticised (“dingy brick” according to Pinks). These original north, south and west elevations were now more exposed to public view by the clearances for the construction of Farringdon Road (see Illustrations 21 and 22). The elevations were now re-fronted with cement render and Portland stone dressings. Pownall added rusticated pilasters to the central bow and heavy moulded surrounds in the style of Hawksmoor or Gibbs to the windows. The intention, on a budget of £14,000, was to give the impression of completely Portland stone building, unified architecturally on all its elevations. The cement render was scored to simulate stone blocks. The Pownall’s sketch of his proposals is shown in Illustration 23, and even more elaborately with added fanciful statuary in The Building News in 1860 (Illustration 24). The accompanying text announced that the building “is now being re-fronted with architectural dressing of Portland stone, under the direction of Frederick Hyde Pownall, Esq., architect, of Gower Street; the contractors being Messrs Piper of Bishopsgate. Our town readers will remember the dingy, unattractive aspect of the old brick building; and will, doubtless, agree with us that the Middlesex Justices have wisely determined on remodelling its three brick sides so as to render it more like a Public Law Court”.
26. Pownall also installed new ornate railings to enclose the basement areas including along the main east front. He also had the less glamorous task of repairing the damage to the Clerkenwell House of Detention in 1867 following the so-called Fenian Outrage, when Irish republicans blew up a large section of the outer walls.
27. The Ordnance Survey map of 1871 shows the relationship of the re- faced Session House to the new Farringdon Road and Metropolitan Railway and the wider area (Illustrations 25 and 26) and this was helpfully redrawn in The Survey of London Volume XLVI (Illustration 27). This is also shown in a panorama of about 1870, showing the improved rear elevations of the Sessions House (Illustration 28).
Extension in 1877-78
28. The Metropolitan Railway in its cutting beside and below Farringdon Road opened in 1863, and in 1873-5 a new east-west thoroughfare was created, Clerkenwell Road. This enabled the significant expansion of the footprint of the Sessions House. Pownall, still the Middlesex Surveyor, designed an extension running southwards at basement, ground and first floor levels, giving an extra 40 feet frontage to the Green and a new south elevation to the new Clerkenwell Road. This provided much-needed new accommodation including a magistrates’ dining room on the first floor, facing south and east and lit by a hexagonal roof light. There were also extra committee and administrative rooms. A new staircase enabled magistrates to gain private access to the second court. With the larger budget that was available, the external elevations of the extension were all clad in Portland stone, rather than cement render. New chimneys were included for the fireplaces in the rooms below.
29. Better arrangements were made for the receipt and transfer of prisoners in the south-west corner of the building on Clerkenwell Road. Several new doorways were made at the rear of the building at street level, and a new staircase was built to take prisoners up from the lower level cells to the upper ground floor and thence up into the courts. Railings were placed around all the elevations at the back edge of the pavements.
30. The Ordnance Survey Map of 1914 shows the enlarged footprint of the Sessions House (see Illustrations 29 and 30). The street plan has not changed since then. The local links of the Sessions House with Clerkenwell’s prisons were broken, however, by the closure of the House of Correction in 1877, replaced by the Postal Sorting Office, and the House of Detention in 1890, replaced by the Hugh Myddelton Secondary School. The infamous Newgate Prison also closed in 1902, to become the site of the Old Bailey.
Twentieth Century alterations
31. In 1889 much of Middlesex was subsumed within the newly-created County of London. London County Council took over the operation of the courts. By 1910 it had been decided to merge all of London’s sessions houses into one new building at Newington Causeway in Southwark. Delayed by the First World War the new Courts were completed in 1920. The Clerkenwell Sessions House was vacated. The Jacobean chimneypiece from Hicks’ Hall was moved once again, together with memorial stones recording the alterations of 1860 and 1878. At this time the Brucciani’s plaster statues also disappeared from the main hall.
32. The building was put on the market, but in the aftermath of the war there was little interest. In 1923 it was sold for £26,500 (well below its 1912 valuation of £65,000 and the initial 1920 asking price of £35,000). In 1929 a single-storey shop unit was erected on what had been the prisoners’ entrance yard facing Clerkenwell Road (see Illustration 31), but most of the rest of the building remained empty. According to the District Surveyors’ records in the London Metropolitan Archive, the floor of the original court room was raised several feet in 1930, presumably to improve the head-height in the rooms beneath.
33. In 1931 the whole building was taken over by Avery Scales, the manufacturers of weighing machines, as their clerical headquarters. Avery carried out various alterations, including the insertion of Crittall windows in the main east front elevation and elements of utilitarian partitioning in the basement, upper floors and ante rooms. With 500 people working in the building, their need for more compartments was perhaps understandable. Most damaging was their treatment of the original court room, with the unhappy insertion of a new floor level, completely truncating this once-magnificent room, and isolating the original ceiling frieze in the cramped space above. Services such as central heating were also installed. Concrete screed was laid over some of the original stone floors, most regrettably on the balcony of the main stairs. Linoleum and paint was added to the treads of most of the secondary stairs.
34. During the war the iron railings on the south, west and north sides were removed, leaving only the railings on the east and south fronts where they protect the basement area. Although no significant bomb damage was incurred in the war it seems likely that the main front entrance steps were reinforced by brickwork beneath and the front area vaults were filled in with concrete, possibly as a precautionary measure. At some stage the glass in the surviving screen between the main court and the great hall was painted and obscured. Sometime after the war the single-storey shop unit on Clerkenwell Road was also removed.
35. During Avery Scales’ occupation the building was known as Avery House. Avery’s departure in 1973 coincided with a period of chronic decline in Clerkenwell’s fortunes, which witnessed the closure or relocation of many traditional industries, the clearance of supposedly ‘unfit’ housing and a proliferation of derelict commercial buildings and vacant sites. After lying empty for five years Avery House was bought for conversion to a Masonic conference and social centre, which opened in 1979.
36. Most of the alterations and adaptations carried out by the Masonic Lodge were cosmetic, including some speculative reinstatement of architectural ‘features’, insertion of floor podiums, application of unauthentic decorative schemes, often using wood-chip backing paper, wall-to-wall carpeting, and fire screens in the ground floor to separate the entrance vestibule from the hall and stairs. Kitchen and cloakroom facilities for large-scale catering and entertainment functions were installed in a very utilitarian and often insensitive fashion in many of the smaller rooms and throughout the lower ground floor. Large ventilation ducts, dumb waiter lifts and other services were installed, again with little sensitivity. A crude form of secondary glazing was added to many of the windows facing Clerkenwell Road, fixing shut the original shutters.
37. Parts of the roof structure were damaged by fire in 1991 and rebuilt under the supervision of English Heritage who at that time dealt with all listed building cases in Greater London. While some charred timbers were kept and reasonable quality materials used for replacement, some of the reinstatement is curiously designed. Following the repairs, additional fire precaution works were carried out at the request of Islington Council Building Inspectors, including the in-filling of the previously open corridor on the east side of the main hall. None of these later alterations are of any value or merit in their own right, and while their removal would be highly desirably they fortunately have not destroyed the inherent qualities of the building.
SIGNIFICANCE
DESIGNATION
38. The buildings was included in the national list of buildings of special architectural and historic interest on 29th December 1950 (see Illustration 32). It was in the first tranche of such designations in London after the Second World War, and one of only a handful of buildings to receive such protection in what was then the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury. Such an early designation is evidence of its very high status both architecturally and historically, and its importance to this part of London. In September 1994, as part of the review of the statutory list in the London Borough of Islington (the Metropolitan Boroughs of Finsbury and Islington having been merged in 1965), the building was upgraded to Grade II*, and given a new and longer entry description (see Illustration 33). At the time, the building was still occupied by the Masonic Lodge and was known as the Clerkenwell Conference Centre, 120A and 122 Clerkenwell Green, and the entry description for the interior refers to the principal rooms by their Masonic Lodge numbers. The upgrading to Grade II* places the building within the top 10% of all statutorily listed buildings.
39. In 1969 the building was included within the first designated conservation area in Islington. It continues to lie at the very heart of the Clerkenwell Green Conservation Area (LBI No.1), even thought the conservation area has been much enlarged since its original designation. The site lies close to many other important listed buildings, notably the Clerks’ Well, The Marx Memorial Library, Cornwell House, the Crown Tavern and St James’s Church.
VALUE
40. English Heritage’s Guidance on assessing significance suggests that a heritage asset can have a range of values – evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal. Significance can be identified as high, medium or low. These are evaluated below.
Evidential Value – the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity
41. Externally the building, with its different phases of construction, survives remarkably intact. It clearly retains its qualities as a high-status building, dominating the west end of Clerkenwell Green and forming an imposing presence on the east side of the Farringdon Road railway cutting. Here the dome is clearly visible, and the building bridges the gap and difference in scale between the lower buildings on the north side of Clerkenwell Green/Farringdon Lane (with the spire of St James’s church behind), and the somewhat higher modern offices on Turnmill Street. Although there has been no general public access into the building for a very long time (indeed, there was a degree of mystery when the Masons were in occupation), the building remains popularly known as the Sessions House. Few remember it now as Avery House. Externally the Sessions House has VERY HIGH significance in terms of its evidential value.
42. Internally the surviving building contains a remarkable amount of historic fabric dating from different stages of the development of the premises. Thanks to the scholarly research by the Survey of London and others it is possible to identify with some certainty what remains of the original 1779 layout and to see how that was extended and altered in the 19th century, and subsequently in the 20th century.
43. The surviving 18th century fabric and plan-form is of VERY HIGH significance. So too are Pownall’s alterations of 1859/60 to the principal spaces. Indeed, any proposals to reinstate the original court room and its glazed screen to its former 18th century glory should seek to incorporate or relocate Pownall’s insertions, notably the two side door cases.
44. The 1877/8 extensions and re-working of the lower ground floor are of HIGH significance in terms of their plan form, and some of the main rooms, such as the magistrates’ dining room retain their character. Elsewhere, 20th century alterations have reduced their significance to MODERATE. The 20th century interventions themselves are of LOW significance, almost invariably using poor quality and inappropriate materials, including asbestos, whose removal is extremely desirable.
Historical Value – the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present
45. The survival of the Sessions House is a very important contribution to being able to trace and relate to the history of Clerkenwell. In terms of Clerkenwell’s penal history it is a key building, particularly as no vestige remains today of Hicks’ Hall or the Clerkenwell House of Correction at Mount Pleasant. While parts of the prison walls and Governor’s House do survive at the House of Detention, the most evocative remains, the cells, are out of sight, below ground.
46. The Sessions House therefore performs a pivotal role in seeing and understanding the history of Clerkenwell. The opportunity to open up the building to the public, to expose the prisoners’ cells at the lower level and to reinstate the main court room, demonstrates the potential at the Sessions House to increase the appreciation of Clerkenwell’s history for a wider audience. Its survival combined with its potential gives the Sessions House VERY HIGH historical significance.
Aesthetic Value – the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place
47. Architecturally the Session House is one of London’s finest surviving buildings from the latter half of the 18th century, and this is acknowledged by its Grade II* listing. Aesthetically the exterior is of VERY HIGH significance, although there are opportunities for repair, removal of modern accretions and restoration of missing features. It is considered that none of the 20th century alterations, such as the brick support under the entrance steps or the roofs rebuilt after the fire, are of architectural or aesthetic significance.
48. Internally only the main hall retains its predominantly 18th century character and this is of VERY HIGH aesthetic significance. The 1859/60 staircase and balcony in the main hall and large rooms at the east end comprising the second court room and the room above are also of VERY HIGH significance. Despite contemporary criticism these spaces are magnificent examples of mid-Victorian opulence. The three principal side staircases, mostly cantilevered stone with ornate iron balustrades, are of HIGH significance. Most of the other spaces in the building, compromised by insensitive 20th century insertions and alterations are of MODERATE or LOW aesthetic significance.
Communal Value – the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it or for whom it relates in their collective experience or memory
49. The Sessions House played a huge part in the development of the character of Clerkenwell Green. Originally built as a symbol of power and authority, and with close links to the nearby prisons of the Clerkenwell House of Detention and the Clerkenwell House of Correction, the Sessions House was both admired and feared by the community. The fact that Clerkenwell Green became one of London’s main assembling places for protest and political rallies was partly due to the forbidding presence of the Sessions House and the antagonism felt by some towards the harsh penal process. Many of these political demonstrations such as the Corn Law and Chartists protests and the Reform League rally of 1867 (see Illustration 34and 35) deliberately and provocatively used the steps of the Sessions House as a platform. The Green became a notorious battleground. Other more peaceful gatherings, such as those by religious or temperance campaigners (see Illustrations 36) were content merely to have the Sessions House as a respectable back-drop. The local Italian community used the Green for festivals and markets (Illustration 37).
50. While May Day rallies and the Italian Processions are still held at Clerkenwell Green, its role has been usurped to a large extent by Trafalgar Square, Hyde Park, Parliament Square and (more recently) Paternoster Square. This is perhaps partly because the space itself has become so dominated by parked cars and speeding traffic that it is no longer an attractive place for pedestrians to congregate. It is likely also that Clerkenwell Green is no longer regarded as either the home of hot- headed radicals or of oppressive authoritarian institutions. At present it is probably fair to say that the Sessions House has only MODERATE significance to the community, given that the original municipal function ceased 100 years ago. There can be very few local people who remember it as Avery House, and the Masons ensured that public access was extremely limited. Very few local people, residents or workers have ever been inside the building, and many know little about its history.
RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES
51. The building is currently largely vacant, but is well secured and concierged. Some exploratory opening up and clearing out of rubbish has taken place under careful supervision of the new owners. With the agreement of the Local Planning Authority more of this is proposed to expose more of the original fabric of the building and to enable its condition to be assessed.
52. The roofs, gutters and downpipes generally are in good repair, and there is no sign of water penetration or rot. Removal of out-dated services, such as redundant or obsolete wiring and gas piping, and asbestos would reduce further risks to the building. There are few internal fittings which would be vulnerable to theft. There are no fireplaces, for example, in the building.
53. Nevertheless it is highly desirable to establish appropriate and beneficial uses for the building which will enable its re-use as soon as possible. While there are a number of potentially compatible uses for the building which could retain and restore its historic plan form and fabric, the most desirable uses might be those that reinstate public access to the building, not only to those parts which were accessible when the building operated as a court, but also to those other areas such as the cells and magistrates’ private quarters. There is an opportunity to reconnect the building to the local community and the local environment with enormous mutual benefits.
54. Exploratory cleaning of the modern paint from the face of the glass screen facing the upper part of the east wall of the Central Hall, and partial removal of the 20th century block-work on the original courtroom side has revealed that much of the original 18th century cylinder glass survives in its original metal framing. The historic glass specialist Jill Channer has given advice on its provenance and rarity, and guidance on its conservation.
54. A considerable amount of historic paint analysis has been carried out during the summer of 2014 by Helen Hughes of Historic Interiors Research & Conservation, with samples taken from numerous accessible areas of historic fabric, including, doors, architraves, windows, walls and plaster surfaces, pilasters, columns, railings and balustrades. This gives a very detailed picture of original and subsequent layers of paint and varnish finishes, including marbling effects on plaster, graining on painted timber.
55. In brief summary, the 18th century decorative scheme appears to be one of muted stone-like colours, including railings and balustrades as well as wall surfaces, exposed hardwoods and painted soft wood. In areas frequented by the public and by prisoners, distemper was used for both utilitarian and disinfectant reasons, as well as economy. Pownall’s 1860s and 1870s colour schemes are much richer, with marbling applied to the central hall pilasters and wood graining to much of the joinery, and more varied colour schemes to some of the more important function rooms. The likelihood is that the judges and magistrates of the mid-nineteenth century wanted both an impression of prestige in the public areas and a feeling of tradition in their own more private meeting and dining rooms. Basement cells and circulation areas continued to be lime-washed.
56. Further analysis is yet to be carried out in less accessible areas, such as ceilings, but the intention is to obtain a level of knowledge from which educated and justifiable decisions can be taken about future decorative schemes.
POLICY GUIDANCE
57. Planning, conservation and listed building consent guidance relevant to this building and location is enshrined in the following documents: - The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 - National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 - National Planning Policy Guidance March 2014 - London Borough of Islington Core Strategy February 2011 - London Borough of Islington Development Management Policies Development Plan Document Adopted June 2013 - London Borough of Islington Conservation Area Design Guidelines
PROPOSALS FOR CONSERVATION
58. Given the multitude of alterations and insertions made during the 20th century by Avery Scales and by the Masonic Lodge, together with the various layers of 18th and 19th century work in the building, a phased approach is proposed.
59. The first phase involves the removal of superficial or damaging fabric, such as carpets, asbestos, modern services and ducting, as agreed by the Local Planning Authority, which can be undertaken without the need for prior listed building consent. Any repairs necessary for keeping the building secure and water-tight should also be carried out.
60. A second phase, which would be subject to listed building consent, involves the removal of various partitions and mezzanine floors and the unblocking of original openings, to enable a better understanding of the original fabric (and indeed what survives) together with a clearer assessment as to the potential long-term use of the building.
61. The third phase would require both planning permission and listed building consent making detailed proposals for the use and adaptation of the building, once clients had been identified for these uses. The intention of the new owners is to carry out works only which will enhance the architectural and historic value of the building and the role it can play in contributing to the regeneration of local economy and improvement of the local environment.
External
62. There are a number of measures which would improve and restore the external appearance of the building: - Reinstate railings and York stone paving around the perimeter - Stone and render repairs, including decorative roundels - Removal of brick structure below the main entrance steps - Restoring windows and glazing bar patterns, including removal paint from glass and secondary glazing - Removal of unsightly attic extensions - Removal of all visible modern grills, air-handling and extraction units - Installation of historic lighting and flood-lighting
63. More contentious issues are possible extensions at roof level at the western end of the building, replacing the part of the roof reconstructed after the fire. Given that this aspect of the building was not originally visible, and only became so after the construction of the Farringdon Road and railway cutting, there is a case to be made for a new roof form here to be in curved lead, to reflect the Pownall extension and the dome, thus creating a more unified roof design. Any roof top balustrade or plant accommodation would require the most sensitive treatment to minimise any adverse visual impact.
64. Any new external signage will require careful consideration.
Internal
65. Internally there are many ways in which the building can be restored to its former glory. These include: - Reinstatement of the main courtroom by removing the mezzanine floor, reinstatement of the balcony, exposing the original floor level, reinstatement of the glass screen and central doorway. - Reinstatement of missing features in the main entrance hall, re- opening blocked windows, removing recent fire screens, exposing the original stone floors to the hall and stairs, reinstatement of statuary - Removal of 20th century partitions throughout the building - Removal of post-war ducting, ventilation and dumb waiter systems, to be replaced with a modern discreet and efficient M&E system - Removal of paint and linoleum from all historic staircases - Reinstatement of timber floors with reclaimed floor boards - Repairs to original window shutters - Reinstatement of fireplaces - Replacement of insensitive 20th century lighting with a mixture of traditional and hidden modern fittings - Redecoration following paint scrapes to establish historic paint colours
66. Reorganising the basement accommodation to provide legible and useable space is a challenge, in view of the large amount of partitioning and alteration carried out in the 20th century. There is a case for attempting to return to the original cruciform 18th century layout with a north-south and east-west axis, which would require the removal of some 19th century, and much 20th century intervention.
The Surrounding streets
67. Over the last thirty years there have been various proposals for environmental improvements and traffic management to make Clerkenwell Green a more attractive place for pedestrians. In the past it has not always been easy to reconcile the perceived differing requirements of residents and business, while ambitious traffic management proposals can often have implications for surrounding streets. A ‘Phase One’ scheme, extending the pavement outside the Crown Public House to link with the central island was implemented by the Council in the 1990s, but a Phase Two to achieve something similar around the Sessions House did not materialise. One factor at the time was the supposed car parking requirements of the Masons for their own functions.
68. In the current climate it would be desirable to explore opportunities for improvement once again. The successful scheme at nearby St John’s Square has shown that large amounts of ‘essential’ parking can be removed and reorganised, in full consultation with frontagers, to release space for wider pavements. Granite setts and narrower carriageways slow vehicle speeds. In Clerkenwell Green the car parking requirements for the Masons has disappeared. Many new businesses and residents have moved into the area. In terms of public opinion the opportunities for and benefits of creating highly attractive public realm are better appreciated than ever before.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cosh, Mary An Historic Walk Through Clerkenwell Islington Libraries 1980
Pinks, William The History of Clerkenwell Charles Herbert 1881
Survey of London South and East Clerkenwell Volume XLVI English Heritage and Yale University Press 2008
Tames, Richard Clerkenwell and Finsbury Past Historical Publications 1999
Alec Forshaw September 2014