FAITHFUL CONVERTS:
ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION
BY RICHARD PAUL BOULD
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree BSc(Hons) Building Surveying
Leeds Metropolitan University May 2011
ABSTRACT
Ecclesiastical buildings form part of the architectural legacy of the national built heritage. Proportionally, they number abundantly amongst the designated listed buildings. The future of these buildings is threatened by social change, making numerous places of worship redundant. Seeking to reuse the buildings, many have been acquired by developers and converted for residential habitation. This dissertation undertakes an assessment of completed and ongoing residential ecclesiastical conversions to determine if and how they successfully retain their significant architectural features, to establish what lessons can be learned.
This dissertation gathers academic literature and planning guidance to develop a framework for the successful conversion of ecclesiastical buildings whether designated as listed buildings or not. Applying this material, the dissertation presents four case studies of building surveys from a selection of different architectural styles and ecclesiastical use. This provides a detailed survey of each building, from which general themes of conversion are assessed.
A building survey was undertaken at four sites, with a photographic record taken at each site. This illustrates the conversions and acts to support the critical analysis. The photographs also serve to provide evidence to planners and developers of both positive and negative examples of conversion works. Whilst the case studies are limited in the architectural style of buildings, each conversion should be regarded as a unique mission. This dissertation is therefore valuable as a base for general principles of conversion and valuable for application to most conversions.
The case studies present varied findings for the retention of significant architecture in the conversion process. Externally, the buildings can be conserved with little alteration. Internally, ecclesiastical buildings are a challenge to convert. Smaller structures provide the best opportunity to successfully retain and conserve any of the original character. Architectural qualities and features are however at risk during any internal conversion. Assessment of architectural significance therefore becomes crucial before works are undertaken, to determine the value of the building.
Conversion proves successful at retaining and conserving significant architecture, dependent upon the structure of the building and the diligent approach of the developer and planner. The findings of this dissertation can be recommended for use as guidance by planning authorities and developers alike, guiding good conservation practice and applied planning policy, to faithfully convert both designated and undesignated ecclesiastical buildings.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My first note of thanks goes to the “custodians of the buildings” who allowed access to their homes. Their time, knowledge and willingness to support my work are greatly appreciated.
Thanks to Colin Smithson, former occupant and ‘architect’ of Marrick Wesleyan Chapel, who gave background information on the Chapel and conversion. Thanks also to members of the congregation of Thorner Methodist Church, for their knowledge and time. Appreciation also to my friend Geraldine Ford, for having the patience to proof read this work.
I would like to acknowledge the support and encouragement provided by Dr Beverley West. I also thank her for igniting my interest in the historic built environment, giving me the impetus to undertake this dissertation.
My thanks to Yorkshire Housing, my employer of six years for offering the financial support and releasing me from work to undertake five years of education. Gary, Brian and Andrew, my managers during this time have inspired and given me the opportunity to develop my career.
Finally I wish to dedicate this work to four close members of my family. To my mother Margaret, grandmother Sonia and father Paul, for their ever-present support and encouragement. Last to my grandfather, John, who has been my academic, philosophical and occupational inspiration and who offered critical direction on this dissertation.
ii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER HEADING PAGE
Abstract i Acknowledgement ii Contents iii List of Plates v Glossary of Terms ix
1 Ecclesiastical Redundancy & Conversion 1 Problem Specification 1 Literature Review 3 Methodology 9
2 Developing an Ecclesiastical Conversion Framework 12 Conversion Checklist 21
3 Conversion Case Studies 22 Thorner Methodist Chapel 22 Low Row Methodist Chapel 38 St Andrew’s Marrick Anglican Church 50 Marrick Methodist Chapel 63
4 Discussion of Case Studies, Conclusions & 74 Recommendations
Bibliography 81
iii
Appendices 85 Appendix A: Thorner Methodist Church Designation Listing 86 Appendix B: Leeds Mercury – 7th September 1876: Article 87 concerning planned Thorner Wesleyan Chapel Appendix C: Low Row Methodist Chapel Planning Application 88 Appendix D: Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Planning 89 Committee Meeting 8th July 2008; concerning application for development of Low Row Methodist Chapel Appendix E: E-mail from Colin Smithson; former occupant of 90 Marrick Wesleyan Chapel Appendix F: Compact Disc with supplementary photographs of 91 building surveys and additional sources of information
iv
LIST OF PLATES
All plates by the author unless otherwise stated
Plate Description Page
Case Study 1: Kirklands (formerly Thorner Methodist Chapel) 3.01 Kirklands: west elevation 22 3.02 Nave: view of roof lights on north elevation 24 3.03 Roof lights to school house 24 3.04 Timber doors to west elevation. Pre-conversion 25 3.05 Former doorway altered to accommodate new window openings to western 26 elevation 3.06 Blocked geometric tracery and lancet window to north elevation 27 3.07 Blocked window to west elevation of school house 27 3.08 Insertion of window casements to north elevation of nave 28 3.09 Original lancet windows to west elevation 28 3.10 Gargoyle to west elevation of spire 29 3.11 Date stone above door to west elevation. Floral spandrel flanks numbering 29 3.12 Columns to western doorway 29 3.13 Guilloche string course above west doorway 30 3.14 Foundation stone to west elevation of chapel 30 3.15 Interior of chapel nave pre-conversion. View from gallery towards eastern end of 31 building. Hammer beams to top of plate 3.16 Communal corridor to ground floor of chapel post-conversion. Located in former 31 nave 3.17 Living room in flat to former southern side of nave 31 3.18 Top floor flat to former nave: View of hammer beam, tie-beam and geometric 32 perforations to spandrel below roof light. (Source: Beadnall and Copley estate agents) 3.19 Mid-floor flat to former nave of chapel: Lower section of hammer-beam bisected by 32 floor insertion. Lancet windows shown bisected by floor insertion (Source: Beadnall and Copley estate agents) 3.20 Pine boarding to underside of roof adjacent roof light to top floor flat in nave. 33 (Source: Beadnall and Copley estate agents)
v
3.21 Rose window to east elevation of chapel. Balustrade and handrail seen bisecting 34 window 3.22 Geometric tracery to head of window to western gable of chapel. Glazed panel and 34 floor bisect opening 3.23 Thorner Chapel (1985 approx), Organ, pulpit, altar rail in situ prior to residential 35 conversion. (Source: Thorner and District Historical Society) 3.24 Internal lobby doors noted in listing of former Methodist Chapel. Now located in 35 current Thorner Chapel as shown 3.25 Altar rail and pulpit in Thorner Methodist Chapel. Transferred from former Chapel, 35 as seen in Plate 3.23 3.26 Memorial to Rev. John Pawson, former Methodist Preacher from Thorner. 35 Memorial sited in current chapel 3.27 Electricity substation for Kirklands. Sited in car park concealed by landscaping. 36 Constructed with sandstone walls matching the existing chapel building
Case Study 2: Low Row Methodist Chapel 4.01 Low Row Methodist Chapel – front elevation 38 4.02 Roof light to pitched roof – side elevation 40 4.03 Chapel from rear. Roof light has minimal impact on roof aesthetic 41 4.04 Door converted from window to side elevation 41 4.05 Original window opening to side elevation 41 4.06 Chapel with terraced walkway to front (1910-1930). (Source: Low Row booklet 42 “Low Row People Houses and Community Buildings”) 4.07 Terraced walkway narrowed to allow off-road parking to front elevation 42 4.08 Memorial foundation stones to front elevation. Inscriptions showing wear 43 4.09 Retained stained glass to front elevation windows. Secondary glazing to be 43 installed in opening later in conversion 4.10 Original rear window with stained glass. (Source: Michael Guy) 44 4.11 Upper section of renewed rear window. All glazing in clear glass 44 4.12 Lower section of renewed rear window, below floor divide. Stained glass retained 44 in bathroom 4.13 Underside of roof pre-conversion – with dark boarding and tie beam truss. (Source: 45 Michael Guy) 4.14 Tie beam truss retained post-conversion. Timber panelling removed from ceiling 45 4.15 New floor bisecting side window. No allowance for setting window back 46 4.16 New floor bisecting side window: later in construction. Floor set back from opening 46
vi
4.17 Void space at head of window viewed from interior. Floor and blank panel set back 47 from opening 4.18 Internal sub-division during construction. New floors and blocks walls pictured 47 4.19 Original chapel interior featuring; gallery, pulpit, organ casing and altar rail. 48 (Source: Michael Guy) 4.20 Bow pews to original interior of chapel, with rear window in background. (Source: 48 Michael Guy)
Case Study 3: St Andrew’s Marrick Anglican Church 5.01 St Andrew’s: Marrick Anglican Church 50 5.02 Pitched roof with log burner flue breaking roof line. Viewed from rear, alongside 52 vestry 5.03 View from street of roof with steel flue breaking ridge line of pitched roof 52 5.04 Renewed door to vestry. Composition and material similar to that of front door in 53 Plate 5.05 5.05 Front door to chapel. Believed to be in original form. Stone quoins surround door 53 opening. 5.06 Three-bay window to south elevation of nave. Render repairs and stone mullion 54 replacements evident 5.07 Plastic guttering fixed onto timber fascia boards to east elevation of vestry 55 5.08 Cast iron guttering fixed to wall with drive-in brackets 56 5.09 White plastic window to west elevation of vestry 56 5.10 White plastic French doors to west elevation of vestry 56 5.11 Aerial to vestry roof 57 5.12 New timber casement. Geometric tracery filled to head of opening 57 5.13 View from mezzanine towards three bay window in nave. Gallery seen extending 58 beyond mezzanine to left. Vertical thrust remains, with floor to ceiling level space retained 5.14 Long sightlines retained through length of church nave. Original floor remains to 59 kitchen area 5.15 View from ground floor of nave with mezzanine seen bisecting floor to ceiling 60 space 5.16 Original fireplace and surround to converted vestry. Now a sitting room post- 60 conversion 5.17 Original pew retained in church post-conversion 61
vii
Case Study 4: Marrick Methodist Chapel 6.01 Marrick Methodist Chapel: front elevation 63 6.02 Street-scene (1972) pre-conversion. (Source: Colin Smithson) 64 6.03 Street-scene (2010); window and whitewashing of gable wall only alterations 64 6.04 Weathered inscription to front elevation of chapel above door 65 6.05 Soil pipe to vestry roof and verge copings to apex of gables of pitched roof 66 6.06 Plastic guttering fixed with drive-in brackets into masonry of chapel nave walls 66 6.07 Plastic guttering and downpipes fixed onto fascia board to vestry 67 6.08 Front elevation (1972); featuring original timber door with fanlight, original timber 68 sliding sash window and cast iron guttering. (Source: Colin Smithson) 6.09 Timber French doors replacing solid door to front elevation. Fanlight above door 68 blocked concealing floor insertion 6.10 Top hung casements to front elevation, replacing sliding sash windows 68 6.11 Timber external door to front elevation. Coloured glass to upper panes in door 69 6.12 External door leading into kitchen (former vestry). Stable door used – adopting 69 vernacular agricultural style 6.13 Blocked window / door opening to rear elevation in former vestry wall. Masonry 70 complements adjoining 6.14 Floor inserted to former nave. Initial conversion evident, with joists extended to 71 outer wall later 6.15 Living room post-conversion. Original width of chapel nave retained 71 6.16 Stairs breaking sightlines from ground floor to ceiling of former nave 72 6.17 Vestry shown pre-conversion. Timber boarding fixed to walls, with original fireplace 73 and pew in foreground
viii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The Oxford English Dictionary or Dictionary of Building definition otherwise applies.
Anglican Religious; of or relating to the Church of England.
Ashlar Stone prepared for construction by cutting to shape and laid in courses.
Conservation The process of maintaining and managing change to a heritage asset in a way that sustains and where appropriate enhances its significance.1
Curtilage Area of land belonging to a building including all land up to boundary.
Ecclesiastical Building Place of public worship, most often associated with Christian religions
Finial Decorative feature at the head of a gable wall.
Gargoyle Decorative water spout often in the form of a grotesque figure. Commonly associated with Gothic architectural styles.
Geometric Tracery Elaborate carved masonry window often curved and symmetrical in form in filled with glass. Emerged in the early Gothic era.
Gothic Architectural style emerging in the 13th and 14th centuries in Europe. Associated with developments in
Hammer Beam Pair of timber beams designed to support an arched roof. Devised to allow greater roof spans.
Heritage Asset A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. They include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local authority during the process of decision making.2
Listed Building A building recognised in the Statutory Lists of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest.3
1 Definition taken from Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. 2 Ibid. 3 Definition taken from Cunnington, P (1988) Change and Decay. ix
Methodist Relating to the religious church founded in the 18th century by John Wesley. Break-away from the established Church of England.
Mezzanine An intermediate open floor dividing a vertical space. Located between two floors or floor and ceiling.
Nave Central body of a church or chapel where the congregation sit.
Neo-Gothic Re-emergence of Gothic architecture in the 19th century.
Nonconformist Christian church not associated or in communion with the Anglican Church.
Redundant Reference to a building declared un-viable for continued use by its church or religious organisation.
Significance The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest (see definition of Value below).4
Spandrel Wall or infilling timber section below a roof or stair structure, often triangular in form.
Tie Beam Timber roof truss tied by a beam horizontally crossing the foot of the rafters.
Value Aspect of value in a building or place deemed important by its historical importance, aesthetic appearance, regard of the community or ability to provide evidence of previous existence.5
Verge The apex of a gable wall running along a pitched roof.
Vernacular Relating to the native architecture and or materials of a specific place.
Vestry Room attached to a church to store symbols, garments or materials of worship.
Wesleyan Relating to the early or primitive form of Methodist religion. Reference to John Wesley, founder of the faith.
4 Definition taken from Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. 5 Definition taken from English Heritage (2008): Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. x
CHAPTER 1
ECCLESIASTICAL REDUNDANCY & CONVERSION
PROBLEM SPECIFICATION
Ecclesiastical buildings, through their age and character, provide a plethora of preserved historical architecture and built heritage. They number prominently amongst those buildings to have survived many centuries, offering examples of design and skill, commonly the finest structures in a community (English Heritage, 2003). Over half of the Church of England’s church stock, comprising 8500 of its 16700 churches, pre-dates the Reformation (Delafons, 1997). This makes them a valuable resource, to study the different ages of architecture, with their various idiosyncratic features.
Statistics from The Church of England (n.d. a) state that thirty churches close each year. These buildings, along with those of other denominations’ buildings, form part of the important architectural heritage of England. Following closure, the ecclesiastical buildings can become available for re-use by other faiths or preserved unoccupied and unused. Alternatively another use can be found through conversion. This dissertation will focus on the latter option.
Religious belief appears to be in decline, with 61% of the population claiming not to be religious (McManus, 2011). Church attendance amongst congregations of the Christian faiths is low and falling. In the last five years weekly attendances have fallen by 5% (The Church of England, 2010). Historical trends show this more dramatically, with 1.6 million usually attending Church of England Sunday service in 1968, down to 871,000 by 2005 (Church Society, n.d.). Butt (2010) reports that this trend is despite initiatives aiming to increase attendance. Doward (2008) reports that the future could see congregations fall to a tenth of current levels. This is presented in a Christian Research study, which predicts attendances to drop to 88,000 by 2050. In synthesis, redundancy of ecclesiastical buildings appears to be a foreseeable trend.
1
Approximately three-quarters of the parish churches of England are designated as listed buildings. Churches account for nearly half of the nation’s building stock with a Grade I designation; those of exceptional interest. As Jack (2010) notes, the custodianship of a large amount of our built architectural heritage is held by a small and declining population. Maintaining the architectural significance of these buildings therefore becomes pertinent, specifically when considered against the potential for increased redundancy of this building type in its original use.
Responding to the problem of redundant ecclesiastical stock, three courses of action have emerged. Demolition has been practised but with great losses to historic architecture (Binney and Burman, 1977a). To retain them one solution is to preserve them unoccupied which has been undertaken by charities, such as the Friends of Friendless Churches. The alternative is to find another use through conversion of the building. The Church of England’s Secretary to the Pastoral and Redundant Churches Committee lists some of the alterations of use to be for housing, offices, retail, education, sports centres and some are transferred to other faiths (The Church of England, 2005). Residential conversion is to be investigated, since it poses a common form of conserving the redundant ecclesiastical stock.
The aim of this study is to determine the success or otherwise of maintaining the architectural character and historic value of ecclesiastical buildings in the process of converting them for other uses. It will be determined by reviewing relevant literature followed by a critical analysis of residential conversions. This should present an evidence base from which an objective analysis can be undertaken. This will provide answers to the question of whether conversion maintains or blights architecture.
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
According to Kincaid (2002) literature on conversions of specific groups of buildings is limited in quantity. Whilst there are examples of building conversions with changes of use, the analysis has been dealt with on an individual basis. There is however recently published governmental guidance namely the ‘Planning Policy Statement 5; Planning for the Historic Environment’ (PPS5, 2010), which provides planning policy and advice on Britain’s historic assets. Additionally, English Heritage has lately published a practical document, ‘New Uses for Former Places of Worship’ (2010) applying the policy of PPS5 and giving practical guidance to those undertaking ecclesiastical conversions.
Increasingly ecclesiastical buildings are becoming redundant ending their primary historic function, thus stimulating conversion for new uses. The government planning policy offers guidance and perspective on the control of development to buildings forming part of the historic environment. This policy and guidance is given in ‘Planning Policy Statement 5; Planning for the Historic Environment’ (PPS5, 2010) and the supporting ‘PPS5 Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide’ (PPS5, 2010). PPS5 presents the concept of the ‘heritage asset’, which includes buildings of historic significance. A broader classification than that used for designated buildings is employed. Predominantly churches and chapels fall into the ‘heritage asset’ categorisation; hence the document is pertinent in determining control of development to these sites.
PPS5 approaches the conversion of ‘heritage assets’ to new uses similarly to previous government guidance, asserting that the best use is the most appropriate and viable. Alterations can be accommodated to buildings of historical significance compliant with conservation philosophy. This potentially secures the long term sustainable use of the building. In application, this should guarantee the conservation of those aspects of the building that make it significant for current and future generations.
3
PPS5 suggests the original use of a building may not be the most viable for its long term conservation. This diverges from the previous policy in ‘Planning Policy Guidance 15’ (1994) which suggested the original was the best. This was a view supported specifically to churches by English Heritage (2003). Earl (2003) also takes a conservative approach to church conversion, claiming the best adaptation is the closest to the original use. Flexibility becomes necessary though, as the conservative approach does not account for the realities of increased redundancy. Earl (2003) states adaptation and loss of limited aspects of a building’s value is preferable to destruction. The conservative approach may have developed from the preceding losses. In the lead up to the 1970s many thousands of churches featuring works of architectural merit or historical value had been demolished, as demonstrated in Binney and Burman’s works (1977a).
PPS5 appears to adopt more creativity and flexibility towards control of the built heritage. A sustainable approach realising the future potential for redundant buildings is proposed. In PPS5 reference is made to historical assets being reused to mitigate climate change and secure sustainability (PPS5, 2010). Managed change and identification of a viable use should be permitted in a way that compliments the conservation of a building and ensures long term retention of the asset. This approach vindicates Watt and Swallow’s (1996) supposition that historic buildings should adapt and respond to evolving needs and social change. Pearce (1989) perspective reflects the policy, favouring managed change rather than preserving them as unoccupied redundant buildings. Conservationist groups are beginning to appreciate the reality that change of use may offer the best solution in response to the growing level of redundancy and a sustainable way of preserving the asset (English Heritage, 2003).
A flexible approach to the use of buildings conforms to the idea of sustainable conservation. This is advocated by Delafons (1997) and now features heavily in planning guidance. The Government’s recent objectives demonstrate this, namely the need to manage intelligently change to conserve assets for future generations (PPS5, 2010). PPS5 states that alterations which bring a historic asset back into use, where no other viable alternative has been found, can be a just cause for 4
harm or loss of significance to the asset, although this is likely to be in very exceptional circumstances, where sustained use cannot be met in the medium term (PPS5, 2010). This presents a case for future church conversions to be supported and advocated by local authorities, as interpreted by PPS5.
The challenge in question is balancing the function of a building and its architectural features. Delafons (1997) calls for the best of the heritage should be preserved. However, he also states conservation should be sustainable and allow for change. The argument seems plausible, since much of what is valued today is the result of change. Latham’s (2000) perspective applies this; supporting re-use with permitted alterations that evolve the church or chapel rather than abandoning it. Whilst the valued buildings may not have changed use, they have been, in many cases, altered or at least repaired. The result has seen amendments to design and structure. Conservation should therefore be regarded as an organic process. Change and conversion then becomes an acceptable part of the process that adds value and heritage to our built environment.
Among the earliest advocates of ecclesiastical conversion were Binney and Burman (1977a). They held a pivotal exhibition in London in 1977 on the future of churches which campaigned for new uses to be found. They appealed to convert them to sports halls, community halls, refuges and hand them over to other denominations. This exhibition appears to have inspired some of the conversions that followed. This becomes apparent in Powell and De La Hey’s study (1987), which presents examples of church conversions that Binney and Burman suggested would be possible.
Powell and De La Hey (1987) consider churches as a central part of the architectural heritage of Europe. This highlights the concern that redundancy poses with the potential loss of a significant amount of heritage. They advocate conversion, but acknowledge the inherent difficulties in achieving this successfully. Few conversions successfully complement the original design, particularly residential alterations. Discrimination should be necessary because these are the most important of architecturally significant buildings claims Pearce (1989). Powell 5
and De La Hey champion successful conversion, supporting it over abandonment and demolition.
Powell and De La Hey (1987) present the need to find viable and suitable new uses for redundant ecclesiastical buildings, which will not restrict subsequent potential uses. Reference is made to the insertion of concrete floors which resulted in the loss of the character of a building. This perspective conforms to conservation principles and planning guidance that alterations should be reversible (Strike, 1996; PPS5, 2010). Ultimately, the authors regard conversion as a positive process, presenting various case studies to support their perspective. Their stance is persuasive, illustrating a number of demolished churches which they regret. The study provides comments on, but lacks examples of less sympathetic conversions. This is perhaps in part due to their advocacy of the conversion process and their attempts to encourage this action. This is not to be regarded negatively, since their sustained argument supporting converting and retaining heritage is commendable.
In 2010 English Heritage published ‘New Uses for Former Places of Worship’, a practical guide for owners, developers and local authorities when considering development of ecclesiastical buildings. This document is particularly useful, applying the government policy and guidance of PPS5 and EH’s 2008 guidance specifically to church conversions. The document is authoritative, capturing current conservation planning principles, whilst further offering technical guidance on converting ecclesiastical buildings for new uses. The guide recommends an assessment of significance should be undertaken on the building as part of the planning process. The developer should complete the assessment to the impact of any changes on the significance of the building, whether it is a designated asset or not. This is important because non-listed buildings can now be considered as ‘heritage assets’ as stated in PPS5. They may therefore be subject to conservation principles guiding planning decisions.
The Uses of Places of Former Worship (2010) by English Heritage is a marked change from their previous position on the subject. Peter Drury (1994) of English Heritage stated that ecclesiastical buildings are vulnerable to the effects of 6
conversion on their architectural and historical value. He asserted that the internal fittings are of significance and form an integral part of churches. The ornaments, pews and altar all symbols of religious practice are integral to the original function of the building. These would be almost impossible to retain in any residential, office or retail conversion. Drury claims other threats to the character include internal subdivision which would be difficult to manage, particularly in residential conversion. He highlights the risks of roof lights and new windows as potentially compromising the character of churches. Although Drury points out negative aspects, he poses no solutions to redundant churches. This earlier approach by English Heritage has now been largely superseded and they have offered proactive guidance in the form of Uses for Former Places of Worship (EH, 2010). This shows acknowledgement of the value of the ecclesiastical building stock and the necessity to find sustainable approaches to adapting it for new uses, in response to the problem of redundancy.
The focus turns to the technical challenges faced in altering churches for other uses. Powell and De La Hey (1987) support Drury’s argument that internal spaces should be retained where possible, since this holds much of the value of the building. This is a view augmented by Pearce (1989), who stated that churches have an internal space essentially different to 99.8% of the building stock. It is evident that it will not be possible to retain in all conversions, since division of space is almost certainly necessary in places planned for multiple occupancy. The study states however, that this should be examined on an individual basis, since the internal architecture is not always striking and the external value can still be retained. This may yet prove difficult since the value of a church’s internal space may be difficult to appreciate, such as the spiritual and subjective regard of the community. The loss of large internal space in a church may be as damaging as the loss of architectural features. Earl (2003) reinforces this, stating loss of the interior damages the qualities which recommend the building for conservation. This view is widely supported (Binney and Burman, 1977a; Drury, 1994; Brennan, 2004). The consensus in the literature is that minimal structural alterations and an open plan retained interior are preferable to sub-division.
7
Externally, Powell and De La Hey (1987) support the retention of original windows and state that new openings should complement the existing. Stonework should match existing materials to their original proportion and appearance where additions are made. Roof lights and extensions are regarded negatively by PPS5 and English Heritage (2010). Extensions may prove necessary to make conversions function, although as stated by both Powell and De La Hey and Drury, conversion and new use should be carefully selected to complement existing space. Brown (1977) concurs stating that external alterations should be minimal. These practical suggestions are prescriptive and will aid both the study in hand and the practitioners. There does appear to be a strong emphasis on disturbing as little as possible, with a conservative approach widely accepted.
In rural areas, residential conversion is often the only possibility, save for preservation (Powell and De La Hey, 1987). This can be attributed to a continuing problem, with the loss of Nonconformist churches and the merging of parishes, which can render one church redundant. English Heritage (2010) comment on the popularity of rural conversions for domestic purposes. It suggests there is not the demand for commercial or community facilities in these locations. The argument could be challenged, given the increase of flexible working and modern communications. Small offices can be rurally based with modern technology.
Binney and Burman (1977b) presented the case, at their time of writing, of resentment to churches being converted to residential usage. It was claimed by some that the residential use of a former religious building was distasteful, a case further highlighted by Brown (1977). Both sources present this perspective yet qualify it by advancing the argument that new uses preserve the buildings. This responds to other sources preferring demolition over conversion. A number of dioceses were presented who support the case for conversion, although qualified by a preference to retain public access rather than private residential. Since then it appears the authorities have accepted and embraced the need to conserve and convert valued parts of these redundant places of former worship.
8
Much of the literature presented on the surveys of church conversions is now dated. There is a need to critically appraise examples of church conversions against the newly published planning guidance. This will determine their ability to guide the profession in interpreting and maintaining the historical and architectural legacy of converted ecclesiastical stock. Combined with falling congregations, the need to address an increasing redundant stock of churches becomes more urgent and raises the research question.
METHODOLOGY
The literature search identified that there has been little applied research into conversions of ecclesiastical buildings. Case studies providing a critical analysis of church conversions are minimal save for Powell and De La Hey (1987), which was limited in the number of critically assessed cases. This leaves an opening for investigation and further study to employ a research methodology for undertaking a series of case studies. These will facilitate a detailed commentary of the conversion process. A critical analysis can then determine the success of alterations to buildings formally used as places of worship.
To undertake a critical analysis of the building surveys it will first be necessary to develop a framework of academic thought on which the survey can be based. By doing this, the case studies can be judged by the planning guidance and authority of those previously undertaking research on the subject. The case studies examine how the new PPS5 and English Heritage (2010) documents can be applied retrospectively against practical examples of conversions. The framework describes the technical aspects of a conversion detailing what guidance or principles exist for each element of the building and its context.
The study will turn then to the building survey, enabling the capture of empirical evidence from which an assessment can be made. A building survey will take the form of an inspection and critical report. This will determine the architectural value of the building. Building surveys also utilise secondary material, namely historical 9
records, archived information and plans to show the previous uses, materials involved and the owners of a building (Watt & Swallow, 1996). The secondary material will provide the pre-conversion material on which to judge the effects of conversion on the buildings.
The survey is supported by photographic evidence documenting the conversions, providing a visual record of the evidence. This allows for a pictorial presentation as the findings are discussed, whilst also allowing for the evidence to be opened to wider assessment. This would allow for testing of the validity and reliability of the study. Validity is defined as being the ability to generalise the findings of research, making use of them for other conversions. Reliability is the ability for others to conclude the same findings from the research evidence (Bryman 2001). The photographs form supplementary documentation of conversion together with written analysis and findings. The images provide an illustrative guide to owners and developers wanting to undertake works.
The case studies are based on four examples of church conversions, all set in Yorkshire, where there was the opportunity to carry out the surveys. Bias can therefore not be ruled out. Bryman (2001), values the employment of case studies since they afford a detailed analysis of specific subject matter. The churches are from a variety of architectural ecclesiastical backgrounds, presenting variation in the sample of case study findings. Whilst Bryman (2001) asserts that case studies are limited in their ability to generalise their conclusions, he confirms they provide a detailed and intensive body of evidence. Moreover, academics in this subject have said that conversions should be taken on an individual basis (Kincaid 2002). For this reason, this study should be regarded as indicative rather than an all- encompassing study of church conversions.
Having undertaken the building survey, the analysis begins with a statement of significance of the church building, as recommended by English Heritage (2010) and PPS5 (2010). The assessment of significance realises the value of the building, identifying the important architectural features existing pre-conversion. Based on this, it should be determined what of value should be kept in a 10
conversion. Secondary material and the building survey will form part of the summary. The value of this exercise is proven by the planning guidance. PPS5 recommends that applications for development found lacking an assessment of the impact on asset significance should not be validated.
The case study will then turn to a discussion on alterations followed by a critical analysis of the conversions, evaluating them against the academic research presented prior to research. The value of each conversion will be summarised and an assessment made of the findings. Following completion of the critical appraisal, a summary of the research will then be presented. This will afford the opportunity to compare and contrast the case studies. Critically analysing the surveys, using the planning and academic guidance, should prove their success or otherwise in retaining the architectural value of the buildings.
The methods adopted in this study are analysed, to determine whether the observations and critique are reliable and valid for general application in this subject area. Conclusions are drawn from the findings and finally recommendations for future study and application of the findings are presented.
This research would be of use to planning authorities when determining whether to support conversions. It could also prove a useful supplement to the guide published by English Heritage, the subject’s leading advocate of the built heritage. The other group would be the organised ecclesiastical bodies, when considering the future of redundant places of worship. The research may prove a useful tool for those wishing to convert churches, highlighting the successes or otherwise of previous works that have set precedent.
11
CHAPTER 2
DEVELOPING AN ECCLESIASTICAL CONVERSION FRAMEWORK
Introduction
This section seeks to develop a practical framework on which later case studies of church conversions are assessed. The criteria for finding a new use include identifying a solution suited to the character of the church and alterations which are sensitively designed and incorporated (Binney & Burman 1977a; 1977b).
It is at the stage of determining significance of the assets of the ecclesiastical building that conversion should be considered. Significantly for application, English Heritage (2010) state that the onus to compromise should be on the developer finding a new use, rather than on the planning authority authorising works which would see loss to the assets. This guidance is in line with the principles of PPS5 and English Heritage’s (2008) conservation guidance.
The challenge of converting churches is finding a sustainable alternative use. Here the planning authorities articulate policy which allows for interpretation. The local conditions will determine what conversion uses are suitable. The resolution encouraged by PPS5 (2010) is to identify a use that ensures long term conservation without repeated alteration. Fragmented ownership of the asset is discouraged. Management of the asset under concentrated possession is more favourably received, typically that of a sole owner.
Sustainability allows extensive alterations affecting significance where no other viable use can be found in the medium term. This affects all ‘heritage assets’, whether designated or not, suggesting non-listed ‘heritage assets’ are no less significant and also subject to the same conservation planning policy and guidance (PPS5, 2010).
12
External - Generally
Brown (1977) states alterations to the exterior are to be kept to a minimum. The ultimate aim of any church conversion is to retain the townscape or landmark value that the building captures. The exterior is the most vulnerable element and should therefore be the least affected by any alterations (Powell and De La Hey, 1987). Their study presents cases where planning officers have granted planning consent to convert churches on a conditional basis. For example, demanding the retention of major elements such as spires and towers. This is in spite of the potential expense in maintaining such features, which arguably may be of limited practical use.
Planning guidance stated in PPS5 (2010) and English Heritage (2010) assert that any additions should be subsidiary to the main structure in size, siting and external finish. The work should be a positive addition; harmonious to the existing structure whilst appearing as a natural development. This can be achieved through using similar materials and adopting quality workmanship. Presented here is a dichotomy of the perspectives suggested by Strike (1994), additions which mix blending with distinctive layers of history. This approach reflects different perspectives of conservation theory, whether to blend in new architecture or to differentiate it from the existing (Strike, 1994).
These broad principles are applied to church conversions, specifically extensions. Powell and De La Hey (1987) suggested they can rarely be considered successful. Where they are undertaken, they should be constructed using reclaimed masonry to complement the adjacent structure in colour and form, the blending of old and new (Strike, 1994). This differs from Cunnington (1988) who advocates sympathetic but identifiable additions, aligning with Strike’s (1994) distinctive perspective of new work detailed earlier.
English Heritage’s (2010) position is that the addition should be at the rear elevation, where it is less prominent and subsidiary to the main build. They present an example quite distinct in material composition, but reflective of the volume and 13
massing of the adjoining place of worship. They dub this “echoing” the existing building’s vocabulary, using the roof pitch, volume and mass of the existing build to establish a point of reference for the extension (English Heritage, 2010).
Doors & Windows
According to the planning guidance (PPS5, 2010), new openings are likely to have a negative effect on significance. Cunnington (1988) supports this view, stating that they should be avoided if they are unsympathetic to the character of the building. Further, where existing openings are redundant in the new use, they should be retained and incorporated into the new design. Cunnington (1988) presents an example of a conversion where a door has been inserted into a former window opening, with the door fully glazed. The reverse configuration, inserting glazing into redundant door openings is advocated by PPS5, seemingly supporting this approach. Cunnington does not offer critical thought on her example, other than claiming that complete conversion is an “imaginative solution”. The action appears a necessary compromise to allow access, whilst acknowledging the lighting effect that the opening previously had. This approach seems to conform to Powell and De La Hey’s perspective (1987), who support limited additions of doors and windows which sympathetically complement any existing fenestrations.
Where a window or glazing is significant, but provides insufficient thermal performance levels, PPS5 (2010) advocates the use of secondary glazing. This is favoured against replacement of the existing window if it is still functional.
Retention of stained glass is encouraged by the likes of Binney and Watson-Smyth (1991) and Cunnington (1988). English Heritage (2010) suggests it is one of the archetypal features of places of worship, making them a significant element for retention in any conversion. Stained glass may be a memorial, adding historical or communal value to the building. Removal may have a damaging effect on the significance of the build, both on the interior and exterior. Cunnington (1988) does recognise that the retention of stained glass may present lighting problems within residential spaces. She accepts preservation of glazing in museums or transfer to 14
other ecclesiastical buildings, where it is of value and cannot be retained. Latham (2000) concurs on the practical difficulty of providing lighting and suggests that clear leaded glass is an acceptable alternative to stained glass. Stained glass can be a useful alternative where obscured glass would be used. Locating bathrooms where glass is stained and of significance would resolve both design and conservation concerns.
Roof
Cunnington (1988) supports the provision of a limited number of flush roof lights, on the least conspicuous elevations, to allow for natural lighting to upper storeys of dwellings within the building. These lights should be limited in number to prevent breaking the line of the roof, distracting from the significance of the roof mass. Further, dormer windows prove even more damaging on the aesthetic of the roof and should be avoided.
Where gas flues, extractor fans or other services terminate at roof level, they can blemish the original clear line of the roof. A solution which Powell and De La Hey (1987) note is a crocket (ventilated decorative cover) to cap the terminal. This should complement the roof covering in colour.
Internal – Generally
The interior is challenging when considering how to conserve those items most significant to the building. There is consensus among most authorities that the internal fittings; namely monuments, pews, sculptures, screens and architectural detailing can possess significant features of character (Powell and De La Hey, 1987; Earl, 2003; English Heritage, 2010). The structural elements of the building should be retained where they are of value, undisturbed by new additions. Powell and De La Hey (1987) support this and present a number of examples where columns, arches and detailed timber work have been retained and emphasised in the new conversion.
15
Reversibility of additions and alterations, though not used as an easement for alteration, is a theme in academic material and planning guidance (PPS5, 2010). New floors and walls should be designed to allow reversibility for potential de- conversion, where the internal space has significance, (Brown 1977, & Cunnington 1988).
Sub-Division
Dividing the open space of a church attracts conservative attitudes from conservation, planning and academic authorities when discussing conversion of ecclesiastical buildings. Brown (1977) qualifies this by stating that not all church interiors are architecturally valuable, therefore allowing sub-division and alteration by inserting new floors and walls. Clearly, an assessment of the significance of the interior features and space is necessary to determine the value of the church, as proposed by Binney and Burman (1977a; 1977b) and supported by current planning policy (PPS5 2010 & English Heritage 2010).
Finding the most appropriate conversion use for conserving the internal space of a church is a theme amongst the authorities. Binney & Watson-Smyth (1991) recommend concert / community halls, exhibitions, and open plan offices as the most appropriate use in response to the architecture. This view is supported by Pearce (1989), though he adds that small churches may accommodate residential conversion. These perspectives are summarised in English Heritage’s guidance on conversion of places of worship (2010). The conversions best suiting this space and responding to the plan form are therefore single vessel use; a single residence. Multiple occupancy divides a space requiring extensive alteration and services provision. It offers solution, proposing adjoining spaces such as vestries, transepts, galleries or other subsidiary spaces divided from the main place of worship, be utilised for accommodating compartmentalised rooms like bathrooms or bedrooms. Powell and De La Hey (1987) on the same theme suggest the original form should dictate how new rooms are formed into the space. They do support an example of a church subdivided into flats, where the arches of the nave dictate the divide between one flat to the adjoining. 16
Turning to the spatial qualities typical of these building types, the original space is likely to have long sight lines; long horizontal views or high ceiling levels. English Heritage is an advocate of retaining these and the government’s planning guidance (PPS5, 2010) quotes this as an aim specifically for church alterations. The ability to understand the previous proportions is valued by government guidance (PPS5, 2010). On the plan form of the building, where there is an orientation which focuses on an eastward location of worship, any additions or sub-division should be kept to the western end of the space (English Heritage, 2010).
Internal Walls
Sub-division captures the principles of inserting walls into an open space. There is specific guidance relating to the technical issues of installing new walls. New walls and floors should be built from a self supporting system, independent of the original structure (Pearce, 1989). This opinion seems to have been advanced to allow for the original surfaces to be left intact and suitable for potential reversibility. Services should be incorporated into new walls, floors or internal support systems, causing the least disruption and damage (Pearce, 1989; Latham 2000).
Floors
Introducing new floors will sub-divide the structure, which presents its own difficulties, but as an addition it needs to be carefully positioned. Cunnington (1988) finds that post-Reformation preaching houses, typically of the Nonconformist denominations, allow for the provision of new floors with the least compromise to architecture. She says these buildings commonly have two tiers of windows with a high eaves level, allowing floors to be inserted between the window lines. The view that floors should not cross window lines is shared amongst other academics and planning guidance (English Heritage, 2010; PPS5 2010).
Gothic churches typically having tall windows and low eaves which make locating new floors challenging. Cunnington (1988) suggests that floors be set back from the window where they do bisect, so as to preserve the opening inside and outside 17
the building. Powell and De La Hey (1987) support this, stating that floors set back from walls or windows allow appreciation of the vertical thrust and volume of the space. Alternatively, there are advocates of installing mezzanines rather than inserting a whole floor, allowing large areas to be kept open. These are best located at the western end of the build, away from the focal point of an eastern window or chancel (English Heritage, 2010). These methods avoid the need to insert blanking panels where the floor bisects the window. Where panels are inserted, Powell and De La Hey (1987) commend a case where the panels complemented the colour of the roof covering, therefore minimising the external impact.
Where floors are inserted in aisled churches or those with an arcade, Cunnington (1988) highlights the potential for problem where the nave is at a different level. Where a floor is inserted in these circumstances, it would divide the arches, detracting from the significance. This is supported by PPS5 (2010) which advocates the retention of window and door openings, whether in use or not. Cunnington (1988) further recommends leaving aisles and naves open to the roof space and using roof lights to illuminate the space. This may allow appreciation of any significant detailing in the roof rafters or any cladding fixed onto them. Powell and De Lay Hey (1987) agree on both of these points and add that leaving part of the structure open to the full roof height allows the original scale of the church to be appreciated. Where floors are inserted, the compromise is to locate them at capital level, atop columns. This is deemed the most suitable compromise when breaking any openings, as it retains the vertical columns and full scale of the arches.
Though the archaeology of ecclesiastical buildings is not a concern of this study, it’s importance to the building stock in question is significant. PPS5 (2010) expects care to be taken in alterations of buildings to preserve archaeological importance. For this reason an architectural solution is a suspended floor, offering protection to submerged or buried artefacts. This encapsulates any hidden history or archaeology (Rodwell & Rodwell, 1977).
18
Galleries
Galleries can present a challenge in conversions, particularly where they are open. Closed galleries would allow formation of a new floor level. Open galleries could be employed the same way as a mezzanine. Their loss is lamented by Powell and De La Hey (1987) who advocate their retention and use as bedrooms and bathrooms where they are enclosed.
Fittings and Furniture
Cunnington (1988) and Powell and De La Hey (1987) both note that removal of most internal items of value is likely to occur prior to redundancy. The latter pair show favour where choir stalls have been retained as seating and pews used as book shelves in the new use. The recycling of furniture for other uses is seemingly accepted in the academic material. The alternative is to transfer items to other places of worship (English Heritage, 2010).
Internal Monuments
Physick (1977) states that all monuments should be preserved when a church is faced with demolition or conversion. They provide a historical, genealogical and sculptural interest that will hold significance to wider society. They range from tablets, busts, sculptures to brass plates. Physick calls for them to be re-sited at other ecclesiastical or transferred to local museums where they can be displayed. Where they are retained in the building, Brown (1977) encourages display over concealment. In these circumstances English Heritage (2010) advocates enclosing the monument in glass. Cunnington (1988) suggests this allows for their retention in the event that the building is reversed back to its original use.
19
Churchyards
Where an ecclesiastical building is designated this will include the churchyard surrounding it, subject to it being within the curtilage (confines of a properties boundary). This affords the churchyard the same planning controls as the church, making assessment of them necessary when converting churches and potential extensions onto the churchyard.
English Heritage (2010) note that it may be a condition of conversion that access is maintained to a burial site and in some circumstances one that remains in use following conversion. Where use continues, Binney and Burman (1977b) object to dividing the church yard between private resident and visitors to the place of burial. Cunnington (1988) meanwhile, highlights the problems of allowing for maintenance and routine cleaning of windows where ownership does not extend to adjoining churchyards.
Churchyards can hold significant historical and archaeological value. Monuments may be of architectural or historical interest and permission for their removal would only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Alteration to accommodate a car park would need careful consideration due to visual impact and effect on the setting (Powell and De La Hey, 1987; English Heritage, 2010). English Heritage (2010) note the importance of maintaining the aesthetic of the setting, with churchyards and the building often having an interlinked relationship. Finally, utility service lines should be dug at the minimum allowable depth and under existing pathways to prevent disturbance to remains and archaeology (English Heritage, 2010).
Summary
Having gathered together the academic and planning guidance, a critical analysis can now be undertaken. The case studies that follow will be judged against these authorities.
20
A checklist of conversion good practice in-line with conservation of ecclesiastical architecture is detailed below:-
External Architectural details and features retained both inside and outside where possible New openings to be kept to a minimum in number and proportion Redundant openings to be retained Stained glass to be retained and used for bathrooms where practical Leaded glazing to replace stained glass if not practical to retain Rooflights to be kept to a minimum. Dormers in-advisable Additions and extensions constructed in materials complementing the existing structure in type, proportion, colour and texture.
Internal Internal features to be retained, such as columns, arches and timberwork Sub-division to be avoided or limited. Subsidiary spaces such as vestries and transepts better able to accept compartmentalisation. Spatial qualities with accompanying vertical and horizontal sightlines to be retained Mezzanines prove complementary to retaining spatial qualities whilst accommodating private spaces Any internal alterations to be reversible New services to be located in new floors and walls Floors to be inserted out of window openings. Where floors bisect windows they should be set back Fixtures and fittings to be transferred to other places of worship i.e. pews, organs, pulpit, lectern etc. Burial grounds and memorials to be conserved and left undisturbed.
21
CHAPTER 3
CONVERSION CASE STUDIES
CASE STUDY 1: KIRKLANDS – FORMERLY THORNER METHODIST CHAPEL
Plate 3.01 – Kirklands: west elevation
Description & Background
Kirklands, formerly Thorner Methodist Chapel, was built in 1877-1878 on Carr Lane, Thorner. Thorner, the oldest Methodist connexion in the Leeds area had a large Nonconformist population in a typically small, rural village. Growing congregations during the 19th century rendered smaller buildings impractical. The architect was George Francis Danby6 of Leeds, designer of a number of Gothic churches and chapels in the late 19th century. Plans to build the chapel began in 1873 and following delays foundation stones were laid 6th September 1876. The opening took place on 10 April 1878. Thorner Chapel cost £5200 to erect. The
6 G. F. Danby was architect to Burley Methodist Chapel and Trinity Congregational Church on Woodhouse Lane. The latter is another example of a converted church, now a nightclub 22
chapel contained 300 seats, a gallery of 140 seats and an adjoining schoolroom capable of holding 200 children. The building also included a chapel keeper’s dwelling.
The chapel was designated as a Grade II listed building in 1984. The listing (see Appendix A) notes the Gothic Revival style of architecture with external features consisting of ashlar dressed stone walls, slate roof, gabled doorway with stiff leaf capitals, trefoil lights, guilloche carvings, geometrical tracery to the windows and a polygonal spire. Internally the organ and woodwork housing, an octagonal pulpit, western gallery, hammer beam roof and bow pews are noted.
Use of the chapel continued until the final service on 26th May 1985 when it closed for worship. The congregation found maintenance of the building a liability. The vast scale of the chapel rendered much of the space redundant to a small congregation. Services were then transferred to a smaller chapel, one previously used by the Methodists as a Sunday School on Main Street, Thorner. A number of planning applications were submitted to convert the chapel for residential use, with the first being made in 1981, suggesting the transfer had been a long process. Permission was granted in 1985 to convert the chapel and it was subsequently re- developed into twenty-three residential flats.
Summary of Significance
The chapel has historic and communal value as a symbol of the presence of the Nonconformist tradition in the village. The spire remains a dominant feature in the landscape, visible from most approaches to the village. It retains external neo- Gothic architecture, mostly from the Early English style. A rose window with five quatrefoils is of significant quality, as determined by English Heritage’s designation. Following closure for worship and conversion to residential use, much of the internal fittings including memorials to local families and a prominent preacher from the village were transferred to the new chapel. Hammer beams to the roof have been partially incorporated into the dwellings, which have sub-divided the nave of the chapel and the adjoining former school house. 23
Conversion Analysis
Each flat is owned by a leaseholder and a management agency retains the freehold of the structure, maintaining the external fabric, internal communal areas and the grounds.
The roof covering to all parts of the building appears to be the original, which was noted as significant in material on the designation. Gas boiler flues protrude, but are partially hidden behind the spire. Their number should be contained, so as not to over burden the roofline.
The insertion of three storeys in the chapel made necessary the insertion of roof lights to the roof of the chapel and school room, as seen in Plates 3.02 and 3.03. Architecturally, the lights pose the least detracting of alterations, maintaining the original pitch, shape and material of the roof. All roof lights have an integrated blue blind which complements the blue slates to the roof. Cunnington (1989) advocated roof lights to illuminate the interior of church conversions, as practised here. Their insertion compromises the aesthetic significance of the chapel roof and their number could have been limited. Further, the position of the lights appears random. Aligning them with the windows below may have been more successful in reducing the detraction from the fenestration.
Plate 3.02 – Nave: view of roof Plate 3.03 – Roof lights to lights on north elevation school house 24
To the west of the chapel three doors provided access to the main lobby. These are noted in newspaper articles from the chapel’s construction (see Appendix B). They were designed to prevent overcrowding on entry, presumably a statement on the expected plentiful congregation. Plate 3.04 shows the timber doors pre- conversion. The conversion to flats has meant the doors have responded to the re- configuration of the building, sub-dividing the inner space. The doors have become windows for bedrooms within, as illustrated in Plate 3.05. The pre-existing masonry around the opening and arch above has been retained, as pictured. Complementary sandstone has been used below the new window and has ashlar dressing, sympathetic to the rest of the building. Similar stone has been used for the mullion, sill and head of the window, which can be clearly identified as being new work, but blends with the adjoining masonry. Aluminium casements have been inserted with leaded glazing, which maintain the character and quality of the building. This is a relative success given that PPS5 discourages the loss of redundant openings. A more appropriate solution, in keeping with planning guidance may have been to insert fully glazed doors allowing light to the bedroom whilst retaining the former opening. Similarly, the internal configuration should have been designed to retain the door. Overall the addition does not damage the significance of the opening.
Plate 3.04 – Timber doors to west elevation. Pre-conversion
25
Retained decorative carving
Aluminium side hung casement
Ashlar sandstone infill below windows
Plate 3.05 – Former doorway altered to accommodate new window openings to western elevation
The three light window to the gable of the former school house has been altered, much to the detriment of the significance of the building, as can be seen in Plate 3.06. Whilst the original foil and cusp work is still evident, the centre lancet has had the glazing removed and the opening blocked up in sandstone, matching the fabric of the rest of the building. This presumably conceals an internal wall division, which is a poor response to the conversion of the chapel, defeating the conservation principles in the guidance. Authorities state that walls and floors crossing windows should be avoided. This goes further by not only losing a window opening but also removing glazing from the geometric tracery above the three windows, which had significant character. Further evidence of a blocked fenestration to the west elevation of the school house is shown in Plate 3.07. The alterations impair the conversion based on academic and planning guidance and should not be replicated or permitted elsewhere.
26
Blocked foil and cusp tracery
Blocked lancet window
Plate 3.06 – Blocked geometric Plate 3.07 – Blocked window to tracery and lancet window to west elevation of school house north elevation of school house
The two light, trefoil and quatrefoil headed windows to the nave have been modified as part of the conversion works. These windows appear to have replicated those located to the west elevation where originals have been retained, as shown in Plate 3.01. The original stained glazing to the nave windows has been removed to the lancets. This has allowed the installation of timber casements into the openings. Opening sashes would have been a pre-requisite as part of the conversion. The glazing to the tre and quatrefoils has been retained. The stained glass does not appear to be of significant value, but possibly could have been glazed into the new sashes. The new glazing is leaded, which is deemed good practice by Powell and De La Hey (1987). The alteration appears to be a practical compromise, permitting ventilation to the flats. The plates also highlight a panel that conceals the insertion of a floor mid-window, a solution to a practice discouraged by the academic authorities.
27
Retained stained glazing
Panel to conceal floor
Aluminium casement within former lancet
Plate 3.08 – Insertion of Plate 3.09 – Original lancet window casements to north windows to west elevation elevation of nave
Externally there are an abundance of architectural decorations that have been retained post-conversion. The residential alterations had little impact on them, as they did not impose limitations on the conversion. Despite surviving conversion, conservation demands that these features persist and are maintained. The decorative carvings in the masonry all appear in relative good order, showing little sign of deterioration or neglect. Their presence and condition confirm successful conservation post conversion.
The spire features a winged dragon gargoyle, illustrated in Plate 3.10. This is a typical Gothic feature common to ecclesiastical architecture. Four columns flank the doorway supporting an archway, as illustrated in Plate 3.12. The columns are rounded plain shafts, comprising a single piece of stone. The separation of the columns from the door jambs is of Gothic influence. Stiff leak capitals top the 28
columns, linked to the Early English Gothic period (12th – 13th centuries). Atop the columns is a stone arch with pointed crest. The arch includes a plain parallel moulding. A second arch rises above the former, terminating at an apex. In the spandrel, between the arches seen in Plate 3.11, is a date stone marking the years of construction; 1877-78. The spandrel includes a floral pattern, which is also in the Early English style. A string course above the doorway is made of a floral guilloche carving and is of Classical origins, as seen in Plate 3.13.
Floral spandrel
Plate 3.10 – Gargoyle to west Plate 3.11 – Date stone above elevation of spire door to west elevation. Floral spandrel flanks numbering
Stiff leaf capitals
Rounded columns
Plate 3.12 – Columns to western doorway
29
Plate 3.13 – Guilloche string course above west doorway
The foundation stones to the front elevation of the chapel are another valued feature; one example is illustrated in Plate 3.14. These have an important historical and communal significance, marking the opening of the chapel. They feature the names of local families established in the community. All decorative masonry detailed above demands conservation by the current management agency. Monitoring and early maintenance will ensure their long term conservation.
Plate 3.14 – Foundation stone to west elevation of chapel
Twenty three flats have been inserted into the chapel and school room, sub- dividing the internal space. The interior is altered beyond recognition and proves Latham’s (2000) argument that conversion of large churches or chapels should be avoided where internal architecture is of exceptional quality. This example is of a lesser designation and permits conversion, but not without criticism. The nave of the chapel shown in Plate 3.15 was open plan with unrestricted views of the pulpit, whilst a gallery at the rear was the only break in the vertical sightlines to the hammer beam roof. Plates 3.16 and 3.17 provide illustrations of the internal corridor and the living room of one of the flats, now within the former nave, showing the loss of the spatial qualities. It is now difficult to appreciate the original internal 30
qualities and the architecture of the chapel, something English Heritage (2010) encourages in conversions. The internal walls and floors are solid concrete which prevents any reversibility of the works.
Hammer beam
Plate 3.15 – Interior of chapel nave pre-conversion. View from gallery towards eastern end of building. Hammer beams to top of plate
Plate 3.17 – Living room in flat to former southern side of nave
Plate 3.16 – Communal corridor to ground floor of chapel post- conversion. Located in former nave
31
The hammer beam roof has been retained and made a feature of the upper floor flats, seen in Plate 3.18 below. This is not without comment though, as the floor cuts through the hammer beam mid-height. Plate 3.19 shows the lower section in the flat below. This is an insensitive alteration; the floor should have been located to better suit the timber detailing. Whilst it is retained, the significance of this element is compromised. The timber has been in-filled and the hammer beam, previously an imposing figure over the original space, is little more than a feature of the internal partitions. A positive alteration is inserting the upper most floor atop the original tie beam. This is a commendable and positive aspect of incorporating the new within existing significant features, a rare instance in the internal conversion of this chapel
New floor atop tie-beam
Hammer Timber carved beam geometric perforations
Plate 3.18 – Top floor flat to former nave: View of hammer beam, tie-beam and geometric perforations to spandrel below roof light
Lower section of hammer beam
Plate 3.19 – Mid-floor flat to former nave of chapel: Lower section of hammer beam bisected by floor insertion. Lancet windows shown bisected by floor insertion 32
Diagonal pine boarding to underside of roof
Plate 3.20 – Pine boarding to underside of roof adjacent roof light to top floor flat in former nave
The diagonal pitch pine boarding to the underside of the roof is more readily appreciated as shown in Plate 3.20. Retaining function as a final finish to the underside of the truss, the boards exhibit an imposing presence in the flats. The spandrel below the boarding remains and is decorated with timber geometric perforations. The spandrel suffers from being sectioned into each flat losing long sightlines. On a positive note, the boarding and spandrel are better appreciated in the new conversion. The division of the vertical space allows detailed inspection at closer quarters than in the original configuration of the chapel. The vertical thrust from the original nave floor to the roof truss is lost, nonetheless most of the timbers have been retained and left exposed for the benefit of the limited few in top floor flats. Conservation practice dictates that the original stained finish should be maintained to the timber.
The rose window with five quatrefoils to the east end of the chapel has been retained. Similarly, the three light window with geometric tracery to the western end has also been incorporated into the design of the alterations. Both feature in the communal stairs but the treatment of their significance is varied. Floors are set back from the openings, as recommended by Cunnington (1989). In both cases seemingly little consideration has been made to the floor installation to make it subsidiary to the window. The scale of both glazed areas cannot be appreciated as they are both bisected obscuring the full opening. The rose window shown in Plate 33
3.21 is enveloped by the staircase, undermining its visual impact. More successful is the glazed panel which protects the walkway where the floor is set back, making prominent the western geometric tracery and quatrefoil shown in Plate 3.22. This does little to demonstrate the full impact of the tall window from an internal viewpoint.
Plate 3.21 – Rose window to east elevation of chapel. Balustrade and handrail seen bisecting window
Clear glazed panel to allow views of window
Plate 3.22 – Geometric tracery to head of window to western gable of chapel. Glazed panel and floor bisect opening 34
On becoming redundant the pews, memorials7, light fittings, internal lobby stained glass doors and pulpit were transferred to the new chapel on Main Street (Morris, 2004). The organ and casing were transferred to the East Keswick Methodist Church a short distance away. These items all significant to the congregation and wider community remain in use, as recommended by English Heritage (2010). See Plates 3.23, 3.24, 3.25 and 3.26 below for illustrations of the items transferred from the chapel.
Plate 3.23 – Thorner Chapel (1985 Plate 3.24 – Internal lobby doors noted approx). Organ, pulpit, altar rail in situ in listing of former Methodist Chapel. prior to residential conversion Now located in current Thorner Chapel, as shown
Plate 3.25 – Altar rail and pulpit in Thorner Plate 3.26 – Memorial to Rev. John Methodist Chapel. Transferred from Pawson, former Methodist Preacher from former Chapel, as seen in Plate 3.23 Thorner. Memorial sited in current chapel
7 The memorial shown in Plate 3.26 to the Reverend John Pawson has been transferred on three occasions. It has been moved as the chapel has transferred building; the second location being the subject of this case study. 35
To the east of the chapel, an electrical sub-station was built to accommodate the additional demands of residential occupation, as shown in Plate 3.27. It was constructed in sandstone which complements the chapel structure, yet remains clearly distinct as a later addition. The scale and setting of this addition; compact, hidden behind careful landscaping and concealed from the main road, ensures it does not harm the visual significance of the chapel.
Plate 3.27 – Electricity substation for Kirklands. Sited in car park concealed by landscaping. Constructed with sandstone walls matching the existing chapel building
Summary
The conversion to flats has sustained the conservation of the structure and much of the external appearance of the chapel. By conversion to flats, this ensured the building receives continuing maintenance, prevention of loss of fabric and continued conservation. These are the some of the endorsements that relate to sustainability as proposed in PPS5. As one of the earliest examples of church conversion, it lacks an appreciation of best practice. The long term conservation of the building has been guaranteed, but much to the cost of the internal character and significance.
This conversion appears to be driven by maximising the income of the conversion, altering the interior to suit the design, rather than the existing structure dictating the conversion. This defeats the policy now enshrined in PPS5, which demands 36
compromise in favour of retaining the significance of historic assets. This conversion adopts much of the practice approved by Powell and De La Hey (1987) in their review of St Luke’s Chapel at Harrogate. They noted the care to minimise external alterations. They offer no critique of the internal sub-division incorporating twenty nine flats, other than complementing the location of floors sub-dividing windows. Having gathered academic guidance, the Kirklands offers an abundance of evidence that can be criticised. As a Grade II listed building, Kirklands retains the majority of the external character following conversion which makes it worthy of designation. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the interior.
37
CASE STUDY 2 - LOW ROW WESLEYAN METHODIST CHAPEL
Description & Background
Low Row Wesleyan Methodist Chapel was built in 1901 replacing an older chapel built in 1841. Non-conformism has a long tradition in the village stretching back to a first meeting house being registered in 1691 (Fieldhouse & Jennings, 1978). The chapel was sold in 2007 after being declared redundant. An adjoining burial ground was not included in the sale of the property.
Plate 4.01 – Low Row Methodist Chapel – front elevation
The chapel is rectangular on plan and is typical of many Methodist chapels built in the 19th century, especially in the Yorkshire Dales. Characteristic features here include a symmetrical façade more imposing than the sides, windows and a central door to front, pitched roof and stone inscriptions with local names (Lindley, 1969). A number of chapels in neighbouring villages, having the same architectural style,
38
have also been converted to residential use (Holdstock, 2010). Though not listed, Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (2008) state the chapel has an imposing and grand position on the village street-scene. The architectural features include local dressed sandstone walls and quoins, decorated finial balls atop the front elevation and long arch-topped windows on all four elevations.
Summary of Significance
Low Row Methodist Chapel is a typical Methodist chapel of the upper Yorkshire Dales, employing vernacular style and materials. An imposing position, arched windows, foundation stone inscriptions and finial balls make the chapel a notable feature of the street-scene, being sited on the main route through the village. Internally the tie-beam truss roof structure is impressive. The chapel is in the process of being converted to flats, with minimal disturbance to the external appearance planned. Though not listed, the chapel has a number of qualities making it worthy as a ‘heritage asset’.
Conversion
In 2008 planning permission was granted to convert the chapel to three flats, dividing the existing chapel. Evidence shows community uses were sought, in an attempt to retain the existing use or one that would have less impact on internal alterations (Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, 2008). Despite this, only residential developers emerged in the sale period. Conditions placed on the development by the National Park restrict ownership of the flats to local people who meet housing need requirements. This is recognition of the demand for residential property in the area. Other constraints included the provision of parking to the front of the chapel.
A previous application was submitted in 2007 which sought approval for the development of four flats within the chapel. Permission for eight roof lights and solar panels was requested for the roof along with the addition of two new windows to the rear elevation. It appears that the planning authority may have intended to 39
refuse that application since it was subsequently withdrawn. Each of these proposals would have harmed the significance of the roof and existing window openings, both valued assets of the chapel (see Appendix C for planning application).
The property was surveyed in January 2011 following completion of work to the rear flat (Unit 2 on the plans – see Appendix C). The internal walls and floors were still undergoing construction to the final two flats.
Roof lights have been inserted to illuminate the rear flat, as shown in Plate 4.02. These have been fitted flush with the roof line making them less conspicuous against the roof slates. The colour of the material used in the lights also blends with the adjoining tiles. An additional two roof lights are planned midway along the roof elevation at a low level. Minimising the number of lights ensures their impact is limited, as demonstrated in Plate 4.03 which shows the chapel from the rear at a distance. A soil vent pipe is the only other break in the roof, though this has little significant impact.
Soil pipe – short and below ridge line
Plate 4.02 – Roof light to pitched roof – side elevation
40
Plate 4.03 – Chapel from rear. Roof light has minimal impact on roof aesthetic
No additional window openings have been formed to the walls of the chapel, although one of the existing windows has been extended to form a door way, shown in Plate 4.04. This alteration is found on the least prominent of the side elevations and is not visible from the street. The new doorway features an arched fanlight replicating the other window openings to the adjoining bays of the chapel nave. The door is glazed in multiple square panels mimicking the adjoining windows and fanlight, shown in Plate 4.05. The impact has been minimal on the significance that the tall windows have on the structure.
Plate 4.04 – Door converted Plate 4.05 – Original window from window to side elevation opening to side elevation 41
A terraced walkway with metal railings to the front of the chapel is a feature on the street-scene, adding to the building’s character. Planning constraints have led to the walkway being re-built to a narrower width, allowing for on-street parking to the front of the chapel. This work is on-going, but appears to have successfully retained the character the railings offer the aesthetic impact of the building. Finial balls topping the front elevation and foundation stones are also retained though the inscriptions need imminent conservation repair (see Plate 4.08). These form part of the limited chapel’s external decorative features. Little has changed in a century to the elevations of the building, as shown in Plates 4.06 and 4.07, other than the impact of modern transport.
Plate 4.06 – Chapel with terraced walkway to front. (1910-1930)
Retained finial balls
Steps and iron fencing to terraced walkway
Plate 4.07 – Terraced walkway narrowed to allow off-road parking to front elevation
42
Plate 4.08 – Memorial foundation stones to front elevation. Inscriptions showing wear
Planning authorities consented to the removal of stained glass from four of the front gable windows. The central stained glass window, seen below in Plate 4.09 is to be retained, with secondary glazing fitted behind to preserve the original, a practice recommended in PPS5 (2010). The window will benefit from the conversion whilst the removal of the organ and casing will enhance internal views of the window’s impact.
Plate 4.09 – Retained stained glass to front elevation window. Secondary glazing to be installed to opening later in conversion
43
The stained glass rear timber window was authorised for replacement by the planners. The proposed replacement will be timber double glazed casements featuring stained glass to the upper sections. The original window, shown in Plate 4.10, had stained glazing with a decorative floral pattern. Replacement of this window has been undertaken but as can be seen in Plate 4.11, the installation of stained glass panes has not been enforced. This undermines the planning guidance on seeking to conserve the architectural feature. On a positive note, lower down the new window, the architect has renewed the stained glass by locating a bathroom within. This is commendable as it makes use of the obscuring nature of the glass, despite it being elevated, as seen in Plate 4.12. The existing structure has usefully served to shape this alteration.
Plate 4.10 – Original rear window with stained glass
Plate 4.11 – Upper section of renewed Plate 4.12 – Lower section of renewed rear rear window. All glazing in clear glass window, below floor divide. Stained glass retained in bathroom 44
Plate 4.13 shows the original roof lined with a dark panelled boarding which has been removed to facilitate insulation to the roof structure. This panelling has not been restored, despite it being possible to do following thermal upgrades. The client may not have wanted a low-level dark ceiling in the living space, despite the fact that this could have been retained. More encouragingly, the tie beam roof truss has been retained, which continues through the full horizontal plane of the ceiling. This now forms part of the feature of the flats and retains some of the valued timber architecture of the chapel, as seen in Plate 4.14.
Plate 4.13 – Underside of roof pre-conversion – with dark boarding and tie beam truss
Plate 4.14 – Tie beam truss retained post- conversion. Timber panelling removed from ceiling
45
The new floor dividing the vertical space of the church bisects the tall arched windows. This was unavoidable when inserting three flats into the chapel. However, as the floor is set back from the window the insertion has been carried out so the height of the windows can still be appreciated. Plate 4.15 demonstrates how the floor has been cut back around the window openings. A board is then used to cover the timber floor so it is not visible from the outside of the window, where the glazing is clear, seen in Plate 4.05. Internally this is of limited success. It is difficult to appreciate the full height of the window unless in close proximity to them. Further, it appears to have created an area that is difficult to maintain due to the confined space, as seen in Plate 4.17. This appears to have been recognised during construction as the floor has been cut back even further where works are yet to be completed as illustrated in Plate 4.16.
Plate 4.15 – New floor bisecting side Plate 4.16 – New floor bisecting side window. No allowance for setting window: later in construction. Floor window back. set back from opening
46
Underside of floor – set back from window
Plate 4.17 – Void space at head of window viewed from interior. Floor and blank panel set back from opening
The internal sub-division has been undertaken with block walls and a lower beam and block floor. This work is irreversible therefore the original internal space is lost. This was necessary in order to accommodate the fire protection of three flats. Alternative methods of fire encapsulation could have been sought, one of which may have offered reversible installations. Plate 4.18 provides evidence of the block walls and floors in the course of construction.
Double layer of blocks to stair / flat wall for fire protection
Plate 4.18 – Internal sub-division during construction. New floors and block walls pictured
47
Sub-division has also seen the loss of the large open space, which provided views to the rear arched window, overlooking the body of the chapel. Other notable items lost in the conversion are the gallery, pulpit and raking circular pews. The window has been mentioned before, having been made a feature of in the rear flat. Other elements are however lost, having not being incorporated into the alteration. This suggests they were not deemed valuable. Sightlines to the roof have also been lost, though this was necessary to provide fire protection between the upper and lower flats. Retaining partial areas of the full floor-to-ceiling height would have reduced the available space. This would have had a financial impact on the project, reducing the living space and possibly creating an obstacle in conserving the chapel through conversion.
Plate 4.19 – Original chapel interior featuring; gallery, pulpit, organ casing and altar rail
Original pews raking to back of chapel
Plate 4.20 – Bow pews to original interior of chapel, with rear window in background
48
The internal fittings including memorials, symbols of worship and the organ shown in Plates 4.19 and 4.20 were removed by the Methodist Church before sale. Their current location is unknown. Conservation practice would have supported their transfer to another chapel.
Summary
Much of the interior is lost, although efforts were made to find an alternative use in keeping with previous occupation. Internally, significant architectural features of note have been retained, such as the tie-beams which were incorporated into the living space. Sub-division has made the original spatial qualities impossible to appreciate. Internally the chapel was of relatively simple architectural style, typical of other local examples. Permitting development suggests that the authority judged the building to be of limited value, whilst efforts to retain a similar use may suggest otherwise. Despite conversion having had a dramatic impact on the internal space, clear efforts have been made to ensure the significance of the chapel as a ‘heritage asset’ is on the whole respected. The chapel remains a dominant feature of the street-scene, retaining much of the external architectural significance.
Housing demand is high in the area and the authority appears to have allowed development in response to local conditions. Residential conversion has guaranteed the long term sustainability and conservation of the chapel, in line with the principles of PPS5 (2010).
49
CASE STUDY 3 - ST ANDREW’S MARRICK ANGLICAN CHURCH
Description & Background
Documentary evidence confirms the church was built in 1858, as noted on the wooden plinth to the front door (Fieldhouse and Jennings, 1978). The church was originally built for a Roman Catholic congregation. When their numbers dwindled to a single worshipper in 1893, it was sold to the Anglican Church, an example of finding complementary new uses. The Anglican congregation, whilst having had an existing parish church but this was remote from the village. This building was both smaller and more accessible to the congregation. It is described in various books and planning applications as a chapel of ease, church and mission hall.
Plate 5.01 – St Andrew’s: Marrick Anglican Church
The church was used as a place of worship between 1858 and 1972 when it became redundant. It was sold by the diocese in 1976 for £15,000 and planning applications show requests were first made to convert it to a dwelling in 1975. Seemingly remaining redundant until 1981, planning permission was then granted 50
for a change of use from church to museum store. It remained that way until 1992 when permission was granted to convert it into a dwelling. Previous applications had been made as far back as 1989, before permission was eventually granted. Conversion was completed in 1994.
The church is not listed and it is of a simple vernacular architectural style, typical of the Yorkshire Dales. On plan form it consists of an open nave with an adjoining vestry to the rear. Architectural features of note are limited; a tall three-bay window with geometric tracery dominates the rear gable of the nave internally and externally. This window is influenced by the Early English architectural tradition. An exposed bell tops the front elevation. To the flanks of the nave and the front elevation are five small windows featuring simple tracery work. The roof is steeply pitched and covered with tiles to the main nave. This is unusual in the area, thereby making the roof a prominent feature. The vestry section uses the more common shallow pitch roof with sandstone slates. There is no adjoining church yard.
Summary of Significance
A small village church used successively by Catholics and Anglicans, Marrick Church was built in 1858. It is of a simple vernacular architectural style, using local stone for the majority of the walls. A large three-bay window topped with geometric tracery, of the Early English gothic tradition, is the main feature of value. It incorporates stained glass to the tracery panels. The church was converted for residential use in 1994, with little impact to the structure and minor alterations internally.
Conversion
Conditions of the conversion imposed by the planning authority included amongst others, that new tracery windows were to match the existing sections in stone, texture, colour, dimensions and profile and all windows were to be made of timber. Windows, door heads and sills were to be of natural stone. Adjoining agricultural 51
land was bought to provide a larger garden, since there was no church yard when the building was used for worship.
Assessing the roof, the sole addition is the insertion of a flue for the solid fuel log burner, as shown in Plate 5.02 and 5.03. This emits above the ridge line of the roof but could have been located lower down the roof pitch, thus accommodating it’s length for safety reasons. The flue can be seen from all elevations and detracts from views of both the roof and bell.
Log burner flue
Plate 5.02 – Pitched roof with log burner flue breaking roof line. Viewed from rear, alongside vestry
Bell tower
Log burner flue
Plate 5.03 – View from street of roof with steel flue breaking ridge line of pitched roof
52
A timber door has been renewed to the east elevation of the vestry. The door, shown in Plate 5.04 is in keeping with the character of the other fenestrations of the building. The material, colour and shape of the door are similar to that of the front door on the northern front elevation, shown in Plate 5.05. Similarly the window within the new door is arched, complementing the crest of the three bay nave windows and other windows to the main body of the church.
Plate 5.04 – Renewed door to vestry. Composition and material similar to that of front door in Plate 5.05
Stone quoins
Plate 5.05 – Front door to chapel. Believed to be in original form. Stone quoins surround door opening
53
Render has been applied to the west and southern elevation of the church nave. It is uncertain when this has been applied and if local stone underlies. The church is set on an exposed position atop a valley, which is possibly why a hard wearing render has been applied. Render repairs have left an unattractive finish to the church, seen below in Plate 5.06. Good practice would dictate using the same mix and appearance as the original. Time and weathering would determine if this has been used, else the aesthetics of the elevation and the impact on the window will be damaging. Attempts at repairing the render should be favoured over removing it, since this may be the original finish. Hacking off the render may cause damage to the underlying structure. Planning policy stated in PPS5 (2010) would support this position.
Patch render repairs adjacent three bay window
Replacement stone to mullions and jambs of window opening
Plate 5.06 – Three-bay window to south elevation of nave. Render repairs and stone mullion replacements evident
The three bay window to the nave of the church has been retained, keeping the upper sections of stained glass. This retention is a successful feature of the conversion. Despite being single glazed, there does not appear to be a thermal insulation problem within the property, with no evidence of condensation forming on the windows. Should future opportunities be made to upgrade this element, secondary glazing should be installed, conserving this window unaltered. Repairs have been undertaken to the stone mullions dividing the window, illustrated in Plate 54
5.06. This is commendable since it follows conservation repairing guidance; using original materials in form, colour and type. The same can be applied to the stone quoins surrounding the original arched timber door, which offer character to the front elevation, demonstrated in Plate 5.05.
Plastic guttering has been fixed to fascia boards along the eastern elevation of the vestry, illustrated in Plate 5.06. This is in breach of the conditions of the conversion, as permitted by the planning authority. They requested guttering be fixed with iron drive-in brackets set into the masonry of the wall, as applied to the western elevation shown in Plate 5.07. Iron brackets and cast iron guttering are features of the local vernacular architecture and the fitting of fascia boards detracts from the character of the church and the buildings in the upper Yorkshire Dales. Further, this neglects the good practice of using quality materials, techniques and practices to secure the conservation of valued buildings and enhancing areas of beauty, namely the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
Plate 5.07 – Plastic guttering fixed onto timber fascia boards to east elevation of vestry
55
Cast guttering fixed with drive-in bracket
Plate 5.08 – Cast iron guttering fixed to wall with drive-in brackets
Plastic windows and frames have been installed to the vestry, shown in Plates 5.90. This again breaches the conditions of the conversion of the property. Despite being at the rear of the property, away from the front highway, plastic remains an unsympathetic material to use in these circumstances. It fails to complement the materials used on the other fenestrations of the building. Similarly, French glazed doors to the vestry, illustrated in Plate 5.10 are further additions which fail to complement existing materials. Moreover, it breaks the wall lines and alters both the external appearance and character of the structure.
Plate 5.09 – White plastic Plate 5.10 – White plastic French window to west elevation of doors to west elevation of vestry vestry 56
A satellite dish has been added to the rear of the chimney on the vestry, illustrated in Plate 5.11. This is hidden from the front of the building, in line with good practice. Similarly, the scale and location ensure it does not detract from the main structure of the church and proves inconspicuous.
Plate 5.11 – Aerial to vestry roof
Timber casements have been installed in the five openings to the main body of the church, as illustrated in Plate 5.12. These comply with planning authority conditions. The decorative finish of the windows may be enhanced by seeking to match the colour with that of the main door. On surveying the openings, the question arises whether there was stained or clear glaze in the tracery section of the openings. In all cases this is in-filled with masonry, together with the upper sections of the three bay windows to the nave. Had these previously been glazed they should have been retained and thus deemed a negative aspect of the conversion.
Infilled geometric tracery
Plate 5.12 – New timber casement. Geometric tracery filled to head of opening 57
Internally the conversion can be deemed a success. The alterations have successfully responded to the spatial qualities of the nave of the church. The plan form of the nave has almost wholly been retained, with a kitchen located to the traditional western end of the church. This limits compartmentalisation of the space. The eastern end is kept fully open so that the vertical and horizontal sightlines of the church can be wholly appreciated, seen below in Plate 5.13. This ensures the three bay window to the south elevation dominates as it would have done pre-conversion.
Plate 5.13 – View from mezzanine towards three bay window in nave. Gallery seen extending beyond mezzanine to left. Vertical thrust remains, with floor to ceiling level space retained
58
The kitchen divides the lower half of the nave, but allows sightlines through the church as there is no door, see Plate 5.14 below. The initial conversion had employed this space as a bedroom, which would have compartmentalised the church. Recent alterations have successfully restored part of the church’s spatial qualities.
Plate 5.14 – Long sightlines retained through length of church nave. Original floor remains to kitchen area
A mezzanine and gallery have been inserted above the kitchen, to the rear of the nave, as seen in Plate 5.15. This successfully avoids bisecting any windows and is detached from the traditional chancel end of the church, as shown in Plate 5.15. The mezzanine has provided bedroom and bathroom facilities, whilst the gallery provides useful living and storage space. The gallery is a thoughtful addition seen in Plate 5.13, which uses traditional church architecture to form living spaces in what is now a residential dwelling. It is clear that this is a distinct layer of history, rather than an unsympathetic attempt at speculative restoration, discouraged by planning guidance and conservation academics (Strike, 1994; PPS5, 2010).
59
Plate 5.15 – View from ground floor of nave with mezzanine seen bisecting floor to ceiling space
The vestry is better placed to allow compartmentalisation, incorporating a sitting room and bedroom. An old fire-place, illustrated below in Plate 5.16, suggests the sub-division of this space is an original feature and residential habitation has responded to this aspect.
Plate 5.16 – Original fireplace and surround to converted vestry. Now a sitting room post-conversion
60
The original timber tongue and groove board floor to the nave appears to have been retained, detailed in Plate 5.14. This is on display in the kitchen and covered by a carpet in the living space. The carpet allows for reverting back to the original floor finish, conserving this feature.
A single pew remains as the sole surviving fitting from the original chapel. Other pews are known to have been distributed among the village houses to be used as furniture. It is unknown what happened to the pulpit, altar, lectern and other fixtures and fittings. It is believed that the font was removed and used as a garden ornament in a local farm. This seems an inappropriate though practical use for a former fitting so symbolic to the former users of the church.
Plate 5.17 – Original pew retained in church post-conversion
Summary
The proportions of the nave and the provision of the vestry make this church ideally suited to single cell residential conversion. The alterations have successfully responded to the church’s existing qualities. The mezzanine floor and kitchen partition sub-divide part of the church, but the original spatial quality is still present and can be appreciated. The significant architectural feature, the three bay window 61
is maintained. It continues to dominate both the inside of the nave and the exterior of the church.
The quality of the conversion is only undermined by a failure to follow planning conditions which were in place to ensure good conservation practice. This refers to the rainwater goods, door addition and window material to the vestry, some of which can still be reversed. Whilst the church is of limited architectural merit, it has some elements of character that could be deemed ‘heritage assets’. Conversion has successfully retained these characteristics and the remaining architectural assets.
62
CASE STUDY 4 - MARRICK METHODIST CHAPEL
Description & Background
The chapel was built in 1878 on the fringe of the village of Marrick. It was used for worship until approximately the 1960s. Redundancy followed for some time before it was purchased to be converted for residential occupation. Prior to sale for conversion, the Methodist Church had placed a constraint on the sale of the property that no form of worship should continue. The chapel is only meters away from the neighbouring St Andrew’s Church, which is also covered in this dissertation as a converted church.
Plate 6.01 – Marrick Methodist Chapel: front elevation
The chapel is of a rectangular plan form, originally comprising a compact preaching space. The building extends beyond the original preaching area into the former vestry. The composition of the building is typically vernacular. The materials for the walls and roof are sourced from local natural resources. Local stone has been used for the walls and roof. Timber windows feature throughout, retaining original openings. Lime mortar has been used to bond the random coursing of the stone walls. The verge is topped with a stone coping, bedded direct onto the roof slates. This is a vernacular practice often reserved for important structures (Bowyer, 63
1980). It is these qualities which give the buildings in the area their character in balance with the natural environment (Raistrick, 1968).
Summary of Significance
Built in 1878, Marrick Wesleyan Chapel is of a simple vernacular architectural style. Local stone is used for the solid walls and roof slates. Arched windows to the front and rear elevation are one of the main external architectural features. On ceasing to be used for worship, the chapel and adjoining vestry have been converted to a residential property. Assets include the vernacular architecture and group value it represents to the area of Wesleyan chapels.
Conversion
The chapel was converted by former resident, the artist Colin Smithson, in 1972/3. Pre-conversion photographs in Plate 6.02 show that there has been little external alteration to the structure when compared with the current view in Plate 6.03. The building’s appearance on the setting and street-scene is little changed. One of the only additions is a small timber casement to the side of the chapel’s main body. This is to provide light and ventilation to the main bedroom and is timber similar to other windows to the building. Though it does appear on the street scene, it has little impact on the structure and is acceptable as a limited additional opening.
Plate 6.02 – Street-scene Plate 6.03 – Street-scene (2010); (1972) pre-conversion window and whitewashing of gable wall only alterations
64
The other amendment is the whitewashing of the rendered gable to the chapel. Latham (2000) suggests colour-washing obscures layers of history. This example conceivably enhances the impact of the structure, making it standout and more important in the street-scene. Further, the whitewashing is reversible were it not to be maintained and returned to the original render coating.
A stone inscription above the chapel door notes the former use of the building and the date of erection, pictured in Plate 6.04. Planning guidance favours conservation of inscriptions, suggesting early minor repair is preferred. In this case re-cutting the known inscription would maintain this feature, noting the history of the site.
Plate 6.04 – Weathered inscription to front elevation of chapel above door
The addition of a soil vent pipe pictured in Plate 6.05 breaks the stone slate roofline. This has little impact sited to the rear elevation, the least prominent side of the building. The main chapel roof is only broken by the original chimney, which advantageously incorporates the solid fuel burner flue, demonstrating how conversion can respond to original features.
The verge coping or “tabling” stones have been rebedded in recent times, as evidenced by new mortar, seen in Plate 6.05. It is important to maintain these vernacular styles and ensure that the mortar used is one that complements conservation practice.
65
Verge coping (‘tabling’) stone
Plate 6.05- Soil pipe to vestry roof and verge copings to apex of gables of pitched roofs
Like the Anglican church at Marrick analysed in this dissertation, the vestry rainwater goods have been fixed onto fascia boards, as seen in Plate 6.07. The guttering to the main chapel is fixed directly by the traditional method of setting drive-in brackets into the masonry, illustrated in Plate 6.06. The fascia board fixing is insensitive to the vernacular practice and should be reversed at the next opportunity. The Marrick Anglican case study in this dissertation provides another example of this negative alteration. The use of plastic guttering and downpipes, replacing the cast iron rainwater goods shown in Plate 6.08, is similarly a less sympathetic practice defeating conservation principles.
Drive-in bracket
Plate 6.06 – Plastic guttering fixed with drive-in brackets into masonry of chapel nave walls
66
Plate 6.07 – Plastic guttering and downpipes fixed onto timber fascia board to vestry
The window openings are unchanged to the front and rear elevation of the chapel. The National Park had constrained any alteration to the openings but did allow changes to the window sashes within. This maintains the external aesthetic of the chapel, keeping the character of the elevated arched windows and the old doorway. The solid timber door to the vestry with fanlight above was replaced with glass panelled timber French doors, shown in Plate 6.09. The fanlight is boarded to conceal a bisecting inner floor. The new doors complement the material and colour of the adjacent windows, whilst the glazing has the practical advantage of allowing more light into the living space. This is beneficial as the adjoining windows are elevated, restricting low level natural lighting. Overall, the external openings are little changed, as compared with pre-conversion illustrations in Plate 6.08.
The windows to the main body of the chapel have all been replaced during and after conversion. Sliding sash windows had been the original fittings (see Plate 6.08), but the insertion of the floor within the chapel bisected the windows. The original owner acknowledged the loss of the sliding sash windows and regretted the need to alter these to insert the floor. Though approved by the planners, perhaps the floor could have been set back, so the sliding sashes could be retained.
67
Plate 6.08 – Front elevation (1972); featuring original timber door with fanlight, original timber sliding sash window and cast iron guttering
Plate 6.09 – Timber French doors Plate 6.10 – Top hung casements to replacing solid door to front elevation. front elevation, replacing sliding sash Fanlight above door blocked windows concealing floor insertion
68
A window alteration took place during the initial conversion, with the builders lowering one of the window bottoms to the front elevation. This was a tempting alteration, to allow greater light into the living space and maximise views. The planners had prohibited this and the owners acknowledged this was not in keeping with the character of the building, demonstrating custodianship qualities. The alteration was immediately reversed, conserving the original form of the window openings, with Plate 6.08 showing the windows at their original height. Reforming the original opening using matching lime mortar and masonry has made the error seamless. The corrective work reflects approved conservation techniques.
The main entrance to the hallway is a dark timber door with un-patterned coloured glazing, shown in Plate 6.11 below. Whether replacing a previous door with the same features, this is a complementary architectural feature, respecting the former use of the chapel. No other stained glass is evident and pre-conversion photographs (Plate 6.08) suggest it was clear. A stable door provides access to the kitchen illustrated in Plate 6.12, reflecting the agricultural nature of the locality in the architecture. Though not ecclesiastical in style, this is located to a less prominent elevation and overall does not have a negative impact.
Plate 6.11 – Timber external door Plate 6.12 – External door leading into to front elevation. Coloured glass kitchen (former vestry). Stable door used to upper panes in door – adopting vernacular agricultural style
69
At the rear of the vestry a former window opening has been blocked up. The date of this alteration is unknown, possibly pre-residential conversion. The opening is clearly visible as shown in Plate 6.13, but the stone infill matches adjacent masonry and has little impact on the external appearance. Whilst it is recommended that redundant openings are retained, it appears the opening did not formerly contain an arched window, one of the assets of this build. Speculating on this assumption, the window would have been relatively simple and alterations appear to have had neutral impact on the character of the building. Further, being concealed at the rear, it has limited aesthetic impact.
Evidence of blocked up opening
Plate 6.13 – Blocked window / door opening to rear elevation in former vestry wall. Masonry complements adjoining
Conversion has led to the full sub-division of the chapel. The original owner had wanted to retain the original character of the building and achieved this by flooring only half of the bedroom in the main body of the chapel. This partially retained the vertical spatial quality. Thermal comfort led to the flooring of the full area, making it impossible to appreciate the original internal character of the chapel. The original floor insertion can be noted where the floor joists are now continued through to the 70
rear wall, illustrated in Plate 6.14. Fully flooring the bedroom resulted in the replacement of the sliding sashes to the rear (west) elevation, inserting casements as had been the practice to the front wall. Additionally, the chapel body was divided horizontally, inserting a ground floor bathroom at one end of the chapel, losing the length of the original build. This loses the sightlines the chapel would have had, a characteristic planning guidance seeks to retain.
Joists extended from beam where floor extended to outer wall
Plate 6.14 – Floor inserted to former nave. Initial conversion evident, with joists later extended to outer wall
Plate 6.15 – Living room post-conversion. Original width of chapel nave retained
71
The width of the original space comprising the chapel is distinguishable, but the low ceiling makes it difficult to read post-alteration, as seen in Plate 6.15. The vestry was flexible to alteration and a kitchen and bathroom above have been incorporated. The only area that retains a sense of vertical space is the hall. This is not the main body of the chapel and the stairs detract appreciation of sightlines, as demonstrated in Plate 6.16.
Plate 6.16 – Stairs breaking sightlines from ground floor to ceiling of former nave
A pew can be seen in Plate 6.17, but it appears all other fixtures and fittings were removed from the chapel before it was sold for conversion. It is unknown what became of the items. Plate 6.17 suggests the interior of the vestry was un- decorated and the fittings relatively simple, typical of many Nonconformist chapels and meeting houses (Lindley, 1969).
72
Plate 6.17 – Vestry shown pre-conversion. Timber boarding fixed to walls, with original fireplace and pew in foreground
Summary
As an early example of chapel conversions, this case demonstrates that small Methodist chapels can have simple architectural detailing based on the domestic vernacular. This can be favourable to conversion, though the vernacular features should be conserved. The spatial qualities and plan of the chapel rendered residential conversion possible, but internally the original proportions of the chapel have been lost through subsequent alterations. A sympathetic conversion would have retained the original spatial qualities. The fenestration of the building is successfully retained and little alteration is seen to the street-scape.
73
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION OF CASE STUDIES, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Externally the conversions have had little impact on the significance of the ecclesiastical buildings. All retain qualities that give them their character, either their mass, shape, fenestrations or architectural details. Kirklands (case study 1) retains the fine stone carvings typical of the neo-Gothic revival, together with the spire and Early English windows with geometric tracery. The other three case studies similarly respond well, maintaining their imposing positions or setting on the street-scene. Little external development has been undertaken, but where it has, such as the sub-station at Kirklands, it adds a functional building in an un-obtrusive way, hidden from the significant character of the building. This is to be commended.
The greatest external folly of all the case studies is the blocked window openings at Kirklands. This demonstrates how features of architectural interest can be lost in the pursuit of conversion to achieve function. Policy and guidance demand alterations be shaped by significant features, substantiated by the case studies. Retaining openings and the existing fenestration proves important in retaining the character and significance of ecclesiastical buildings, as evidenced in the studies and prescribed by planning guidance.
Panelling windows where floors bisect is not ideal, but remains a practical means of retaining the external appearance. One solution involves amending the location of the interior floors. Where it is necessary that they cross an opening, they ought to be stepped back, like the approach adopted at Low Row (case study 2), corresponding to planning and academic authorities. This can ensure a window remains, or retains form even if renewed, though its visual impact may be limited internally.
The case studies support academic material relating to roof lights, suggesting they should be kept to a minimum in scale and number. Low Row demonstrates this favourably when compared with Kirklands. The saving feature at the latter is the 74
attention to the coloured blinds by attempting to minimise their impact, trying to blend with the roof covering. This is a technique that could be adopted with all roof lights and is reminiscent of the theory of blending new but distinct additions with the existing, as advanced by Strike (1994).
Externally, it appears conversion can be realised with minimal impact to the significance of the structure. Where alterations are necessary, they can be achieved sympathetically, using good conservation practice.
Internally the spatial quality of the building is successfully conserved where the alterations respond directly to the space. The best example of this is Marrick Anglican Church, as the plan form and scale of the building are sympathetic to accommodate this. Adjoining rooms and the mezzanine floor allow for compartmentalisation, whilst retaining much of the horizontal and vertical spatial quality of the original building. In contrast, the sub-division at Kirklands was necessary to make the conversion financially and functionally viable. Single vessel use would have been impractical. This does not free the conversion from critical comment, as it has little appreciation for the window openings and long sightlines within the residential units or communal areas. Similarly, at Marrick Wesleyan and Low Row Wesleyan Chapels, there is little or no opportunity to appreciate the original scale of the interior. In practice it appears that new use, function and economics have determined the conversion. This defeats the aims of the planning policy (PPS5, 2010), permitting sustainable development which avoids alteration and harm to the character and significance of the asset. Architectural significance appears to be at threat from these competing demands. This further confirms Latham’s (2000) perspective that internal sub-division should be completely avoided where architecture is of exceptional quality.
In all case studies there is arguably a single owner of each site, whether single vessel units or a management agency overseeing the communal and external structure found at Kirklands. Owner occupation appears to complement the management of the conservation of each site. The proprietors’ interests are in repairing and maintaining the structure and fabric, since they wish to sustain the 75
assets for economic and practical interests. Planning policy (PPS5, 2010) deters the fragmentation of sites favoured for conservation. Seemingly residential conversion is a successful response to the policy, guaranteeing long term conservation and avoiding the probability of future alterations.
The case studies reveal a mixture of architectural forms, though there are consistencies in the approach of the planners to the conversions. Constraints were placed recently at Low Row and as far back as the early 1970s at Marrick Wesleyan, to avoid alterations to window openings. Policy appears clearly defined on this. Flexibility does appear to be practised in relation to the windows themselves, allowing the renewal of frames and fixed glazing with opening sashes. This is seen in all cases, whether listed or not. It would be valuable to extend the study to analyse approaches to conversions at higher levels of listed building designation. Marrick Wesleyan and Low Row demonstrate how character can be retained despite changing the profile of the frames and sash, having little impact on the external appearance of the build, or the opening itself.
Kirklands and Low Row Methodist Chapel both feature alterations where a door has been formed from a window opening or vice versa. Both examples demonstrate how using materials that match existing features in size, colour and texture ensure that alteration does not harm the character of the existing architecture. The Low Row doorway is perhaps the best example, undertaken as a necessity to provide access to the rear flat. Further, the door adopts a complementary form to the pre-existing window it replaced. Conversely, the Kirklands doorway is more invasive. It could have retained a fully glazed door, rather than walling up the opening.
Marrick Anglican and Low Row both evidence failures to conform to planning constraints. Planning policy and guidance clearly need to be enforced, through the planning authority monitoring development. Developers should be aware of their obligations to act as custodians of ‘heritage assets’. English Heritage’s ‘Uses of Places of Former Worship’ and ‘Planning for the Historic Environment Practice
76
Guide’ should be consulted and practised by planner and developer alike in all ecclesiastical conversions. This dissertation supplements these documents.
At Marrick Wesleyan Chapel, the Methodist Church had placed a constraint on the sale of the property and potential conversion; that it should not be used for any future worship. This was historically a feature of a number of redundant church and chapel sales. Current planning policy and guidance challenges this perspective, recognising that the original use is often the best. The Low Row Chapel, amongst others, suggests the historical theological objection to other ecclesiastical bodies taking ownership has now been supplanted. The concern of the national built heritage appears to have been adopted by the Churches, in the interests of architectural conservation.
Some argue that conversion restricts public access to the interior or immediate surroundings of the building. This could be countered by the argument that many places of worship are now locked and only opened for scheduled worship. This offers limited enjoyment for the wider public, beyond the regular congregation. On this basis the internal fittings and features can be of limited impact where worship is still the building’s function. Residential conversion can secure the external appearance of the asset on the street-scene. The interior would be lost to the congregation, though much can be transferred elsewhere.
As seen at Kirklands, the transfer of fittings and fixtures to new or neighbouring places of worship can be deemed a success. The wall memorials would have looked cumbersome in a small flat and prevented observation by a wider audience. The congregation were pleased to have the items transferred to their new chapel, maintaining their function and conserving them for future generations.
The building surveys and analysis identifies elements of significant architecture in all of the case studies. This is despite only one building being deemed worthy of designation by English Heritage, the assessing authority. The value of undertaking a summary of significance becomes evident, as the developer and planning authority to gather awareness of the building’s character. This permits a 77
complementary conversion, responding to the character and assets of the building conscious of conservation principles. This is realised as the new planning policy featuring the term ‘heritage asset’. Dependent on assessment this may embrace the three non-listed buildings, offering them the same protection as those that are designated. Using this policy, together with the academic principles referred to in this dissertation, it therefore seems reasonable to use these authorities when considering all ecclesiastical building conversions, whether subject to designation or not.
Conclusions
Converting an ecclesiastical building for residential use can harm its inherited quality if diligent attention to conservation is not rigorously applied when planning such a project. The case studies and academic material illustrate how conversion can be achieved with little impact to the exterior features or envelope of the building. The greatest threat to the loss of significant architecture is faced when converting the interior.
The generality of the dissertation’s findings cannot supplant the need to treat each case on its merits, whilst benefiting from the received body of experience. The unique characteristics of the architecture of ecclesiastical buildings determines that that quality is sensitively reflected in the planned outcome. Where there is conversion there must of necessity be conservation.
Small ecclesiastical buildings offer the most sympathetic form to convert, allowing single vessel use with minimal sub-division. Should the building allow, the spatial quality can be conserved, maintaining the ability to read the original spatial qualities.
It must be insisted throughout the process that the duty of the planning authority is to ensure developers undertake sympathetic conversions, adapting the new use to respond to retaining significant features. Research highlights concerns that architectural assets are being compromised to suit alternative functions. Where 78
development places function above architectural significance, it should be reserved for exceptional circumstances and only where complete loss is threatened.
Residential conversion has secured the long term future of the buildings analysed leaving no doubt that this is a sustainable form of development. Pragmatism acknowledges that architectural losses will be inevitable, though of varying degree. The retained, newly-converted architectural assets bring with them responsibilities for their repair and maintenance, wherever possible guided by conservation policy and guidance.
The newly coined definition of ‘heritage asset’, as applied in the new planning policy, makes assessment of ecclesiastical buildings necessary, whether listed or not. Where significant, all ecclesiastical buildings are subject to the governmental policy of the historic environment.
The planning guidance and authorities presented in this dissertation have provided the benefits of research and so are offered as a valuable tool when considering potential development to all ecclesiastical buildings. In the interests of the architectural legacy of the national building stock, this will encourage conservation practice
Recommendations
To determine whether differing architectural styles and alternative forms of ecclesiastical building respond favourably or not to architectural conservation in residential conversion requires further case studies must be undertaken.
Planning guidance and academic perspectives specific to the conversion of ecclesiastical buildings are brought together in this dissertation. Planners are urged to apply the framework for conversion, which commends itself on the basis of academic research and pragmatic experience in the field. Developers and owners alike will benefit from consulting the dissertation, evidencing critically analysed
79
conversion practice. This is no more so than when exploring the viability and planning of such projects.
All conversions to ecclesiastical buildings, whether designated or not, should be subject to an assessment of the heritage significance. This is to be met by evaluation and a summary of the building’s significance. Such a duty should be placed on the developer and planner to determine those architectural features it is desirable or necessary to retain. This will serve to improve the planning process and protect the ‘heritage assets’ valued within the ecclesiastical stock.
80
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Binney, M. & Burman, P. (1977a) Change & Decay: The Future of our Churches. London, Cassell & Collier Macmillan Publishers. Binney, M. & Burman, P (1977b) Chapels and Churches: Who Cares. London, British Tourist Authority. Binney, M. & Watson-Smyth, M. (1991) The SAVE Britain’s Heritage Action Guide. London, Collins & Brown Limited. Bowyer, J. (1980) Vernacular Building Conservation. London, The Architectural Press Ltd. Brennan, A. (2004) Redundant Church Building Re-use. Dissertation: Leeds Metropolitan University. Brown, P. (1977) New Uses For Churches. In: Change & Decay: The Future of our Churches. London, Cassell & Collier Macmillan Publishers, pp163-169. Brown, T. (1991) The Making of a Yorkshire Village; Thorner. Leeds, Thorner & District Historical Society. Bryman, A. (2001) Social Research Methods. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Burman, P. (1995) A Question of Ethics. In: The Conservation and Repair of Ecclesiastical Buildings. Wisbury, Cathedral Communications Limited, pp2-3. Butt, R. (2010) Church of England attendance falls for fifth year in a row. London, Guardian Media Group. Available from
81
Department of the Environment. (1986) List Of Buildings Of Special Architectural Or Historic Interest; City Of Leeds; Parishes Of Bardsey Cum Rigton, Barwick In Elmet & Scholes, Collingham, East Keswick, Harewood, Scarcroft, Thorner And Wothersome. London, Department of the Environment. Delafons, J. (1997) Politics and Preservation. London, E & FN Spon. Drury, P. (1994) Conservation techniques: the built environment. In: Harrison, R. ed. Manual of Heritage Management. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp196-201. Earl, J. (2003) Building Conservation Philosophy. 3rd ed. Shaftsbury, Donhead Publishing. English Heritage. (2003) New Work in Historic Places of Worship. Swindon, English Heritage. English Heritage. (2008) Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance For The Sustainable Management Of The Historic Environment. London, English Heritage. English Heritage. (2010) New Uses For Former Places Of Worship. London, English Heritage. Fieldhouse, R. & Jennings, B. (1978) A History of Richmond and Swaledale. London, Phillimore & Co. Ltd. Harrison, B. & Hutton, B. (1984) Vernacular Houses in North Yorkshire and Cleveland. Edinburgh, John Donald Publishers Limited. Holdstock, M. (2010) Spiritual Values. Yorkshire Post Magazine, 31 July, p11. Jack, I. (2010) Saving churches for their history – not religion. The Guardian, 3 July, p29. Latham, D. (2000) Creative Re-Use of Buildings - Volume 2. Shaftesbury, Donhead. McManus, J. (2011) Two-thirds of Britons not religious, suggests study. [Internet], London, British Broadcasting Corporation. Available from
82
New Wesleyan Chapel at Thorner. (1876) New Wesleyan Chapel at Thorner. The Leeds Mercury, 7th September 1876, p3. Office for National Statistics. (2001) Census 2001. London, Office for National Statistics. Pearce, D. (1989) Conservation Today. London, Routledge. Penoyre, J. & Ryan, M. (1958) The Observer’s Book of Architecture. London, Frederick Warne & Co. Ltd. Physick, J. (1977) Monuments. In: Binney, M. & Burman, P. ed. Change & Decay: The Future of our Churches. London, Cassell & Collier Macmillan Publishers, pp75- 85. Pontefract, E. (1934) Swaledale. London, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd. Powell, K. (1980) The Fall of Zion: Northern Chapel Architecture and its Future. London, SAVE Britain’s Heritage. Powell, K. & De La Hey, C. (1987) Churches – A Question of Conversion. London, SAVE Britain’s Heritage. Raistrick, A. (1968) The Pennine Dales. London, Eyre & Spottiswoode. Rodwell, W. & Rodwell, K. (1977) Historic Churches – a wasting asset. London, The Council for British Archaeology. Strike, J. (1994) Architecture in Conservation: Managing Development at Historic Sites. London, Routledge. The Church of England. (2005) Closing Time? [Internet], London, The Church of England. Available from
83
The Church of England. (n.d. b) The Church of England [Internet], London, The Church of England. Available from < http://www.cofe.anglican.org> [Accessed 14th April 2010]. Unknown. (n.d.) Low Row People Houses and Community Buildings. Unknown publisher. Walton, J. (1947) Homesteads of the Yorkshire Dales. Clapham, The Dalesman Publishing Company Ltd. Watt, D. & Swallow, P. (1996) Surveying Historic Buildings. Shaftsbury, Donhead. Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (2008) Planning Committee Report 8th July 2008. Bainbridge, Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority. Available from < http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/fr/No%20Pics/jul_com.pdf> [Accessed 17th March 2011].
84
APPENDICES
85
APPENDIX A
Thorner Methodist Church Designation Listing
86
APPENDIX B
Leeds Mercury 7th September 1876, p3 “New Wesleyan Chapel at Thorner”
87
APPENDIX C
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Planning Application for development of Low Row Methodist Chapel
88
APPENDIX D
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority Committee Meeting 8th July 2008
Planning impact on development of Low Row Methodist Chapel, with assessment of impact on character and appearance of building. Recommendation to develop and convert chapel to residential occupation with conditions for approval.
89
APPENDIX E
E-mail correspondence between Colin Smithson (former owner) and the author giving background information to conversion of Marrick Methodist Chapel
90
APPENDIX F
Compact Disc with supplementary photographs of building surveys and additional sources of information
Complete photographic record of the four case studies Planning Applications
91