SUSTAINING ENGLAND’S INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE A Future for Preserved Industrial Sites in England A Study for English Heritage by Neil Cossons Contents 1 Introduction 2 The Question of Value 3 Background to the Study 4 Context 5 Issues 6 Summary and Recommendations 5 A Portfolio of Sites Appendix 1 Industrial Sites in Guardianship, and owned by the National Trust Appendix 2 Proposals for preservation, under three categories Appendix 3 Industrial Archaeology: A Policy Statement (1995) This is the online synopsis of the report carried out in 2008 for English Heritage by Neil Cossons 1 England’s preserved industrial heritage is one of its most important cultural assets. It reflects Britain’s emergence and subsequent growth as the world’s first industrial nation. It forms a vital but fragile record, early evidence of economic and social changes that are still transforming the world today. These preserved sites afford an insight into an age that had global consequences. What survives represents a minute fraction of a rapidly vanishing industrial landscape that was once commonplace. Many of these sites are vulnerable and some are in peril. But their future can be secured. English Heritage should take the lead in seeking a way forward, with others, so that a sound future can be guaranteed, based on improved standards of scholarship, research, conservation, management and access. 2 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This study examines the current state of preserved industrial archaeological sites in England and makes recommendations on how their future may be secured. 1.2 It considers issues of conservation, access and interpretation, governance and management, funding and volunteers, and how these compare with currently accepted standards and practices. It examines issues concerning the relative importance of sites, in terms of their evidential, historical and communal significance, identifies those of outstanding national and international importance, and proposes some scale of priorities. The extent to which the present portfolio of sites is representative of the industrial revolution period, and what might be done to present a more comprehensive picture, is also addressed. 1.3 The study has been carried out by Neil Cossons; this report reflects his findings and contains his recommendations. The opinions expressed are entirely his and the recommendations reflect observations based on his experience and of sites visited, and the views of those consulted. 1.4 Crucial to the research and compilation has been the contribution of Keith Falconer, Head of Industrial Archaeology at English Heritage (especially for Section 7), and Sarah Butler, Research Assistant for the project. 1.5 The study is based on Industrial Archaeology: A Policy Statement by English Heritage1(1995), on previous work commissioned by English Heritage, notably the PLB Consulting Report of 1998, Public Access to England’s Preserved Industrial Heritage,2 and the summary,3 and on subsequent studies (referred to where appropriate in the text), discussions with trustees, managers, volunteers and others with knowledge and experience in the field, and visits to sites. Most of the recommendations in this report coincide with or reinforce the seven key points of the English Heritage 1995 policy statement. These are set out in Appendix 3. 1.6 The study concerns sites [in England] preserved as examples of Britain’s industrialisation, and dating in the main from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Publicly accessible and designated industrial field monuments and designated buildings that are not generally accessible to the public have not been considered in any depth, other than to note that some are of exceptional importance and should be preserved as such. 1.7 Excluded – with notable exceptions - are inland waterways; railway sites, including preserved railway lines, their equipment, locomotives and rolling stock; and rural wind- and water- mills. This is not to imply that such sites are not an important and integral component of the industrial heritage or landscape, on the contrary. But, in all three of these areas there are mechanisms that underpin and support the management of preserved sites. 3 1.8 British Waterways Board (BWB), the Inland Waterways Association, the Waterways Trust and numerous canal restoration societies provide a network embracing inland navigations. BWB, with some 3,000 designated structures in its care,4 is increasingly aware of its heritage assets and the responsibilities attaching to them, of the need to reconcile access and operation with the imperatives of conservation, and has an evolving conservation policy with a nucleus of staff responsible for implementing it.5 Most inland waterways sites are by definition openly accessible to the public. Examples of related sites that do merit inclusion are Crofton and Claverton pumping stations on the Kennet & Avon Canal and the Anderton Boat Lift, linking the Trent & Mersey Canal and the Weaver Navigation, in Cheshire. 1.9 Network Rail, other authorities with responsibilities for the railway estate, the Railway Heritage Trust6, the National Railway Museum, the Heritage Railways Association, and – to an extent – individual railway preservation societies, provide a network of knowledge, experience and support, as well as funding and management, for conservation of significant structures and buildings relating to the railway heritage. There is a large number of designated sites,7 over 2,000 in all, most of which, as with the historic railway estate in general, are in use and accessible – or at least visible – to the public. Inevitably, the operational requirements of the railway make some of this heritage only partly accessible. 1.10 The Mills Section of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) has its origins in the Wind and Watermills Section of SPAB, founded in 1929. It is an autonomous section of SPAB and campaigns for the preservation of wind- and water- mills of which there are some 450 [in the United Kingdom] open to the public. It publishes the directory Mills Open, the quarterly Mill News, and runs National Mills Weekend. 1.11 For the remainder, their heterogeneous nature means there are no such networks. It is these sites with which this study is primarily concerned. Many are of prime or outstanding evidential value – in a global context - and almost all have in varying degrees important qualities of historical, aesthetic and communal meaning. 1.12 It is accepted that there is no hard line to be drawn between sites actively preserved and accessible to the public and equally important sites that are designated but not publicly accessible. Similarly, there are blurred lines between the preservation of machinery in-situ, machinery removed for museum preservation and machinery moved from a museum collection to a preserved site, invariably not the one from which it originated. Thus at a number of sites machinery has been installed to replace previous examples that have been scrapped. This is not always clear – and to most visitors will almost certainly not be understood. Moving items of machinery from museums into sites where the original has already been lost is quite widespread.8 4 1.13 Further, the gravitational pull of a site with potential space, if only for storage, attracts those who have collected items of machinery without anywhere to put them. It is then one short step to create a museum. This can happen without any obvious policy decisions. Generally, introduced machinery is of less significance than the sites at which it is deposited. In some cases these moves are endorsed by major museums as a means of putting items dismantled and in store on public display. Examples of this can be seen at, for example, Kew Bridge, Crofton and Papplewick pumping stations, Astley Green Winder, and Ellenroad Ring Mill. In the case of Kew Bridge, the site is now marketed as Kew Bridge Steam Museum, ‘the world’s largest collection of steam pumping engines’. With thoughtful conservation planning and management – and assuming space is available - this approach need not threaten the intrinsic historical and archaeological qualities of sites but it can also put a premium on the importance of those that remain pristine in their originality. There are also dangers that the original monument becomes neglected at the expense of new additions. Thus the trustees of Ryhope Pumping Station have determined, as a matter of policy, to eschew the introduction of alien items in order to protect the authenticity of the site. These issues need to be taken into account when determining value, managing scheduled monument and listed building legislation, and in encouraging strategic approaches to conservation policy. 2 THE QUESTION OF VALUE 2.1 The criteria for assessing significance, as set out in Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (English Heritage, 2008) have been adopted, where possible and appropriate, throughout this report. The categories are Evidential Value, Historic Value, Aesthetic Value and Communal Value. 2.2 However, such is the unique nature of England’s industrial heritage - and especially its early industrial heritage - representing as it does the origins of the industrial age worldwide, that it has been necessary to develop a more refined mechanism for defining value, in order to demonstrate relative importance within those categories of high value, nationally and internationally. 2.3 Accordingly, in view of the seminal (including global)