by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu was appointed first chairman of English Heritage in 1983. English Heritage cares for some 400 sites open to the public, covering all aspects of history from prehistoric times to the Industrial Revolution.
Lord Montagu addressed the Placemakers Luncheon Club, which celebrated its 18th birthday on July 20: this article is based on the paper which he delivered on that occasion.
English Heritage came into being in 1984, the creation of the National Heritage Act of 1983. Our brief was two-fold: the management of the historic properties, formerly in the care of the state, and their presentation in an imaginative and lively way. We were also charged with taking over the main public role of furthering conservation of the built heritage. This was to be undertaken as a body independent of the government, and operating as a force in its own right.
As an organisation, English Heritage was therefore composed of two main parts: the “Properties in Care” group, which assumes the first of the responsibilities, and the “Conservation” group which embraces the second.
Since we began, we have placed great importance on improving the presentation of our historic properties, making it an immediate priority to open as many as possible to the public. We try hard to bring history alive through exhibitions, special events such as battle reenactments, accurate tableaux and audio-visual techniques, but always ensuring that these activities are in keeping with the character of the property.
We have also made a special effort to improve general facilities at our properties, providing better site graphics, colour illustrated guide books, education rooms, parking, shops and refreshments. We realised at the outset that such improvements were vital if we were both to increase the number of visitors and maximise the public’s enjoyment of our sites.
English Heritage is currently responsible for about 400 monuments, 350 of which are now open to the public. We have plans to open more. Stonehenge, Osborne House and Dover Castle are our more popular sites, attracting together over 1m visitors a year. At Osborne, we have recently opened the Royal Nurseries and these are already proving a highly popular attraction.
People will have heard about Brodsworth Hall, an outstanding Victorian country house which has the unique distinction of remaining virtually unaltered since the 1860s. We were particularly concerned about the long-term future of Brodsworth and so were very pleased when the Secretary of State recently gave permission for English Heritage to take it into guardianship.
This addition to our portfolio provides an opportunity to build on our expertise in the curatorial and presentational fields — as well as enabling the public to experience what amounts to a Victorian time-capsule.
One of our more successful achievements — and one of which I am particularly proud — is our membership scheme. Since its creation in 1984, it has grown rapidly to over 200,000 members, an astonishing feat in under five years.
Financial growth
The result of these initiatives has been that the annual number of visitors to our sites has risen by about 1m in five years to 4.8m in 1988. And, equally important, income has more than doubled to about £7m a year.
The work of the conservation group is rather more multifarious. Many of our statutory functions, such as giving grants and advising on listing, were inherited from the Department of the Environment. We have done much since our creation to expand this work. In that time, well over £100m has been paid in grant aid to historic buildings, conservation areas, ancient monuments and rescue archaeology, with priority now being given to churches, urban conservation and buildings at risk.
We have extended our concern to historic gardens, with the creation of a comprehensive public register of gardens, completed in 1987, and the introduction of emergency grants for storm damage following the tragic consequences of the hurricane of October 1987.
The resurvey of historic buildings, ordered by the Secretary of State in 1982, is now virtually complete. In a similar vein, we have now begun a monument-protection programme which will survey and evaluate some 600,000 archaeological sites and recommend a representative sample for legal protection by scheduling. We expect to increase substantially the number of scheduled sites.
Advisers on development
An increasingly large part of the work of our conservation teams is our role as advisers on the growing volume of development proposals which affect listed buildings in conservation areas.
There are approaching 500,000 buildings in England which are included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. This may sound a very large number but, in fact, it is only 2% of the total stock of buildings in this country. Only 8,000 of that 500,000 are in the highest category — Grade I. This category, of course, includes major cathedrals, public buildings, great historic houses — buildings which really are of national or international importance and which must, in general, be preserved without significant alteration.
Towards the remaining list of buildings, we adopt a more flexible attitude: this does not mean that we are writing them off. What we wish to encourage is their active conservation through productive use or re-use, wherever possible. We recognise that, today, as in the past, the vast majority of historic buildings will be secured for the future through the actions of and expenditure by private owners. The resources available to English Heritage, for instance, and to other public-sector bodies for grants can be measured only in millions of pounds, compared with the thousands of millions of pounds available to the private sector.
The cost-equation between re-using a historic building and its demolition and replacement has never been one-sided, but is now tipping more and more in favour of repair and conversion. Historic buildings represent a significant national asset which should not be wasted and I believe that many, if not most, owners and developers now share that view.
The conversion of the magnificent warehouses in Liverpool’s Albert Dock is a fine example of adaptive re-use. The conversion of the vast mill complex at Dean Clough in Halifax into small business units has brought rejuvenation where, only a few years ago, there was dereliction. In London, the splendid Grade I listed Tobacco Dock is now a shopping centre.
Developers not the enemy
Regrettably, I think it has been the tradition among many conservationists to regard property developers as the enemy. I would like to make it clear right away that this is not the view of English Heritage. Since our inception, we have worked hard to improve our relations with developers and I feel that we have made considerable progress. Developers are becoming more sympathetic to, and aware of, conservation issues — and many are prepared to take practical steps to help us in our work. We, in turn, are making sure that conservation issues are considered early so that the planning process runs smoothly.
This collaborative approach is typified by the code of practice for archaeology agreed with the British Property Federation. This is now working very well, particularly in London where development pressures are most intense. The code encourages the developer to contribute to the cost of necessary archaeological excavations. We have had a splendid response from many developers and developer funding is now the single largest source of support — £15m — for rescue archaeology in England. It is right that development projects should bear much of the cost of consequential archaeological excavations, but I believe that the developer can also gain enormous kudos from adopting this enlightened approach.
There are two recent examples in London where developers have greatly assisted us at considerable cost to themselves. Hammersons financed the dig and delayed the development of Dominant House, under which the remains of Roman baths were discovered. And then there was the much-publicised discovery of the remains of the Rose Theatre on Bankside, over which Imry Merchant Developers have shown both patience and generosity.
Planning
The word “planning” means different things to different people. Those who believe fervently in free enterprise may see planning as a system of controls, restrictions and delays. Those of a different persuasion might see planning as a way of instilling order and balance so that the private developer, in meeting his own profit targets, may also serve the wider public interest. The truth, I believe, lies somewhere in between these two extremes.
Our legacy of monuments and historic buildings has grown up over centuries yet, as the postwar decades showed, it can be stripped away almost overnight. Its value is not just economic but aesthetic, cultural and social, so its fate cannot just be left to the market. Planners and conservationists are needed to take along-term view and to give due weight in the development process to the non-financial benefits of the heritage. But the process should not be confrontational. Planners, property developers and owners and the public must try to agree on what needs to be conserved and what is dispensable. After all, much of the very considerable capital investment which existing towns represent can continue to provide a return and, in any case, we cannot afford to develop everything, even if we wanted to, nor can we save everything. So if we can agree on what is worth preserving, we may be able to agree on the way ahead more easily. That is what positive planning is all about.
Chester, York, Chichester and Bath — four of our principal historic cities — started a process some 20 years ago with the great advantage of being invited by the government of the day to employ consultants who produced plans which have been adopted and implemented by successive councils. Those four towns now provide a very happy example of conservation of the best of the past but not, in any sense, as museums. They continue to have a living role in attracting necessary investment to meet more modern requirements. Other towns such as Salisbury and Norwich have similarly been able to help themselves.
We have also sought to influence planning of retail developments in historic towns by issuing some broad guidance. Positive planning is a means of understanding the potential constraints, as well as the opportunities of working in historic areas or alongside historic buildings. We seek to achieve a proper balance. As not more than 2% of all buildings are listed, we naturally hope to make sure that that number is not unnecessarily eroded and that we can continue to conserve the historic character of the conservation areas which they help to create. Planning in conservation areas is about scale and character: it is also about avoiding undue concentration of investment on some sites at the expense of all the surrounding buildings.
DOE circular 8/87 contains the principal guidance for policy and procedures for local authorities and the developer alike. Unfortunately, we have recently witnessed a case where the criteria set out for deciding whether or not a listed building can be destroyed has been overridden. I mean, of course, No 1 Poultry in the City of London. This was agreed to be a special case. I am pleased to be able to say that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has recently affirmed in the House that the advice given in the circular stands. We will, therefore, continue to consider listed building and conservation area consent applications strictly in accordance with the appropriate legislation and the current policy guidance contained in circular 8/87. This means that listed buildings should be preserved if they remain capable of an existing or alternative use.
Generally speaking, we seek to work with the DOE and local authorities to encourage the preparation of realistic and practical local plans which will safeguard our inheritance as well as providing for the future. Where individual proposals are concerned, we prefer to be involved in advising at an early stage and we seek to resolve problems through advice and discussion rather than through statutory action. Indeed, we feel that we have failed if we need to recommend a case to be taken to public inquiry.
Design criteria
In this paper, I have stressed the need to employ planning as a means of regulating change in a positive way. But, however many historic buildings we re-use and however effective our planning, we will still fail if our new building and conservation work is not carried out to an appropriate standard of design. This brings me to English Heritage’s approach to design.
Our aim is to see good design within a historic context. This does not mean bland pastiche. Neither does it imply that English Heritage supports one style as opposed to another. In my view, Neo-Georgian and Neo-Vernacular styles which have emerged in recent years are as much of this age as contemporary modern; but they are not necessarily preferable to it. What is all important in assuring good design is a proper understanding of scale. This means essentially that buildings need to relate to one another, both in overall scale and in terms of the scale of their detailing. They should also respect the character of the area in which they are built.
New uses are the key to conservation, but a new use which destroys the character of the original building is no solution at all. Skill, imagination and a light touch are the essential ingredients: otherwise the architect will destroy an historic building quite as effectively as a bulldozer. Old buildings represent an enormous challenge for the architect and designer. Some in the architectural profession have, in recent years, been claiming that conservation is stifling good modern design. This simply is not true. Modern buildings should not dance on the graves of good old buildings: there is room for old and new. Moreover, the challenge presented by the conversion of an old building is different but no less demanding nor less creative than designing anew. Great architects of the past have risen to the challenge of converting existing buildings — Michelangelo and Robert Adam are but two examples — and they have created works of brilliant ingenuity and great beauty.
Converting old buildings is nothing new, and well-known contemporary architects have followed in this tradition. James Stirling’s conversion of part of the Albert Dock for the Tate of the North, Richard Roger’s conversion of the old Billingsgate Market and Terry Farrell’s Tobacco Dock are three examples. I look forward to seeing Michael Hopkin’s work at Bracken House in the City.
In addition to scale, I feel the other essential for good design in a historic context is the choice of materials. It is, after all, the quality and texture of materials used in old buildings which contribute so much to their character. I am thinking here of the subtleties of colour found in traditional handmade bricks or the qualities of local stone and the way it weathers. The regimental regularity of most mass-produced bricks can create harsh contrasts in the traditional High Street and, of course, so can concrete. But it is not for English Heritage to dictate style, but to encourage good design.
I have sought to explain the work of English Heritage and to convey three important messages. First, that historic buildings are an important asset to developers and investors; second, that if the benefits arising from the use or re-use of historic buildings are to be maximised and if the architectural and historic significance of the buildings is to be effectively reflected then this has to be done through a positive framework of planning and control; and, third, that, within such a framework, good design of alterations, conversions and new buildings cannot be legislated for but can and must be achieved.
Increasingly, I think and hope that developers see themselves today as patrons. This I welcome wholeheartedly. Let me re-emphasise the words of Viollet-le-duc, the great 19th-century French architect, writer on the theory of design and restorer of buildings. He said: “True men of progress are those who have a profound respect for the past.”
