ASSOCIATION FOR STUDIES IN THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS

transactions volume 33 2010

 Association for Studies in the
Conservation of Historic Buildings

TRANSACTIONS
Volume 33 2010
Edited by Alasdair Glass and Sherry Bates

Contents

The Restorations of the East End Chapels of Chichester Cathedral 3

Colin Kerr

The Recreation of the Elizabethan Privy Garden at Kenilworth Castle 15

Richard Griffiths

Chatham as a Militarised Landscape: Its Conservation and Management 25

Peter Kendall

Modern Restoration? Case Studies in the Light of English Heritage’s 35

Conservation Principles
John Neale

Hadlow Tower, Kent: Repair and Reconstruction with Natural Cement 47

Rena Pitsilli-Graham

Conventions and Charters: a Shifting Focus 58

Christopher Young
Editorial Notes

The Committee is keen to see a wide variety of material in Transactions on all aspects of the historic
environment. The journal provides a forum where conservation professionals can share knowledge and engage
in debate. The format is flexible and contributions are always welcome, whether long or short. Contributions are
subject to review by the Editorial Panel, which is drawn from or appointed by the Committee.

Published by the Association for Studies in the Conservation of Historic Buildings.

Copyright © 2011 the authors and the Association for Studies in the Conservation of Historic Buildings except
where acknowledgment is made otherwise. The views expressed are those of the authors, not the Association.
The contents of the previous volumes of Transactions are listed on the Association’s website,
www.aschb.org.uk, together with a list of libraries known to be currently subscribing. The website
includes the email address for editorial correspondence and requests for photocopies of individual articles in
Volumes 1–26 and back numbers of Volumes 27–33.

Association for Studies in the Conservation of Historic Buildings

The Association was founded in 1968 and aims to keep members informed on all aspects of building
conservation by providing a forum for meetings, lectures and discussions and by arranging visits to buildings,
work-in-progress and places of interest. Membership, now about 400 strong, is by invitation and is open to those
professionally engaged in work relating to the conservation of historic buildings.

The Committee for 2010

Chairman Sherry Bates ma riba

Hon Secretary Jacqueline Heath meng mice msc
Hon Treasurer Ian Stewart riba
John Adams aadipl riba diplcons(aa)
Penny Evans barch(hons) mrics graddiplcons(aa)
Anthony Fensome
Alasdair Glass ma fsa riba ihbc
Colin Kerr ba barch(manc) diplcons(iccrom) riba
Jean Letherby diparch(pcl) graddiplcons(aa) riba
Christopher Terry ba(hons) barch(hons)
Alexandra di Valmarana msc(cons) barh
Charles P Wagner bsc diptp ma rtpi ihbc frsa fsa

ISSN 0142–5803

Designed and printed by Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury, Wiltshire sp3 6ha
Tel: 01747 871717, www.buildingconservation.com

2
The Restorations of the East End Chapels of
Chichester Cathedral
Colin Kerr

The eastern end of Chichester Cathedral incorporates some of the most significant transitional (Romanesque to Gothic) work in the
country. The recent completion of the external and internal restoration of the eastern parts, brings to a conclusion the repair of the
masonry of the building, a campaign commenced under the surveyorship of Robert Potter in the 1960s and the cleaning/conservation
of the interior. The repair of the exterior continued the use of Lepine stone for weatherings and Richemont Jaune for general ashlar.
Purbeck stone has been used to replace decayed external Ashburton stone which only survived 140 years. The interior of the chapel
has been cleaned, redecorated and sensitively reordered by introducing new moveable furniture. The decoration is based on surviving
evidence of the medieval scheme.

From the south-east. Lady Chapel in foreground with Mary Magdalene Chapel and the 12th century rebuild east end retrochoir

Development of the East End significant architectural and liturgical developments

of the Cathedral of the medieval cathedral, from the earliest phase
The chapels of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St Mary of building 1076–90 through the two following
Magdalene and St John the Baptist together with centuries to approximately 1300. In that time the east
the retrochoir of the cathedral encapsulate the most end of the cathedral was incrementally remodelled,

3
The Restorations of the East End Chapels of Chichester Cathedral
Ground plan of the eastern parts of the cathedral, drawn by Jill Atterton
transforming it from a place of ‘settled’ worship into
a great pilgrimage shrine. This entailed changing the
original Norman Romanesque building, which was
the ‘international’ style of its time, into a building
that could only be found in England. With regard to
the design of the exterior, the clock stopped in 1300,
despite later repairs and restorations, but the story of
the interior is much more involved.
The east end of the early Norman cathedral had
a semi-circular ambulatory, which provided for
processions and gave access to the three small semi-
circular chapels, planned like a trefoil, opening off
it. This arrangement did not allow for significant
gatherings at the eastern end of the building. But
by 1300 the entire east end had been completely
reconfigured, the great east apse and the radiating
chapels had been taken down and replaced by a
dramatic new construction. Two driving motives for
the changes can be discerned, firstly the increasing
importance of the Blessed Virgin in medieval
devotion necessitating a Lady Chapel and secondly
the relocation of the shrine of St Richard to the
retrochoir.
4
The amount of rebuilding and the size of the
new east extension are easily underestimated. The
extension is 120 feet long overall, almost 70 feet
across its width and reached the full height of
the high choir vault. The new scheme included
the fine triple lancet window above the east end
of the retrochoir. All this work was built from
the foundations up. When the alterations were
complete, c1300, the cathedral appeared as it does
now, with its typically English square east end, a
long Lady Chapel and two flanking smaller chapels,
which were also square ended. Internally the three
chapels open from the spacious retrochoir, which
allowed for the assembly of pilgrims. This great
transformation of the east end was achieved through
four separate significant building campaigns and
evidence for each of these can be clearly read in the
surviving above ground fabric. The principal phases
are as follows:
• 1120–1187 - demolition of the eastern semi-
circular chapel and building a three-bay, square-
ended Lady Chapel. This chapel incorporated
the first rib vaults to be constructed in the

cathedral and marked a most important structural
innovation at Chichester.
• 1188–1207 - demolition of the two flanking
semi-circular ambulatory chapels, the ambulatory
itself and the entire eastern apse. Building of
the retrochoir and the square ended chapels of
St Mary Magdalene and St John the Baptist.
• 1288–1304 - demolition of the eastern wall of
the Lady Chapel, adding a two bay extension to
the chapel and altering the pre-existing chapel
structure to incorporate matching traceried
windows to create a long five-bay Lady Chapel in
the new decorated style.
Thus by 1300 the form of the east end was settled
and it has remained so ever since. Remarkably, the
structure of the east end as a whole survived into the
mid-18th century surprisingly intact, although in
poor repair and with the loss of all its medieval glass.
In 1750 the Lady Chapel was acquired as a burial
vault for the Dukes of Richmond. The chapel
was excavated for the vaults, above which, the
raised upper part of the Lady Chapel was adapted
to become a library. Engravings show the chapel
windows part bricked up and part glazed, no doubt
in clear glass leaded lights. Fortunately, much of
the medieval ferramenta were retained. They were
repaired and conserved in the recent campaign and
are still in place. In the 18th century the interior
would have been whitewashed and all traces of
medieval colour and decoration obliterated. The
two flanking chapels (St Mary Magdalene and
St John) having lost their liturgical function became
settings for fine funerary monuments erected in the
place of the former medieval altars. The east end
devoted to burials and memorials was little more
than an archaeological curiosity until the restoration
carried out by Slater & Carpenter1 in 1870s which
restored liturgical function to the space.
Thus, it fell to the late 19th century to recover
the eastern parts of the church for liturgical use.
The work then put in hand was remarkable in
several respects. Firstly, the Dean and Chapter
might have been expected to have been exhausted
by the exertions required to rebuild the tower and
spire after the 1861 collapse, but perhaps with that
successfully done they could turn with a feeling of
confidence to the Lady Chapel. Slater & Carpenter
approached their task with real understanding of
the medieval fabric and brought to their restoration
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
a lightness of touch not often found elsewhere at
this period. Their conservatism in the retention
of old fabric, in not doing too much, may have
been driven by financial constraints, but no matter,
whether by conviction, financial constraint or
respect for what they found before them, the result
of their restoration was a deftly repaired building
which retained a very remarkable amount of its
medieval fabric; windows, stone and walls were
patched and pieced rather than renewed. In the
Lady Chapel only the stained glass by Clayton &
Bell2, the pavements (a necessary new element as
the medieval floor level was reinstated) and the altar
support (the altar stone is almost certainly medieval),
reredos and sedilia were new.
The 19th century repairs to the external
masonry, especially the pinnacles but also tracery
repairs and carving made much use of Chilmark
stone, which is the greenish rather coarse stone
in evidence at the tower, spire and pinnacles. It
is not a good match for the original Caen stone
which was employed for the medieval fabric. In
carrying out the recent repairs, we found that the
19th century Chilmark repairs, used for piecing in
and ‘halving’ repairs of tracery, were often failing.
Likewise, the 19th century replacement of Purbeck
marble elements with Ashburton marble was also
a poor choice. We found the Ashburton marble in
a perilous structural state where it had been used
externally for the east window mullions and the side
shafts to the north and south sides of the chapel.3
The 20th century hardly touched the external
structure of the chapels apart from re-roofing them
in copper just after the Second World War. Internally
the vaults were decorated, and partial reflooring in a
French limestone took place that entailed the loss of
part of Slater & Carpenter’s tiled pavement, which
is a matter for regret. However, the splendid zodiac
pavement at the lectern and the sanctuary thankfully
were untouched and remain in place.
By the end of the second millennium the
condition of the copper roof coverings, the exterior
masonry, the window tracery and the glass gave
cause for great concern: after all, not much had been
done since the 1870s. Internally the Lady Chapel
was very dirty, poorly lit and not the intended
climax, of a visit to the cathedral.
The recent repair and restoration of the exterior
(2005–8) and the restoration of the interior of
5
The Restorations of the East End Chapels of Chichester Cathedral
Eastern arm from the north
the Lady Chapel (2008) indicated how benign
was the 18th century use and how well-informed
the 19th century restoration programme. Most
of the medieval fabric was retained and is still in
place, despite all the phases of restoration. New
replacement stone inserted 2005–8 has carefully
followed the precedent of existing fabric except for
some new carving. In the first three western bays
of the Lady Chapel one can see stones placed c1120
for the first chapel; in the eastern two bays and
windows one can appreciate the fully developed
medieval scheme of 1300.
The Repair and Restoration
Programme
Under the surveyorship of Robert Potter (1955–1977),
the interiors of the St Mary Magdalene and St John
the Baptist chapels were reordered, but the entire east
end exterior and the interior of the Lady Chapel were
untouched. In spring 2005 the repair and restoration
of the exterior of the eastern chapels commenced
under the surveyorship of Donald Buttress. I took
6
over in June 2006 when the roofs had been recovered
in cast lead, the parapets to the Lady Chapel rebuilt
and the repair of the walling masonry was just
commencing. At that time the chapel was out of
commission because the glazing was being removed
sequentially to allow a rolling programme of repair
to the glass, lead cames and tracery. As Surveyor
of the Fabric, stepping into an ongoing contract,
I had to assimilate quickly the available information
and inspect all the surfaces in detail, so that all
decisions contributed to a coherent and soundly
repaired structure. Ground rules for repair were well
established with the team in place: Ralph Tyreman
(Clerk of Works) and Joslins (masonry contractor)
and Mark Taylor, Cathedral Archaeological Advisor.
For the repairs we chose Lepine (a French stone
similar to Caen but firmer) for all weatherings and
tracery repairs and Richemont Jaune for general
ashlar repair. However, the critical condition of parts
of the stonework, especially the windows, which
had been repaired or replaced in the 19th century,
soon became apparent. The cathedral’s policy is to

repair for a general return period of 100 years and the
good sense of this approach is demonstrated by the
observation that it has taken nearly 50 years since the
commencement of Robert Potter’s surveyorship to
work around the entire building. This policy must
be balanced with the duty to retain as much of the
existing fabric as possible while ensuring that all is
safe and secure.
My examination of the east window and the
decorative shafts, which flank each window, revealed
a very worrying situation. The original Purbeck
shafts, which flanked the exterior of the windows
to the eastern three bays of the Lady Chapel had
been entirely replaced in the 1870s using Ashburton
marble (as used internally by Scott - 1862–4
rebuilding campaign) for the embellishment of the
tower crossing columns) and this was found to be
in perilous condition. The Ashburton had lasted
only 130 years; it had replaced Purbeck, which must
have survived at least 500 years, as evidenced by the
Purbeck inside the chapel, which has now survived
A dismantled mullion to the Lady Chapel east window. The very rough pieces are c1300 Purbeck; the smoother pieces are Ashburton.
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
700. We decided to replace the failed Ashburton with
Purbeck, sourced from Haysons Quarries. Two of
the 19th century Ashburton shafts have been retained
and these can be seen in the easternmost bay of the
north side of the Lady Chapel, but they will probably
need attention long before anything else!
The structural mullions of the east window were
in very bad order. Each had been heavily repaired
in the 19th century and had Ashburton external
halves mortared on with a few lead ‘dowels’ to tie
them. The Ashburton was badly split and had been
‘consolidated’ with neat cement. Careful visual
examination and by tapping of the inside of the
mullions showed that the c1300 Purbeck was much
reduced in section near the mullion feet and had
also been patched all over. The decision was made
to renew the mullions throughout to the exact
medieval profiles using new Purbeck, following the
medieval jointing patterns which we could pick up
from the internal layout of the shafts. The mullions
are now secure structural elements and the window
7
The Restorations of the East End Chapels of Chichester Cathedral
New carved capitals in place of block capitals
is no longer at risk of collapse. Much damage had
also been caused to north and south window tracery
mullions and carved capitals by inbuilt ferramenta.
The bars themselves are of significance and seem to
be in part medieval. In addition to security they fulfil
a structural function, helping to brace the window.
All the bars were removed, the built-in ends tipped
with stainless steel and then refitted.
The stone surrounds of the St John Baptist and
St Mary Magdalene east windows were so decayed
they needed replacement. Careful research and study
of the surviving original fragments allowed the
recreation of the medieval profiles.
The overall quantity of new stone introduced
to repair the structure was considerable but each
piece has been cut and carved to suit its unique
location and preserve the particular character of the
Chichester east end. The window tracery and carved
8
stones have all been sheltercoated to unify the design
and to help protect the stonework from erosion;
it would be good to do this about every 15 years.
Sheltercoat is a sacrificial protective layer and if it is
maintained the life of the stone is enhanced.
Fabric repair may seem straightforward but
it presents many technical, aesthetic and design
problems. However, some problems can be grasped as
opportunities to reinstate vital lost detail or to clarify
the design. Good repair can only proceed from
an understanding of the materials and a profound
appreciation of the design as it has evolved. The
reinstatement of ‘lost’ carved capitals to the Lady
Chapel windows presented one such opportunity. In
the 19th century Slater & Carpenter had only been
able to provide crude Chilmark stone block capitals.
When we found that many of these Victorian
replacements had split badly, instead of reintroducing

blocks to match, new foliate capitals were beautifully
carved that drew upon the lively 14th century style.
This has reinstated a grace and flow to the overall
window design. Comparing the window on the
south side, which still has block capitals, with its
neighbour, which has new carvings, well illustrates
the point.
There were also missing or worn out and
ineffective label stops, which had been carved men’s
heads in the medieval building. Four new heads were
needed and four new female heads have been carved
by Tim Crawley to represent young women from
the four corners of the earth; it seems appropriate to
honour women in the structure of the Lady Chapel.
Two more carved label stops were required for the
last window to be repaired, that to the north side of
St John the Baptist Chapel. As there was no evidence
what these label stops had been, it is most appropriate
that these, the last two carved stones inserted at the
end of the programme of external repair portrayed
Ralph Tyreman, Clerk of Works, who had been
involved with the entire exterior restoration and
19th century Chilmark stone: crude block capitals
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
that of Dean Nicholas Frayling, incumbent at the
completion of that repair campaign.
In February 2008 the external scaffold came down
just as the internal restoration was beginning. For the
first time in 50 years scaffolding was not to be seen
on the cathedral. The Lady Chapel interior presented
very different challenges.
The Interior Programme
Interiors are more complex than exteriors as a general
rule and that is most certainly the case with the
Lady Chapel. The internal fabric retains work from
the earliest period, possibly the build dating from
1076 at low level on the north side of the entrance
archway, through all the phases of its history to the
present day. There are also remnants on the built
fabric of many previous decorative schemes and
ancient graffiti. The early decoration is faint but
once the eye has seen it the patterns can be readily
discerned. So it is that the entrance arch retains late
Romanesque/early Gothic painted patterns and
there are a few ‘reset’ stones with figurative wall
painting, very early incised Romanesque patterns in
the western three bays, three gothic schemes of wall
painting (all fragmentary) in the high-level, blocked
former window recess in the first bay, a 14th century?
painted scheme on the upper walls of the first bay,
a painted vault in the second by Barnard (mid 16th
century), fragments of 14th century colour and gold
in window capitals, paint relating to three schemes of
decoration on the vaulting ribs in the three eastern
bays, and early paint schemes on the Romanesque
capitals and roof bosses in the first two bays.
The old decorative schemes aid dating periods of
work or ascertaining their relative ages. For example,
without the faint trace of the incised decoration
in the first two bays it would not be clear that the
window cills of those bays were made lower in 1300
if not before. Frequently we deal with little more
than echoes of the past but these echoes resonate
and it is vital that in undertaking our work nothing
is removed or destroyed, especially with regard to
surfaces. The surface is always the part of an artefact
that contains most information.
However, the chapel is not an archaeological relic
but an important place much used in the daily life of
the cathedral. So it must be appropriately arranged
and provided with adequate heat and light. The
restoration of the fabric and the ordering of the space
9
The Restorations of the East End Chapels of Chichester Cathedral
must also be brought together to best express the
significance of the chapel.
The chapel opens from the retrochoir through
an impressive round-headed arch. Although what
is visible of the arch is mainly of the 1120–87 build,
relating to the first three-bay chapel, evidence
suggests the first phase, eastern apsidal chapel had an
arch of similar height and width. This would have
been matched by the two flanking apsidal chapels.
One can therefore stand in the retrochoir and with
the eye of imagination conjure the first east end with
three apsidal chapels, each with an arch similar to
that through which we see into the Lady Chapel.
The five-bay Lady Chapel of 1300 would have had
a level floor throughout, as evidenced by the stone
skirting and the height of piscinas and aumbries. It
is likely that the 1300 altar was placed in a similar
fashion to the present altar.
The first bay of the Lady Chapel from the west
is without windows because it is flanked by the
slightly later chapels of St John Baptist and St Mary
Magdalene. There is a blind window expressed at
Judging decoration through a gap in the scaffold. In this view,
medieval vermillion and blue paint is visible with newly distempered
vaults and red paint samples.
10
the upper part of the north wall that is a plastered
and painted recess. The recess surfaces were carefully
conserved and although little remains these fragments
remind us that the entire chapel interior would have
been covered with painted decorative schemes. The
ribs of the vaulting to this bay and of the second are
the earliest in the cathedral and the central bosses
are remarkable carvings. These stones and surviving
ancient paint have been cleaned without retouching,
thereby differentiating the simpler early architecture
from that of the eastern three bays, where more of
the medieval decorative scheme has been recreated.
The three eastern bays carry 1300 period
lierne vaults with more delicate ribbing and more
prominent carved bosses. The ribbing retained
substantial medieval painting; the first scheme c1300
seems to have employed red and white only and
the slightly later scheme used red, white and blue!
The red was vermillion which darkens over time
when exposed to the atmosphere. Surviving early
paint has all been retained, cleaned, conserved and
the scheme reinstated where missing. The use of
such colour may seem bold but it was no bolder
than when the chapel was decorated c1350. And the
colour has an important role in describing the space;
the chapel is quite low and the springing point of
the vault is only a few feet above the window cill.
The linear colouring of the ribs helps to overcome
the disadvantage of the low springing point, making
the vault appear to rise and giving an impression
of greater height at the east end of the chapel. If
comparison is made with the internal view before the
recent works, the vault seemed rather to settle down
onto the east window whereas now the effect is the
opposite. The relationship between the rib colours
and the glass also requires comment. The glass in the
chapel is by Clayton & Bell from the 1870s, there is
no medieval glass. However, Clayton & Bell with
Slater & Carpenter were immensely knowledgeable
medievalists. In the 1870s restoration the fragmentary
coloured vault schemes which they discovered below
later overpainting were all retained. Clayton &
Bell’s windows are dominated by red and blue glass,
and so it would seem that their work was informed
by the evidence of the medieval work which
Slater & Carpenter uncovered. (One is tempted to
remark how so many people seem to think that
‘Conservation’ was invented in 1975 – it has been
going on since the Romans!).

Vault boss c1100 in first bay of the Lady Chapel
The practicalities of what was done are easily
stated:
• specialist cleaning of all surfaces – the chapel was
remarkably filthy
• redecoration of vaults, ribs and capitals
• internal limewashing of window tracery
• redecoration of the entrance screen
• cleaning and repair of monuments
• locating the altar forward to allow westward
facing celebration of the Eucharist
• removal of unsightly and noisy heating equipment
• cleaning and conservation of the reredos
• cleaning all floors including a group of medieval
floor tiles at south east corner
• conservation of wall paintings
• resiting the statue of the virgin and child one
bay to the east and providing a lamp and flower
bracket by Philip Jackson
• a new lighting scheme
• new oak bench seats
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
• conservation of a Purbeck niche tomb at the
southwest of the chapel
• a new monument to commemorate Ralph de
Luffa carved by Alec Peever.
The cleaning of the stone surfaces required great
care to ensure that no fragments of early decoration
were lost. All traces of painted decoration that
were discovered were cleaned by Perry Lithgow
Partnership and all other surfaces were cleaned
by the contractor who had overall responsibility
for the project, St Blaise Ltd. Much cleaning was
carried out using damp sponges, but heavy staining
required the use of the Stonehealth latex poultice
(medium strength). This was not used on or
adjacent to painted surfaces. The cleaning has not
removed any of the decoration, graffiti or incisions;
indeed all these are more easily distinguished. The
cleaning did produce a very slight bloom on some
stone surfaces but that has now receded and is not
noticeable.
11
The Restorations of the East End Chapels of Chichester Cathedral

Mid 16th century decorative vault painting by Barnard. The entire cathedral was decorated in this manner.

12

Prior to redecorating the vaults and capitals,
Catherine Hassall made colour investigations
using an electron microscope. These investigations
established that the medieval capitals were decorated
in red or green with gilding and the ribs and vault
webs were simply limewashed. Using this research
the internal decorations were devised. The vault
webs were decorated in an oil-bound distemper4
the colour of which was based on the 13th century
limewash (a ‘window’ is revealed in bay one)
that sits comfortably with the background of the
cleaned 16th century Barnard painting5. The 1960s
vault colour was a yellow which looked distinctly
dingy and did not flatter the Barnard painting. In
the 1960s the vaulting capitals were painted in an
over-involved way which reduced their impact. The
current scheme has only one colour per capital but
alternates using the medieval convention so that for
example at the east end one is green and one is red.
We also gilded the smaller capitals to the engaged
shafts at the window embrasures; the gilding is
used to visually connect wall and vault (gilded
bosses) drawing the eye up to the focal point, the
crucifixion at the centre of the east window.
Limewashing the internal window tracery using
a Caen stone colour unifies the disparate stones and
introduces a useful barrier layer to preserve the stone
itself. The light stone colour also reduces glare on
the glass. This simple technique was also used in the
middle ages.
The two centre doors of the entrance screen
might be from the medieval period, just possibly
from the shrine (the remainder of the screen is 19th
century). We found some early silvery grey paint
in crevices and decided to paint the screen in that
colour. The result is astonishing. A rather solemn
barrier has become more celebratory and links
rather than divides the space. The colour may relate
to a description of the shrine as being ‘silvered’.
This simple change of colour has also improved
the balance between the retrochoir and the chapel,
which on occasion are used together, and reminds
us that not until the 19th century was ironwork
generally painted black. In the middle ages it would
never have been black.
Rethinking the layout and furniture of the
chapel was an important part of the scheme. We
agreed upon benches because by their simplicity and
line they offer a sense of a calm and spaciousness
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
while being most practical in use; people can
squeeze up a bit on benches but not on chairs.
About 80 people can be seated. The benches can be
arranged to face inwards (choir-wise) or toward the
altar and are sized to fit the bay size of the chapel;
space is like music, there must be rhythm and pacing
in every part no matter how prominent or recessive
within the overall texture.
The first bay, which now includes the monument
to Ralph de Luffa, is intended to be kept as clear
as possible, which is important for the relationship
with the retrochoir. Quite deliberately it has no
lighting other than light borrowed from the adjacent
spaces. Contrast in lighting is necessary. The reredos
needed to be carefully repaired and cleaned. The
mosaic and its iron frame have been repaired and
treated where necessary. Parts of the alabaster
superstructure were loose due to defective iron. The
rusting iron pins have been replaced.
The altar support is contemporary with the
Salviati mosaic (1870s) but the altar stone is I am
sure medieval. The stone is massive and there is a
reference to an altar stone being found walled up
during the 19th century restoration. The reference
could be to this stone. The size of the slab is such
that it suggests that we have here a principal,
perhaps the principal altar stone of the medieval
cathedral. This possibility should be further
investigated.
Lighting is always a challenge in such a space
but a simple solution has been devised. Four
electric chandeliers were introduced in the 1960s.
Their pattern indicates that they might date from
the 1930s. They were the only illumination, each
carrying 12 upward pointing candle lamps. However
chandeliers light up, not down. So little light arrives
where people need it. Also four in a row down the
centre contributed to make the chapel look like a
tunnel and the glare from the lamps blocked the
glass windows. However, chandeliers can have
uses, including defining the bay rhythm. In the
reordering, two chandeliers have been retained, to
hang in the bays which are for congregation seating
but each has been redesigned with wooden candles
and six hanging lamps below. I found old Comper
fittings (1937 vintage) in a junk yard and recycled
the brass cowls in the Chichester chandeliers. I hope
Comper would not have minded. Each window cill
carries a discreet uplight fitting to give a glow to
13
The Restorations of the East End Chapels of Chichester Cathedral
The completed interior of the Lady Chapel
the vault (as if the chandeliers were doing so) and
some small directional light fittings are tucked into
window embrasures to light the altar and lectern.
All the lighting is dimmable with simple scene
setting.
Only in winter does the glass read outside
but when the daylight is good the interior of the
Lady Chapel is like a lantern. Here we have a
most significant scheme of Clayton & Bell glass
which includes all the biblical references to Mary,
the mother of Jesus. Clayton & Bell’s colouring
is superb and the gradation of the scheme from
west to east is noteworthy. The arrangement of
the four bays is as follows; the western most has
three figurative panels to each window with simple
patterned glass above and below containing much
white glass, the next two contain more and heavier
figurative glass; then in the altar bay, the east, north
and south windows are filled with the brightest
clearest coloured figurative schemes. The eastern
bay blazes with coloured light. This glass well repays
study; it is of the best of the 19th century. It befits
this space perfectly.
14
Colin Kerr is a Partner of Molyneux Kerr Architects. He has
been Surveyor of the Fabric at Chichester Cathedral since 2006.
References
1 Slater & Carpenter. William Slater 1818 (or 1819) to
1872. Surveyor to the Fabric of Chichester Cathedral
2 Clayton & Bell. Stained glass designers and makers
3 Neither Purbeck nor Ashburton are true marbles but
are more correctly conglomerates. Ashburton from
Derbyshire is a beautiful stone which was used by Scott,
delivered by rail. Internally it is stable and fine in dry
conditions but externally the soft veins readily decay. It is
not suitable for external use in the author’s opinion.
4 Limewash was found not to adhere to the 1960s
limewash.
5 Lambert Barnard 1485–1567 Artist. Barnard painted
huge history paintings for the cathedral as well as
carrying out a massive scheme of decorative painting to
the cathedral vaults. Similar work from his hand can be
seen at St Mary’s Priory, Boxgrove.
The Recreation of the Elizabethan Privy
Garden at Kenilworth Castle
Richard Griffith s

This article describes the recreation of the Elizabethan garden at Kenilworth Castle and the philosophical, practical and
interpretative issues that it raises. Robert Dudley’s garden, one of the most magnificent Elizabethan gardens, where he royally
entertained Queen Elizabeth in 1575, has been recreated in accordance with the detailed contemporary description contained in
a letter by Robert Langham, a gentleman in Dudley’s household, and with the advice of a panel of experts. The garden was
designed to appeal to all the senses, with scented plants in the garden quarters, singing birds in the aviary and tinkling water in the
fountain at the centre of the garden. The aviary, arbours and other garden features have been constructed authentically as green
oak-framed structures. The article assesses the project, the most ambitious recreation of an Elizabethan garden to date, against the
criteria for restoration set out in the English Heritage Conservation Principles, and describes the practical issues of complying with
current regulations.

Background
The reconstruction of the Elizabethan Privy garden
is the culmination of a five year programme of
development and re-presentation at Kenilworth
Castle, the foremost Castle in English Heritage’s
guardianship. Previous improvements have included
the construction of a new ticket building and
shop, a new exhibition and café in the Elizabethan
stables, and an exhibition about Robert Dudley and
Queen Elizabeth in Dudley’s gatehouse (Figs 1, 2).
Interestingly the brief for the ticket building was
for a building in the tradition of timber-framed Fig 1 The new admissions building
outbuildings and pentices that would have been
characteristic of castle sites in medieval times. The
green oak-framed ticket building, together with the
surviving oak roof of the stables and the new oak-
framed aviary and arbours in the garden, mean that
the site can now demonstrate a fine range of oak-
framed buildings of different periods and techniques
(Fig 3).
During the preparatory stage of the garden
project English Heritage explored the intellectual
and practical feasibilities of faithfully recreating
Robert Dudley’s 16th century Renaissance garden
on its original site according to the detailed
contemporary description contained in a letter
written by Robert Langham, a gentleman usher
in Robert Dudley’s household. Langham visited
the garden in 1575, the same year that Dudley
entertained Queen Elizabeth in a famous visit Fig 2 Dudley’s stables

15
The Recreation of the Elizabethan Privy Garden at Kenilworth Castle

Fig 3 View of the aviary and an obelisk before painting and fixing of finials to obelisks (English Heritage)

16
 aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010

Fig 4 The garden and structures before decoration (Morley van Sternberg)

that lasted 19 days. A previous garden had been
constructed on the site by the Department of the
Environment in the 1970s based on the plan by
Hollar that appears in Dugdale’s 17th century history
of Warwickshire, but this was at variance with the
description in Langham’s letter and with the findings
of an extensive archaeological excavation carried out
in 2004–6 by Northamptonshire Archaeology under
the direction of Brian Dix. This crucially located
the exact position of the fountain at the centre of the
garden. Based on these findings and on a report by
the Parklands Consortium, English Heritage took
the decision to reconstruct the garden based on the
archaeological evidence and on archival research,
most notably the Langham letter, with the advice of
a panel of experts (Fig 4).
show were set; to these two fine arbours redolent by sweet
trees and flowers, at each end one, the garden plot under
that, with fair alleys even voided from the borders on both
sides.
The first attempt at reconstruction interpreted
the arbours as being tunnel arbours set at each end
of the garden, in which they were placed (Fig 5).
However David Jacques pointed out that the
garden plot is described as being under the arbours,
which therefore had to be pavilion arbours at each

The Garden Layout

The letter describes a beautiful garden to the north
of the keep
wherein is reared a pleasant terrace, ten feet high, and
twelve feet broad, even under foot and fresh of fine grass;
as is also the side thereof towards the garden: in which,
by sundry equal distances, with obelisks and spheres and Fig 5 Gardens at Villa Ambrogiano, Italy 1599
white bears, all of stone upon their curious bases, by goodly (Museo Topographico, Florence)

17
The Recreation of the Elizabethan Privy Garden at Kenilworth Castle
end of the terrace on which (in which in the letter)
were set the obelisks, spheres and white bears on
their curious bases. There being no more detailed
description contained in the letter, the arbours were
based on a contemporary print by du Cerceau,
and the spheres and curious (ie strapwork) bases
on prints by Vredeman de Vries which might have
been available to Robert Dudley at the period
(Figs 6, 7). The letter describes the obelisks,
spheres and with bears which line the front of the
terrace. The stairs have solid oak treads, and are of
an authentically steep pitch, permissible because
Buildings Regulations do not apply to garden
structures. The mouldings of the balusters on the
staircase are taken from a surviving example found
elsewhere on the site.
The Quarters and Obelisks
The garden itself is described as
much gracified by due proportion of four even quarters:
in the midst of which, upon a base two feet square, and
high, seemly bordered of itself, a square pilaster rising
pyramidically fifteen feet high. Symmetrically pierced
through from a foot beneath to two feet from the top:
whereupon for a capital, an orb of ten inches thick; every
one of these, with its base, from the ground to the top, of one
whole piece; hewn out of hard porphyry, and with great art
and heed thither conveyed and there erected.
Fig 6 The arbour at Montagis, France, by du Cerceau (British Museum)
18
Fig 7 From Hortorium Viridaroriumque by Vredeman de Vries 1583
(British Museum)
The base of the fountain at the centre of the
garden having been located by means of the
archaeological investigation, and its extent limited
by the end of the keep to the east and by the line
of the curtain wall to the north, it was possible
to lay out the four quarters of the garden, with
suitable bed layouts and planting of the period
(Fig 8). The obelisks were based on the pierced
obelisks that appear extensively on tombs of the
period and it was gratifying that the reconstruction
could be fitted to the precise dimensions given by
Langham (Fig 3). It is of course impossible that
real porphyry, an Egyptian granite, could have
been available in these sizes at this period, and the
obelisks, as well as the spheres and white bears
upon their curious bases are therefore painted in
imitation of porphyry and stone. A white bear
supporting a ragged staff is Dudley’s device and the
modelling has been based on the example on his
tomb in Warwick church.
The Aviary
The letter also describes an aviary.
In the midst, against the terrace, a square cage, sumptuous
and beautiful, joined hard to the north wall, of a rare
form and excellency was raised: in height twenty feet,
thirty long and fourteen broad. From the ground, strong
and close, reared breast high, whereat a framing of a fair
moulding was couched all about: from that upward, four
great windows, in front, and two at each end, every one
five feet wide, as many more even above them divided on
all parts by a transom and architrave, so likewise ranging
about the cage. Each window arched at the top, and
parted from the other at even distance, by flat fair bolteld
 aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010

columns, all in form and beauty alike; these supported

a comely cornice couched all along upon a bole square.
Which with a wire net, finely knit, of meshes six square,
an inch wide (as it were for a flat roof) and likewise
every window with great cunning and comeliness, even
and tight was all over-strained. Under the cornice again,
every part beautified with great diamonds, emeralds,
rubies and sapphires: pointed, tabled and, rock and round,
and garnish’d with gold; by skilful head and hand, and
by toil and pencil so lively expressed as it might be great
marvel and pleasure to consider how near excellency of
Art could approach unto perfection of Nature.
On the side of the gatehouse there is a porch
that clearly dates from the Dudley period, adorned
with bears and ragged staffs, probably a garden
structure that has been relocated (Fig 9). This,
together with some carved stones found elsewhere
on the site, provided evidence for the mouldings and Fig 9 This garden building dating from Dudley’s period was later
relocated as a porch to the gatehouse.
appearance of the aviary with its arched openings,
and formed the basis for a proposed reconstruction timber, and the detailing was altered accordingly.
by Dr Richard Morris. The detailing and jointing of the aviary was
As architects for the garden project, following therefore developed in conjunction with Peter
on from our work on the admissions building McCurdy who was responsible for the magnificent
and Dudley’s stables, we detailed the aviary as work in their construction and erection (Fig 11).
being framed of green oak finished with lath and The corner posts are cut from large logs 20 feet
lime plaster, with applied pilasters of carved oak. long and two feet square, tenoned to the sill and
However, David Honour felt that a garden building cornice plates, each two feet wide by one foot
of the period, exposed to the elements on both thick, with the mouldings returned on the end
sides, would have been constructed entirely of grain rather than mitred. The bases and capitals of

Fig 8 Plan of the garden (Richard Griffiths Architects)

19
The Recreation of the Elizabethan Privy Garden at Kenilworth Castle

the columns are carved separately and fixed with

wrought iron nails (Fig 11). The jewels are cast
in lead and then painted in the correct colours
for the gems within gilded mounts (Fig 12). The
description of the wire net, finely knit, of meshes six
square, an inch wide (as it were for a flat roof) has been
interpreted as a wire mesh – in this case zoo mesh,
a fine spun wire mesh – supported over the roof
by means of a wooden framework of oak battens
one inch thick spaced six inches apart (Fig 13). Zoo
mesh fills the entire area of the arched window
openings. The aviary sits on a plinth of real
masonry reared breast high filled with earth and holly
trees so that the birds are seen more closely at eye
level.
While the detailing of the aviary was being
discussed between ourselves, Peter McCurdy and
Andrew Smith, McCurdy’s engineer, it became
clear that the structure could only be made to
comply with modern wind loadings by means of
the addition of steelwork. However, any visible
steelwork was a concern for English Heritage,
and we faced a classic case of a conflict between
authenticity and modern building codes. After
Fig 10 The aviary much discussion it was agreed to accept exposed
diagonal steel bars painted in with the other
ironwork, an unobtrusive presence within the
aviary when seen against the background of the
timber piers.

The Terrace and Arbours

Fig 11 The aviary capitals based on Serlio
The arbours were based on a print of 1565 by
Du Cerceau of the garden at Montargis, in France,
and were again constructed by Peter McCurdy. The
Ionic capitals and bases were based on Serlio, with
strapwork panels to the plinths based on designs
by Vredeman de Vries. The rear and end faces of
the arbours were filled with lattices of riven oak,
leaving an arched window overlooking the view, as
mentioned by Langham (Figs 14–16).
As with the aviary, structural calculations
showed that the timber-framing would not be able
to withstand wind loading, the overturning moment
having the effect of lifting the pediment off the
post. In this case exposed ironwork was deemed
unacceptable by English Heritage, and T-section
steelwork was housed into the top of the arches, and
steel brackets were designed to hold the pediments
together.

20

Fig 12 The bejewelled entablature of the aviary
The Fountain
At the centre of the garden the Langham letter
describes
a very fair fountain, cast into an eight square, reared four
feet high: from the midst whereof, a column upright, in
shape of two Atlants, joined together a back half; the one
looking east, the other west, with their hands upholding a
bowl of three feet over; from whence sun-dry pipes did lively
distil continual streams into the reservoir of the fountain,
maintained still two feet deep by the same fresh falling
water; in the top, the ragged staff; which, with the bowl,
the pillar, the eight sides beneath, were all hewn out of rich
and hard white marble.
The fountain has been designed according to this
description by David Honour, who has interpreted
the two back-to-back figures as Atlas-like figures
supporting a globe – possibly representing the
ambitions of the Dudley brothers – with water
issuing from the sides. The Langham letter describes
four of the eight scenes represented on the sides of
the fountain –
Neptune with his tridental fuskin, trailed in to the deep
by his marine horses. Thetis in her chariot drawn by her
dolphins. Proteus herding his sea-bulls. Dorace and her
daughters solacing on sea and sands.
Appropriate prints of the period have been
identified after extensive research carried out by
Esther Godfrey to provide the basis for the design of
the relief panels. These have been carved, together
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
with the Atlants, by the Fairhaven Studio in white
Italian marble (Fig 17).
Restoration or Presentation?
The project represents the most ambitious attempt
so far in this country to recreate the appearance
of a Tudor garden. However, is, as Morris and
Ruskin said about any attempt to restore the past,
a lifeless forgery the sole result of all that wasted effort…? It
is interesting in this context to test the restoration
against the criteria set out in the English Heritage
Conservation Principles, which maintain that
restoration should normally be acceptable if
• the heritage values of the elements that would be restored
decisively outweigh the values of those that would be lost.
The 1970s garden that has been lost is itself an
attempt at restoration based on a fanciful 17th
century print.
• the work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of
the evolution of the place, and is executed in accordance
with that evidence. The recreation has been carried
out with the benefit of a panel of experts in
accordance with extensive archival research into
gardens of the period.
• the form in which the place currently exists is not the result
of an historically significant event. It is not.
• the work proposed respects previous forms of the place.
It destroys the 1970s garden, but this was of
marginal significance.
21
The Recreation of the Elizabethan Privy Garden at Kenilworth Castle

Fig 13 The aviary roof showing the steel braces

22

Fig 14 The arbour under construction
Fig 15 Detail of the arbour
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
• the maintenance implications of the proposed restoration
are considered to be sustainable. The maintenance
costs will be considerable in the upkeep of
the planting, the care of the birds and the
redecoration of the oak structures, but English
Heritage has taken these costs into account in its
financial projections.
Significantly, English Heritage describes the
project not as a restoration, but as a recreation or
re-presentation, making clear that this is entirely
a 21st century reconstruction, with the intention
of increasing visitor numbers, encouraging repeat
visits and longer dwell time, telling the story of
the Kenilworth garden, describing the sources
for the reconstruction, and increasing intellectual
understanding of Elizabethan gardens in general.
In this sense it is one that might, like its 1970s
predecessor, be replaced to reflect increasing
knowledge and understanding in future. To my
mind, however, one of the most valuable aspects
of the project is the authenticity that comes from
the use only of the materials and constructional
techniques that would have been available at the
period. There is something wonderful about the
enormous pieces of green oak in the structure of
the aviary that will split and move, gaining texture
and interest as they dry out, and in the heroic scale
of the arbours with their riven oak lattice infill
panels that will age beautifully under their growing
panoply of climbing plants. It is a pity that the
fascinating process of converting oak trees into the
finished structures could not itself have been made
into a major element of the educational benefit of
the project, for the process of construction is as
interesting as the product.
Practical Concerns
A potential hazard in projects of recreation such as this
one is the need to comply with current regulations.
Fortunately in this case the buildings could be treated
as garden structures exempt from the Building
Regulations. The steps down from the terrace could
therefore be authentically steep, albeit with an added
iron handrail against the side of the balustrade on each
side to aid access and security. Access for visitors with
disabilities has not been neglected, however, and a
platform lift and additional flight of stairs suitable for
the ambulant disabled has been added just outside the
garden, to the west.
23
The Recreation of the Elizabethan Privy Garden at Kenilworth Castle

Fig 16 The arbour finials

A Pleasure Garden to Charm All the
Senses
The garden so recreated was intended to appeal to all
the senses – sight, sound and smell – and amusement.
The garden is planted as a scented gillyflower garden
with carnations, pinks, stocks and wallflowers, the
aviary has canaries for song and pheasants for colour,
water tinkles in the fountain and water spurts soak
visitors in summer. The project recreates, as far as
possible with the bounds of current knowledge, the
exquisite garden described by Langham in his purple
prose,
a garden so appointed, as wherein aloft upon sweet shadowed
walk of terrace, in heat of summer, to feel the pleasant
whisking wind above, or delectable coolness of the fountain-
spring beneath, to taste of delicious strawberries, cherries, and
other fruits, even from their stalks, to smell such fragrancy of
sweet odours, breathing from the plants, herbs, and flowers,
to hear such natural melodious music and tunes of the birds,
to have in eye for mirth sometime these underspringing
streams, then, the woods, the waters, the deer, the people, the
fruit trees, the plants, the herbs, the flowers, the change in
colours, the birds flittering, the fountain streaming, the fish
swimming, al in such delectable variety, order, and dignity;
whereby, at one moment, in one place, at hand, without
travel, to have so full fruition of so many God’s blessings, by
entire delight unto all senses (if all can take) at once.

Richard Griffiths is senior partner at Richard Griffiths

Fig 17 The fountain (Hugh Honour) Architects

24
Chatham as a Militarised Landscape:
Its Conservation and Management
Peter Kendall
The fortifications and barracks built for the defence of the dockyard at Chatham and the residential quarters of the civilian labour
force form a unique, well preserved and under-researched military landscape. By contrast with the dockyard, the military sites face
an uncertain future, which this article suggests would benefit from positive management.
Introduction
Chatham is famous for its dockyard. Less well known
are the contemporary fortifications and barracks
built for its defence. Chatham should be seen as both
a dockyard and garrison town, with the numerous
government establishments combining to create a
large military landscape that is today still substantially
complete. The uniqueness of the historic dockyard
in combination with garrison structures and the
residential quarters of the labour force prompted
the proposal for a World Heritage Site (WHS)
at Chatham, as a superb example of the military
infrastructure required to project British influence
worldwide. More than 25 years after closure, the
dockyard is approaching a sustainable position under
an independent trust, with the last of the ‘at risk’
buildings now resolved. In contrast, some of the
historic army sites at Chatham remain at risk of
deterioration and without a certain future. It was
this that prompted the author and others to explore
at Chatham how all of the significant components
of the proposed WHS could benefit from positive
management. The approach adopted is based on the
‘Heritage Cycle’.
Fig 1 The Heritage Cycle
Historical Research
To make the virtuous circle inherent in the above
approach to management of the historic environment
work, a good starting point is with understanding.
At Chatham the complexity of the heritage assets
provided for the army, mostly through the Board
of Ordnance, was poorly understood. A reliable
chronology was lacking for the construction of the
artillery fortifications, barracks, military hospitals
and the Gunwharf, where weaponry, covering great
guns or small arms, was issued to both the army and
navy. Two key actions were essential to obtaining a
level of understanding such that people could then
be encouraged to value, care for and enjoy the assets.
One was field survey to understand the extent of the
surviving evidence and the other was documentary
research. As the works were designed, built and
administered by government organisations, there
is a wealth of archive material, most of it at The
National Archives. The historic narrative of the
growth of Chatham as a militarised place has now
been established, as summarised below, and will
form the basis of a future publication by the author.
For the 18th century the records of the Ordnance
Board could be followed month by month. In the
19th century, starting with the Napoleonic wars, the
quantity and scope of the available records covering
Board of Ordnance activity worldwide become too
large for this approach to be practical. For this period
records held by the Royal Engineers Library and
published sources, including many now available
through digitisation on Google books, were essential.
Development of Chatham Garrison
Use of the Medway at Chatham by the navy began
c1550. Upnor Castle provided for defence of the
anchorage from 1559. The disastrous raid by the
25
Chatham as a Militarised Landscape: Its Conservation and Management
Fig 2 1756 survey of the newly constructed Chatham Lines © British Library Board (BL ADD 23655)
Dutch in 1667 caused a major reorganisation of the
defences, but these remained focussed on the river.
In 1667 the Dutch put troops ashore and this created
a fear that the dockyard at Chatham was vulnerable
to a landward assault from the east. Bastioned
fortifications (Chatham Lines) on the high ground
behind the dockyard and Gunwharf were designed
from as early as 1708, but not built until 1755 and
the threat of French invasion in the Seven Years War
(1756–63). These fortifications were largely built as
earthworks and created the fundamental form of
the militarised landscape that survives to the present
(Fig 2).
The four broad bastions at the centre of the
fortifications show clearly; outside of these land was
bought and cleared to form a field of fire that was
the start of the area now known as the Great Lines.
Brompton is the civilian settlement where many of
the dockyard workers lived and this was now within
the defences. Not shown in the above survey are the
Infantry Barracks of 1757, built to hold the garrison
of troops to defend Chatham.
In the next period of warfare and invasion threat,
26
the American Revolutionary War (1778–83) the
Chatham Lines were rebuilt and made more complex
including by the establishment of Fort Amherst at the
southern end of the lines.
The greatest period of construction for the army
at Chatham was after 1803, under the stimulus of
the Napoleonic wars. The dockyard at this date was
focussed on building and repairing the fleet and
Chatham was turned into a heavily defended and
garrisoned station for the army that a French invasion
force would have to neutralise before advancing on
London. Much of the still visible form of the heritage
assets was established in this conflict. Additional
defences south of Chatham were built at Fort Pitt
and the Clarence Lines. The Chatham Lines were
strengthened by the creation of Fort Amherst in its
present day form as a citadel, and by the addition
at the northern end of new fortifications known as
Lower Lines. Brompton Barracks which is still the
home of the Corps of Royal Engineers was built
from 1804.
By the peace of 1815, Chatham had grown into a
heavily defended place. It was never attacked, but the

Fig 3 Mid 19th century map of sites mentioned in the text
inadequacies of the British army in the many bloody
sieges of the Peninsular War prompted the founding
of a Royal Engineer training establishment for siege
warfare at Chatham in 1812. This was the forerunner
of the Royal School of Military Engineering. The
Chatham Lines provided a ready-made facility after
1815 in which to practice for real the skills required
for the attack and defence of a fortified place. Such
training continued at Chatham until the outbreak
of the First World War. The live-firing training
exercises involving large siege works and thousands
of troops grew ever more complex as the 19th
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
Lower Lines
century advanced and became a spectacle attracting
large crowds of the public.
The engineer troops trained at Lower Lines
and were based in Brompton Barracks. The other
barracks of the Chatham garrison took on a new
role after 1815 as a recruitment centre and as the
place to which sick and injured troops were sent
for invaliding out of the army. Many soldiers thus
began and ended their army careers at Chatham,
with a particular emphasis on troops serving in India
and other parts of the empire. Experience in the
Crimean War (1854–56) demonstrated that the army
27
Chatham as a Militarised Landscape: Its Conservation and Management
had largely stagnated in its development after 1815.
One of the realisations was the high mortality rates
of troops housed at home in crowded and out of date
barracks. The barracks reform agenda led to major
changes in the standard of barracks after 1860 and to
new buildings at Chatham.
In the 20th century Chatham provided major
service in both world wars. From as early as the
First World War the introduction of aerial warfare
stimulated change within the military and civilian
estates in terms of passive defence through shelters
and active defence by gun sites. During the invasion
threat of 1940–44 the Chatham Lines were pressed
back into service as a ready-made anti-tank ditch
to turn the Chatham garrison area into a nodal
point. In 1945 Chatham emerged from conflict
with remarkably little bomb damage to the military
estate either for the army or navy. The changed
post-war world order was however to have serious
consequences for the military assets and many whole
sites were demolished as no longer necessary or
affordable, and others including the fortifications
were left to decay. In 1984 Chatham dockyard
closed, leaving the continuing presence of the Royal
Fig 4 The military landscape at Chatham, with the dockyard adjacent to the river, Chatham Lines under tree cover and Great Lines as green
open space (Medway Council)
28
Engineers at Brompton barracks as the only living
connection to a military tradition that dates back
more than 400 years.
Physical Survival of Military Assets
As the aerial photo (Fig 4) shows, parts of the historic
fortifications are heavily overgrown. Field survey
is essential to establish precisely what survives as
against what the documentary research suggests was
built or proposed. Identification was aided by the
extensive archives of maps, plans and photographs
but survey also showed entire structures or phases of
use that were not identifiable in the historic records.
Fort Amherst has been in the care of an independent
trust since 1980, and its members have thoroughly
investigated the fort, although conservation of this is
less than half done. Recent attention has focussed on
the remainder of the Chatham Lines. As described
below, the Lower Lines saw planning applications
for a new college and a public park, and through
these, archaeological excavation and field survey was
secured by planning conditions. This left the central
section of the Chatham Lines in the ownership of
the Ministry of Defence (MOD) unexplored. Fig 4

shows the extent of tree cover that has developed on
the line of the fortifications. The solution here was
a partnership between MOD and English Heritage
whereby, as part of its response to inclusion of the
fortifications on the at risk register, MOD removed
the dense scrub cover and some trees to enable the
English Heritage archaeological survey teams access.
Valuing the Military Assets
Values can take two related forms. Those that help
to define significance and which can then inform
decisions about statutory protection through
designation, and those that relate to how people
value a particular place. The latter may describe a
reaction to the history of that place, but they might
equally be about other factors such as the wildlife
or appreciation of it as a place to walk the dog. The
reasons why people value a place can be myriad but
the essential task is ensure that sufficient people do
realise the value of a heritage asset and thus want to
support it having a sustainable future. At Chatham
the statutory designations are old and concentrated
on the most obvious brickwork elements of the
fortifications. The archive research and field survey
results are now enabling a complete review of
the designations in order to ensure that all that is
significant has been considered. An early action by
Medway Council was to carry out a characterisation
study with which to revise and extend the
conservation area that includes most of the sites
built for the army (Brompton Lines Conservation
Area). This has all fed easily into consideration of the
potential of Chatham as a WHS and to defining what
the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the site is
and how it is expressed in the component parts.
The military assets at Chatham cannot be
considered to have a sustainable future unless there
is a body of public opinion that understands and
enjoys them and thus places high priority on their
future care, use and maintenance. In examining
the case for a WHS there has inevitably been a
project board made up of the main landowners
and statutory agencies. In addition the challenge
was issued to the WHS project manager hosted
within Medway Council to proceed by involving
the public from day one. It was thought best to
consult widely rather than rely on the judgements
of historic environment specialists to tell people
why they should value the Chatham sites. A WHS
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
partnership was formed which has grown to include
700 members, most of whom are private individuals
not organisations. Regular events have invited public
participation in such tasks as choosing names for
new parks or commenting on draft management
plans. By combining these with access to the
many fascinating places within the military estate,
including several which are not normally open to
public inspection, attendance has been routinely high
and public interest has been sustained. In addition,
the conventional range of public engagement
through newsletters, web sites, lectures etc have been
used. There are several educational establishments
within the military landscape at Chatham and the
students from these have carried out project work
and exhibited the results at partnership meetings,
including performance arts projects. Community
theatre work has extended engagement with the
landscape to include the age group that will need to
sustain the heritage assets in the future.
The military landscape at Chatham is complex
in terms of its history and design and much of it is
now made difficult to understand by the growth of
trees, more recent changes including development
and the need for secure perimeters on assets still in
active use by the military. A further project has thus
been to develop an electronic aid to help people
comprehend the place and to be a tool for all those
who must manage it or who propose change to it.
A bursary was offered for a student at Greenwich
University’s Medway campus to collate and digitise
the many historic maps and plans of the Chatham
military assets (see Fig 2 as an example) and relate
these to the modern Ordnance Survey grid. By
use of a Geographical Information System this data
can then be viewed against present day mapping
and aerial photographs so as to demonstrate change
through time at the site and the location of now lost
elements of the Chatham garrison area. A follow-
up project also through Greenwich University is
now in planning to make this information available
over the web so that as wide an audience as possible
will have access to the high quality cartographic
information that is only otherwise available as paper
copies through several archives. By using information
technology exploiting mobile phones or portable
computers it is hoped to make interpretation of
the site available to visitors. Using digital terrain
modelling, 3D images on screen can be formed
29
Chatham as a Militarised Landscape: Its Conservation and Management
from which modern intrusive elements and tree
cover might then be removed to reveal how the
sites would have appeared at different phases of
their development. Now demolished elements
might also be capable of resurrection by digital
means. This approach is thought very promising
for giving information about how artillery on the
fortifications would have combined to create the
interlocking fields of fire that made the Chatham
Lines a formidable defence to the dockyard, barracks
and Gunwharf. It is not entirely fanciful to envisage
a computer game based on the Chatham military
landscape to permit people of all ages to experience
the purpose of the sites as both attacker and defender
during a major siege.
Caring For and Enjoying the Military
Assets
There is a growing body of opinion that now
values the military landscape at Chatham much
more highly than was the case three years ago.
The focus has been on the WHS project, but
throughout it has always been explained that the
process of bringing stakeholders together to agree
integrated management of the former government
establishments is a sufficient goal in itself. It will be
a bitter disappointment to many should the WHS
project not ultimately succeed but the process of
working together is already delivering many of
the perceived benefits of this and attracting inward
investment as part of the wider regeneration agenda
at Medway.
The military assets at Chatham reached their
greatest physical extent during the early 20th
century and these were largely sustained into the
post-Second World War period. Enemy action
did relatively little damage at Chatham but the
post-imperial decrease in the size of the United
Kingdom’s armed forces has produced very major
change. Whole sites have been demolished, others
abandoned and some disposed of with new owners
and uses. The process of disposal continues to the
present day. At Chatham Dockyard the success of
its trust has been based on finding uses for those
buildings capable of sustaining a new purpose. In
this way and over a 25 year period a sustainable
community has been created at the site, where
people do not just visit a heritage attraction of
international quality but also live and work, spend
30
their leisure time and are educated. The same
approach can inform how some other parts of the
historic military estate at Chatham can find a future,
but by no means all of them.
The surviving barracks at Chatham are with
care capable of continued use. The Royal School
of Military Engineering remains centred on the
Brompton Barracks and these have seen an exemplary
programme of repair and conversion to make them
fit for the needs of modern day soldiering, not the
poor conditions in which troops of the early 19th
century were expected to live. The RN Barracks at
HMS Pembroke became surplus to naval need when
the dockyard closed in 1984. Built between 1897
and 1902, these could hold up to 5,000 personnel.
This type of institution built for sailors undergoing
training in a shore establishment lent itself to re-use
for a similar purpose. The site is now the campus of
the Universities at Medway with three universities
sharing facilities in an impressive combination of
repair of historic buildings and the integration of new
components.
Buildings, even those constructed for very specific
military purposes, can be re-used but this is not true
of the fortifications or the associated open spaces
created as their field of fire. The brick-lined moats,
ramparts, magazines and gun positions combine
to create extensive monuments but have very few
conventional roofed spaces that can be used for new
purposes. Finding a future for these parts of the
military landscape has required a different approach.
Part of Fort Amherst has over a period of 30 years
been conserved by its trust and made accessible to
Fig 5 The former Wardroom at HMS Pembroke, now the Universities
at Medway
 aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010

Fig 6 A conserved part of Fort Amherst (Fort Amherst Heritage Trust)

visitors (Fig 6), but less than half that site has been
tackled and this approach has not been extended to
the remainder of the Chatham Lines. Even if the
funds could be found to authentically conserve the
entire fort and all of the other bastions this would
not then be sustainable. The grounds maintenance
task for presenting the fort in an authentic fashion
with close-mown grass is already very challenging
and there is a limit to the level of public interest in
visiting all of a very large military monument that
has repetitive elements. The solution adopted for the
fortifications and fields of fire at Chatham is inspired
by their historic use after 1815, when the prospects
of them being used for their intended purpose had
declined. It is based around use as public green
space and the provision of leisure opportunities Fig 7 Lower Lines Park (white) Great Lines Heritage Park (orange)
and communication routes so as to support the
regeneration agenda for the Medway towns. Heritage Park. In parallel another area of the
Historically the open space inside and outside fortifications known as Lower Lines has also been
of the fortifications owned by the military also conserved as a pocket public park. These two areas
formed a resource made available to the population are shown in Fig 7.
of Medway. Chatham races were held here, as were
various fairs. The army used the land to exercise Great Lines Heritage Park
its horses and latterly for sports fields. Much of the The Great Lines is over 70 hectares of open space
dockyard labour force walked to work over this land. at the heart of Medway. It is visible from much
The then Gillingham Borough Council bought of Chatham, and the Naval War Memorial at its
much of the open field of fire outside Chatham apex is one of the best-known local landmarks.
Lines, known as Great Lines, from the MOD in the Part of the area is a Site of Nature Conservation
1980s. Public access to this area has been possible ever Interest (SNCI), for its chalk grassland flora. The
since but it has not necessarily been facilitated nor Great Lines Heritage Park unites Fort Amherst and
integrated with the fortifications that give the open Chatham Lines with its field of fire in a single park
space much of its significance. boundary. The works were informed by a landscape
In response, work on the military estate at management plan commissioned from HTA
Chatham has included a major sub-project under Architects, and the majority of the funding has come
its own project manager, again based at Medway from the government as a £2 million investment
Council, to create what is called The Great Lines from its ‘Parklands’ fund under the Thames Gateway.

31
Chatham as a Militarised Landscape: Its Conservation and Management
Fig 8 The Naval War Memorial on Great Lines
Greening the Gateway Kent and Medway has been
instrumental in securing the project. The investment
of funds has created two new entrances to the park
and a pedestrian bridge crossing to provide a direct
route between Fort Amherst and the Naval War
Memorial. There will also be four kilometres of
new and improved pathways, free public access to
Fort Amherst, lighting for the war memorial and
fort, new seating and bins, vegetation and scrub
clearance, new information panels and signage.
The park project is intended to complete the
heritage cycle (Fig 1) by encouraging its users to
enjoy an enhanced green open space and hopefully
take in something of the historic significance of the
Chatham fortifications. The aspiration is that the new
park will become to Medway what Hampstead Heath
or Blackheath are to their respective communities.
To give the park area unity the boundary is being
marked by a dwarf wall of stone filled gabions (a
technology inspired by military engineering) and
new gateway features.
At Fort Amherst the challenge has been to
integrate this with the wider open space of the Great
32
Lines. To open the fort to increased public use it
will in daylight hours become free to access. The
important underground works will be reserved for
controlled visitor access by the Trust. A fortress is
built with one purpose in mind, to stop anyone from
easily moving from the outside to the inside and vice
versa. The park concept needs to address this obstacle
to movement as one of its intentions is to place
the fortifications on the public footpath network
for people moving around this part of Medway by
foot or on cycles. To facilitate this a new pedestrian
bridge has been installed to take users from the inside
of Fort Amherst over one of the dry moats to the
other side and onwards to the Naval War Memorial
(Fig 8). This cannot be achieved without some
harm to the historic significance of the fort, but in
line with PPS5 and other government guidance it
is felt that the public benefits outweigh that harm.
One advantage is that people using the new bridge
and footpath will experience in rapid succession the
fortifications from the perspective of an attacker and
defender alike. This is an experience that is at present
almost impossible to obtain.

Fig 9 The countermine galleries under excavation
Lower Lines Park
The Lower Lines were added to the northern
end of the existing Chatham Lines in 1803. From
1812 Chatham became the main place at which
engineer troops were taught the skills required for
siege warfare. For most of the 19th century the
Lower Lines were known as the Fieldwork Practice
Ground. Military use continued until very recently,
but the ditches and ramparts of the lines became
disused and very overgrown.
As part of the educational strand of regeneration
at Medway, a new college was proposed to unite the
existing sites of Mid Kent College in a single new
campus. The site selected was at Lower Lines in
front of the fortifications on the land that the army
had used for training. This major change within the
conservation area has been taken as the opportunity
to integrate the college with its surrounding historic
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
environment and to deliver a public park that
augments the Great Lines Heritage Park project (Fig
7). A housing allocation identified in the Local Plan
was given up when land was acquired by the college
from MOD and in its place the northern part of the
Lower Lines site not required for the new college
campus became the park.
Mid Kent College has made a major investment
in the future of the military assets at Chatham. The
construction of new buildings was predicted to do
harm to buried military archaeological remains
and Canterbury Archaeological Trust (CAT) was
appointed to provide advice and services in close
co-operation with the author as the Lower Lines
are a scheduled monument. Ground reduction by
machine took place in carefully controlled spits
so that the backfilled traces of training trenches
and tunnels associated with siege training might
33
Chatham as a Militarised Landscape: Its Conservation and Management
be observed in plan. The results far exceeded
expectations and revealed highly significant military
remains that will be described in a forthcoming
publication by CAT. Underground excavated
structures survived on the site and these included
some which had not been backfilled or had not
collapsed, such as a major First World War style
dugout. The most unusual find was however a brick
built system of underground tunnels and a chamber
(Fig 9) that formed the countermine measures used
in military training by the defenders. Engineer
soldiers moved about underground in these narrow
confines, listening for the noise of their adversaries
digging their own tunnels, and then set out to
frustrate these by planting underground explosive
charges. Such structures are known in military
textbooks but so far this evidence from Chatham
is unique.
An investment in excess of £5 million has been
made by the college to create the new Lower Lines
Park. This includes an endowment for a new trust
to take forward management of the park. Also
included has been large amounts of brick repairs to
the moat walls and this should now permit this part
of Chatham Lines to be removed from the Heritage
at Risk Register. Investigation of the rampart area
produced more unique evidence to set alongside
that from the college excavations. Alongside the
gun emplacements of the Napoleonic period,
substantial remains were found of gun positions
hastily constructed in 1941 when invasion once
more threatened. The most surprising evidence
was however two separate experimental searchlight
emplacements built by the Royal Engineers in the
1890s to perfect this technique for use in submarine
minefields. All of these historic structures have
been put on display within the new park, but the
countermine galleries preserved in situ in the
college site are not now routinely accessible.
As with The Great Lines Heritage Park and Fort
Amherst, the circulation routes through and around
the new park could not work as the ditch of the
fortification still performed its intended purpose
as a substantial obstacle. The Royal Engineers had
their bridge practice ground at Lower Lines and had
thrown all kinds of bridges over the ditches. It was
therefore relatively easy to install a military Bailey
(Mabey) bridge to connect the inside of the defences
to the outside.
34
On the opposite side of the road to the new
college but still within the historic extent of the
Great Lines, the existing Medway Council leisure
facilities on Black Lion Field have been significantly
upgraded to become Medway Park. Here an
investment of over £11 million has created a centre
of sporting excellence which continues the military
tradition of using land at the fortifications for sports
and leisure, but for the benefit of the public. During
construction further evidence of earthworks for past
siege training was recovered.
Conclusion
Consideration of Chatham as a military landscape,
potentially worthy of inscription as a WHS, has
brought together a strong partnership of agencies
and the public which has carried out major actions
to conserve the military assets left behind by
the army in addition to work in the spectacular
dockyard for the navy. Whatever the outcome of the
WHS project, the partnership has already delivered
benefits and should continue to do so. As residents
of Medway and visitors alike now gain improved
access to the military sites the frequent comment is
that they never knew these existed. It is gratifying to
think that the more people understand about what
the landscape of the Chatham garrison was like and
the more they enjoy its present character, the securer
the future of these might become. Thousands of
soldiers and sailors left Chatham for the colonies of
the British Empire. Many returned to Britain. A
significant proportion however died abroad, mainly
of disease. Some chose to settle overseas and make
new lives. In this way Chatham, both its dockyard
and its garrison, made a major contribution to the
spread of British influence worldwide.
Acknowledgements
This article has its origins in a paper delivered to ASCHB on
17 February 2010.
Peter Kendall is a Senior Inspector at English Heritage.
Further information
www.chathamworldheritage.co.uk
www.thedockyard.co.uk
www.fortamherst.com
www.medway.gov.uk/bromptonlines
www.remuseum.org.uk
Modern Restoration? Case Studies in the
Light of English Heritage’s Conservation
Principles
John Neale
This paper does not attempt to advance a systematic argument, but simply to make an exploration of ‘modern restoration’ by
means of a series of case studies. The examples considered reflect the general sense in which the term ‘restoration’ is used by people
to describe their attempts to retrieve what they consider to be a building’s historic interest or character, but here they are analysed in
the light of Conservation Principles’ approach.
Introduction
“There arose in men’s minds the strange and fatal idea of the
Restoration of ancient buildings; and a strange and most fatal
idea, which by its very name implies that it is possible to strip
from a building this, that and the other part of its history – of
its life that is – and then to stay the hand at some arbitrary
point, and leave it still historical, living, and even as it once
was…” 1
“Conservation is the process of managing change to a
significant place in its setting in ways that will best sustain its
heritage values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or
reinforce those values for present and future generations.” 2
The history of how people have looked at,
reacted to and sought to preserve the relics of the
past goes back at least to the Papal legislation of the
15th century, in which the protection of historic
monuments was first prescribed. It takes in, for
example, the laments of 17th century English
antiquaries for the destruction of the monasteries,
the French legislation of the 1790s that accorded
state protection to historic monuments and artefacts,
John Carter’s duel with Wyatt ‘the Destroyer’,
and the formation in Norway in the 1840s of the
world’s first society dedicated to conservation 3.
The publication of the Society for the Protection of
Ancient Buildings’ Manifesto in 1877, being both an
attack on the practice of restoration and a demand for
a particular approach to the conservation of historic
buildings, stands as a landmark in the intellectual
history of conservation. In considering continuity
and change in this sphere it is interesting to ask what
has become of ‘restoration’, and in particular to
explore this subject in the light of English Heritage’s
Conservation Principles.
Conservation Principles provides a clear definition
of ‘restoration’. To restore is “To return a place to
a known earlier state, on the basis of compelling
evidence, without conjecture.” 4 This is, essentially,
the narrow meaning developed in the 20th century
to define what works of ‘restoration’ might be
justified. It follows therefore that Conservation Principles
contains a policy in respect of restoration that is
framed positively. “Restoration to a significant place
should normally be acceptable if:
(a) the heritage values of the elements that would be
restored decisively outweigh the values of those
that would be lost;
(b) the work proposed is justified by compelling
evidence of the evolution of the place, and is
executed in accordance with that evidence;
(c) the form in which the place currently exists is not
the result of an historically significant event;
(d) the work proposed respects previous forms of
the place;
(e) the maintenance implications of the proposed
restoration are considered to be sustainable.” 5
Case Studies
St Nicholas, Coggeshall
The Chapel of St Nicholas at Coggeshall, Essex,
dating from c1225, was built as the capella extra portas
for Coggeshall Abbey. Twice in the last 25 years
the parish has considered how its fragmentary
sedilia could be restored. It might be thought that
Victorians of a restoring bent – those who had read
35
Modern Restoration? Case Studies in the Light of English Heritage’s Conservation Principles

St Nicholas, Goggeshall

St Nicholas, Coggeshall, unrestored sedilia

36

Scott, dreamed with Pugin his dream of the Middle
Ages revived, read the antiquarian publications of
the time, and perhaps knew that middle pointed was
the best of styles – would have known what to do
with this. In fact, the chapel had survived as a barn
between the Dissolution and the mid-19th century,
and had then twice been restored, in 1863–4, when
the midstrey was removed and windows were re-
opened, and in 1896–7 when the roof was renewed,
the latter work being directed by Bodley and Garner.
Given this, we may well agree with James Bettley’s
recent description of the sedilia as “surprisingly not
restored”. 6
Not unreasonably, the parish considers that
the present state of the sedilia, almost bereft of
architectural form and crudely propped by modern
brickwork, is ungainly, and wishes to make good the
Victorians’ omission. Two schemes have been drawn
up, one showing the arcade of the sedilia restored
in wood, and one showing this work done in stone,
both wholeheartedly Gothic. It is a very ‘19th
century’ case.
The first question to be asked is whether the
‘heritage values’ of what was proposed would have
outweighed those that would be lost: what would
be lost? What survives of the sedilia is vestigial.
It is closer to the negative of the original than to
the thing itself, it provides limited archaeological
evidence, which perhaps need not be destroyed in
the course of ‘restoration’, and the sedilia’s condition
is incongruous in an otherwise restored church. It
does, however, preserve small areas of fine painted
decoration, unique in the church, as well as 19th
century graffiti, insignificant set against the history
of the building, yet evocative of fugitive human
presences here. The loss of this painted decoration
ought to make restoration unacceptable. Suppose,
however, that it could be preserved, it might
plausibly be argued that the reinstatement of a
finished architectural composition, such as the sedilia
undoubtedly was, would repair or strengthen the
architectural character of the chapel, and thereby
reinforce its heritage values.
Neither scheme, however, was justified by
compelling evidence of the evolution of the
place, and neither, therefore, could be executed in
accordance with such evidence. The general form
of the sedilia is clear but almost every aspect of its
detailed design is lost. The proposals therefore failed
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
to meet the second test.
Here, however, a paradox intervenes. If the work
could not be classified as restoration, it must be
considered as ‘new work’, for which separate criteria
are articulated in Conservation Principles. The two most
relevant to this case are:
(b) the proposal would not materially harm the values
of the place, which, where appropriate, would be
reinforced or further revealed;
(c) the proposals aspire to a quality of design and
execution which may be valued now and in
future. 7
Let us continue to suppose that the proposals
might not materially harm the values of the chapel.
What of the design of what was proposed? William
Morris despaired of a style for his time, something
for which the 19th century searched earnestly.
The Venice Charter required, in the context of
restoration, that “any extra work must be distinct
from the architectural composition and must bear
a contemporary stamp”. 8 In retrospect, the Gothic
Revival that Morris deplored must be seen as at
least one of the styles of the 19th century, and the
doctrinaire advocacy of contemporary work in 1964
has given way to a more pluralist understanding,
manifested in the observation in Conservation
Principles, a propos the second criterion: “This neither
implies nor precludes working in traditional or new
ways…”. 9
This is not the place to examine the merits
of the two schemes, neither of which has been
taken forward, but general conclusions may be
drawn. In the absence of adequate evidence, the
medieval sedilia could not be restored in the sense
that the term is used in Conservation Principles. More
tentatively, the superimposition of a new Gothic
sedilia might nevertheless be justified if it could be
effected without harm to what is valuable in the
ruined sedilia, were it thought that this new work
complemented or reinforced the values of the place.
The Guildhall, Finchingfield
The Guildhall at Finchingfield, Essex, comprises
a range of 15th century almshouses remodelled
in the 17th century. As part of a major scheme of
refurbishment, it has been proposed that the render
be removed from the Guildhall’s principal elevation
in order to reveal its framing. The proponents
of this course of action suggest that the exposure of
37
Modern Restoration? Case Studies in the Light of English Heritage’s Conservation Principles
Guildhall, Finchingfield
the frame would bring out the historic interest and
character of the building. The implication is that
this would both reveal and reinforce the building’s
significance.
Conservation Principles’ definition of ‘conservation’
acknowledges the existence of “opportunities to
reveal or reinforce (heritage) values”. Although
relevant to a variety of circumstances, this position
is especially pertinent to restoration. The third
of the criteria against which to assess restoration
reads “the form in which the place exists is not
the result of a historically significant event”. This
notion is illustrated in Principles with reference to the
dissolution of monasteries or slighting of castles –
that is, to dramatic events in the country’s political
history. A broader reading of the term seems possible.
Is the transformation of a building tradition – for
example the general plastering of East Anglian
buildings, many of whose frames were originally
exposed – not a historically significant event, or,
at least, process? The widespread removal of later
renders has certainly impoverished the historic
38
character of numerous buildings and places, and
doubt must be thrown on the appropriateness of the
proposed works to the Guildhall in the light of this
criterion.
The meaning of the fourth criterion, “the work
proposed respects previous forms of the place”, may
not be immediately apparent, but it refers above
all to congruity or incongruity. The restoration
of an element of a building for which there is
unimpeachable evidence may nevertheless produce
an incongruous result. Analysis of the Guildhall
has suggested that it was rendered in the 17th
century, when the building was altered and enlarged
irregularly. The removal of the render would not,
therefore, reveal a coherent framed structure but
rather a compound and incoherent structure, the
earlier part of which had originally been exposed
but the later parts of which had always been
rendered. It would also detract from the character
of the village itself, whose timber-framed buildings
remain for the most part plastered. The result would
not, therefore, be coherent, and would not be

Guildhall, Thaxsted
consistent with this criterion.
To return to the primary test, that of the balance
of heritage values, it might be thought that this
has been settled by what has been written so far.
The building’s present form embodies considerable
evidential and historical value. The removal of
the render would diminish both. The rendered
finish is aesthetically satisfactory when compared
with the incoherent appearance that would result
from its removal. Or to frame this conclusion with
reference to authenticity, a quality dependent on
“Those characteristics that most truthfully reflect
and embody the cultural heritage values of a place”,
in this case the authenticity of the buildings resides
in its development, and that of the Essex vernacular
building tradition, over time, and this would be
gravely impaired were the render to be removed. 10
It must be acknowledged, however, that values
may be keenly debated. Past restoration of timber-
framed buildings by the removal of later renders
continues to shape many people’s appreciation of
this tradition. Few people would pause to question
the exposed and limewashed framing of the very
fine Guildhall at Thaxted, a few miles from
Finchingfield, although its restoration in 1911 was
itself controversial. 11
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
All Saints, Little Totham
Similar questions were raised by the removal of
impermeable 19th century render from the Church
of All Saints, Little Totham, Essex. There was no
doubt that the render should be removed, as it was
badly cracked and the walls of the church were very
damp, but the parish wished to leave the rubble walls
beneath exposed, believing that to do so would be
true to the original simplicity of the modest church’s
character, and valuing the rawness of the materials.
Given the necessity of removing the render, the
question in this case was one not of loss historic
fabric but of the appropriate finish of the building.
It is significant that the first of the criteria requires
that values restored should outweigh those lost if
restoration is to be acceptable. In the analysis of
heritage values that is fundamental to Conservation
Principles the importance of historic fabric to various
of the values, although by no means downplayed,
is nevertheless set within a wider range of
considerations. The fact that this case involved only
the necessary removal of render does not, therefore,
necessarily make it less delicate than it would be were
the loss of historic fabric entailed.
The parish’s position rested upon a misreading
of the character of All Saints’ Church. There would
have been nothing modest or simple about such a
building when it was built on the remote edge of the
Essex marches in the 11th century. Even now the late
Norman south doorway is imposing. The parish’s
preference for the rough rubble of the stripped
walls – itself much altered by partial rebuilding in
brick as well as by the random use of brick in past
All Saints, Little Totham, after render removal
39
Modern Restoration? Case Studies in the Light of English Heritage’s Conservation Principles
repairs – may also reflect a curious consequence of
the value placed by both Picturesque taste and 19th
century conservationists and their successors on the
preservation of old fabric. It is perhaps the result of
the transformation of an approach to conservation
into a taste.
Considered as a work of restoration, the stripping
of All Saints fails to meet any of the criteria set out
in Principles. Most pointedly the work would not
“respect previous forms of the place”. Nor, indeed,
would it be consistent with the final criterion, as
without the application of a lime render the fabric of
the walls would be unnecessarily exposed, detracting
from the building’s maintenance.
Porter’s Manor, High Roding
Porter’s Manor, High Roding, is a 15th century
hall house, remodelled in the 17th and again in the
early 20th centuries. When sold a few years ago, it
was a rare example of a modest manor house that
had descended in status and survived untouched by
recent improvements, to the extent that the earlier
alteration of one of the original service rooms to
form a concrete-lined dairy survived. Although not
without social interest in that state, it was inevitable
that new owners would wish to refurbish the house
thoroughly.
Porter’s Manor, High Roding
40
What their architect proposed, however, included
works to emphasise the building’s medieval origins
and character. A vertical slot was to be opened in
the former screens passage, removing part of the
17th century floor to re-expose the roof and evoke
the original character of the interior, although the
hall itself would remain floored over; the ceilings of
the first floor would be removed to expose the roof
structure; and a ‘Gothic’ entrance door would be
placed on the exterior, some of whose windows had
been given classical pediments in the 17th century.
Here too the questions raised were less ones to do
with fabric – the upper floor had been remodelled
earlier in the 20th century, and its ceilings were of
plasterboard – than with other aspects of significance.
The proposals reflected a common tendency to
attribute greater value to the medieval structure,
and, to a lesser extent, plan and spaces, of buildings
in this timber-framing tradition than to the various
later phases of work commonly found when dealing
with such buildings – the later work typically being
less substantial and less dramatic in form. How
should what is slighter and later be weighed against
what is more substantial and older? 12 The careful
assaying of heritage values that Conservation Principles
requires is undoubtedly more complex and less
certain in its issue than the more straightforward
 aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010

appeal to the spirit of the living building made

in the SPAB Manifesto the protection of which
required one to “resist all tampering with either the
fabric or the ornament of the building as it stands”.

Interlude
Or might Conservation Principles be weighted in an
opposite fashion? It emphasises significance. Does
this tend to place value on what is oldest or of highest
quality? If so, might it lead to the type of restoration Prior’s Hall, Widdington, with Saxon quoins exposed
deplored by William Morris and his associates? Once
one favours a particular aspect of a building or place,
it is not unnatural to elevate it above all else.
This was essentially the quasi-official position
adopted in France in the later 19th century, one
which, as articulated by Viollet-le-Duc, rested on
the elevation of the structural essence of the building
above all else. He wrote of restoration: “The term
and the thing are both modern. To restore a building
is not to preserve it, to repair it or to rebuild it; it is
to reinstate it in a condition of completeness which
could never have existed at any given time”. 13
Today, at least in England, one is more likely to
be faced with proposals to expose work of interest Prior’s Hall, Saxon doorway and hall window
than proposals to extrapolate from such work in
order to complete something that may or may not
have existed previously. Might such schemes be
considered to reveal a building’s heritage values quite
literally?

Prior’s Hall, Widdington

Until about 30 years ago Prior’s Hall, Widdington,
was not thought to be anything other than a
vernacular Essex house like many others. The
removal of failing render then revealed the carcase
of a flint rubble chapel of late Saxon date, which
was later determined to have been converted into a
house in the 14th century, floored in the 16th and
enlarged in the 17th century and later. The long and
short work of the chapel was left exposed, a discreet
indication of the building’s antiquity, when the
building was re-rendered, but the recent failure of
the modern render, coupled with extensive structural
problems, necessitated a major campaign of work to
the building, in the course of which rather more was
done to expose its past. In re-rendering the south
elevation a Saxon doorway has been re-opened and
glazed and a 16th century hall window uncovered
and reinstated. Has this work ‘revealed’ and
Prior’s Hall, hall window detail
‘reinforced’ the house’s significance?
Consideration of what has been done in the
light of the criteria proposed in Conservation Principles
suggests that a clear response to the question may be
elusive. Values are by their nature debatable. In this
case the act of ‘restoration’ was one of uncovering.
It cannot be denied that both the Saxon doorway
and the 16th century window are, in themselves,
of greater value than the modern render that
concealed them, and, indeed, than the 19th century

41
Modern Restoration? Case Studies in the Light of English Heritage’s Conservation Principles
brickwork of a flue that had been built against the
inside of the doorway. The evidence for the work
was compelling. The doorway has simply been
revealed. The window had been partly destroyed by
later alterations, but what survived provided enough
evidence to justify its completion.
The form of the building prior to this work was
not the result of a historically significant event,
unless the term is interpreted broadly, as has been
suggested above might be appropriate. It is doubtful
that what has been done “respects previous forms
of the place”. Principles adds the gloss that “the
restoration of isolated parts of a place to an earlier
form, except as legible elements of an otherwise new
design, would produce an apparently historic entity
that had never previously existed, which would lack
integrity”. Is that not what has happened here?
This criterion prompts a more searching
consideration of the values of what has been exposed
and what has been lost. The doorway and window
are, no doubt, of greater evidential value than the
plain render now removed; but their exposure has
been achieved at the cost of compromising the
historic character of the house as a building that
has changed and developed through the centuries.
Character itself is an amalgam of evidential,
historical, aesthetic and communal values.
To conclude, one may paraphrase Viollet-le-
Duc: Prior’s Hall has been reinstated in a condition
of incompleteness that never existed previously.
Some may prefer the interest added or exposed by
the recent work, but if this exposure has revealed
or reinforced significance, the act of revelation has
itself detracted from the significance of the building.
Conservation Principles defines significance as “the sum
of the cultural and natural heritage values of a place”,
and even if particular importance may be attached
to the Saxon and medieval features revealed, the
significance of the house lies in its totality.
Discussion
Although Conservation Principles articulates a positive
policy towards restoration, in accord with the
Athens and Venice Charters, it is formulated
with considerable caution. The criteria provide
rigorous tests against which restoration must be
justified, which are reinforced by the definition of
significance as a cumulative rather than a reductive
quality. There is nothing in Principles that would
42
justify a return to the uninhibited 19th century
approach to restoration.
It must be acknowledged, however, that an
approach to conservation based upon the ideas of
significance and value may appear dangerously
open to the notion of restoration to those who
subscribe to the firm injunction against it in the
SPAB Manifesto. Of course, this injunction itself
rests upon a particular understanding of heritage
values. The quality that in England was opposed to
the idealism of Viollet-le-Duc’s approach was that
of the authenticity to be found in ancient fabric, an
appreciation of what G E Street referred to, writing
in the Ecclesiologist in 1857, as “the glorious old
work, grim with ages, weather-beaten, here or
there damaged” 14. Was it this that the parishioners
of Little Totham thought they had uncovered when
the render was removed from the walls of their
church?
In the Manifesto, William Morris transformed
Street’s attachment to “the glorious old work” into
an imperative. If the injunction against restoration
he articulated is analysed in the light of the heritage
values of Conservation Principles, it will be seen that it
rests on the attribution of prime importance to the
evidential value of old work, to the evidential and
historical value of the assemblage of disparate parts
and features of a building over time, and on the
aesthetic value of the effect of time on the building
as a whole. It is the damage that restoration does
to these values that causes it to leave a building
“useless to study and chilling to enthusiasm” 15.
It may be useful to set these brief case studies in
a broader context by considering whether parallels
with the method of reasoning articulated in
Conservation Principles can be found in the reasoning
of architects dealing with restoration in other
places and times. Three examples follow, two from
modern France, and one from 19th century Essex.
A French Interlude
In a series of articles published in Monumental in 1996
Francois Voinchet and Jean-Jacques Sill, Architectes
en Chef des Monuments Historiques, considered the
recent treatment of a small group of Romanesque
churches in the Auvergne, all of which had been
restored in the 19th century and all of which again
required major works, generally to repair what had
been done in the 19th century 16. It is interesting to

observe here not the rightness (or otherwise) of the
French architects’ response to the problems they
faced but their explanation of why they decided upon
particular solutions to these problems.
In their prefatory remarks they characterise the
dilemma of conservation as follows:
“All work to the patrimony that we have inherited by
its nature modifies its authenticity and our own perception
of it. It is for this reason that the principal problem faced by
conservationists is to distinguish among past transformations of
a building those that form part of its history – in the noble sense
of the term – and as such must be considered as parts of the
patrimony, and those that are merely deplorable errors...”. 17
This is a striking formulation, sensitive to the
mutability of ‘patrimony’ and explicitly aware of the
unevenness in the value of different parts, although
perhaps disconcerting in its conclusion.
The church at Glaine-Montaigut comprised one
of the most beautiful rural Romanesque churches of
the region, to which had been added a simple narthex
that followed the form of the building. Confronted
with the latter’s dilapidation, both the architects of
the Monuments Historiques and the inhabitants of
the village concluded that the 19th century addition
both had no value and detracted from the integrity of
the original church.
It is interesting to note the consensus
reached between ‘experts’ and villagers, a shared
understanding of significance being one of the
objects advocated in Conservation Principles. 18 The
shared conclusion can be restated with reference
to the restoration criteria. The heritage value of
restoration was clearly considered to outweigh
decisively the value of what was to be removed. The
addition was not the result of a historically important
event. Its removal respects previous forms of the
place as it reinstates something that was essentially
complete. The removal of the addition will leave the
building in a state that is easier to maintain.
The church of Bénévent-l’Abbaye presented an
altogether more complex problem. Its restoration
by Paul Abadie (1812–84) had entailed the removal
of 14th and 15th century chapels, to leave the choir
and apse symmetrical, and the addition of the
dome, resulting in a building displaying unity of
style. From the outset, however, the dome proved
structurally unsatisfactory, and by the later 20th
century it appeared probable that it would have to be
removed. Instead the architects of the Monuments
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
Historiques devised a scheme that would “protect,
without brutality, the monument in its full integrity,
including the nineteenth century additions”. The
dome was enclosed within a new tower and spire
whose form echoed that of the structure that Abadie
had removed in favour of his dome. The alternative
to the removal of the dome was to “remedy without
destroying”. 19
This was a case full of ironies. If the construction
of the tower and spire can properly be considered as
a work of ‘restoration’, it was nevertheless motivated
purely as a means of repairing and protecting the
existing building. The preservation of the failed
19th century work was undertaken because of the
architectural and historic values attributed to it,
values considered of sufficient weight to militate
against the demolition of the dome or against a
straightforward reinstatement of what had previously
existed. At the same time the means by which the
dome has been protected has resulted in the loss of
the very unity of style that was Abadie’s objective.
Although it was decided to cover the dome with
a structure resembling that which had previously
existed, which may be thought to ‘respect’ the
‘previous form of the place’, a partial reinstatement
cannot be thought wholly congruous. A final irony
is that Abadie’s dome is now preserved within a roof
just as the domes of St Front at Périgueux had been
prior to his drastic restoration of that building. 20
Waltham Abbey, Essex
William Burges’s draft report of 1860 on his proposals
for the refurbishment of Waltham Abbey, a task
with which he had been entrusted in the previous
year, provides a lucid account of his approach to
the problems it entailed. 21 The destruction of the
vast 13th century church after the Dissolution had
left only its 12th century nave surviving, to which
a west tower had been added. Burges response was
conservative. He wrote: “With regard to the … nave
I should totally deprecate any attempt at what is
called restoration, ie I should not attempt to restore
the vaulting or the filling-in of the triforium, or to
raise the roof to its ancient pitch. An architectural
fragment of [this] interest should, it appears to me,
be kept as a fragment, and as untouched as possible
beyond the necessary structural repairs”.
The argument with which Burges rejected
restoration is consonant with the first of the criteria
43
Modern Restoration? Case Studies in the Light of English Heritage’s Conservation Principles
Waltham Abbey, exterior from the north
provided in Conservation Principles against which to
test proposals for restoration. In effect, the heritage
values of the unrestored church were such as to make
any attempt at restoration inappropriate. It may not
be possible to recast Burges’s exact estimation of the
interest of the building in the language of Conservation
Principles, although it is clear that he was impressed
by the combination of the quality of the Norman
church and its fragmentary nature, but it is reasonable
to see in his conclusion a specific judgement about
relative values, rather than a conclusion based upon a
general principle such as that which William Morris
would adumbrate.
It was, then, not as a restorer, either in his own
terms or those of Conservation Principles, that Burges
turned to the question of the east end at Waltham.
Where the Norman nave, appropriated to parochial
use, had met the 13th century nave of the rebuilt
Abbey church a new east wall had been built after
the Dissolution. This Burges did not view in the
same way as the architectural fragment of which
it was at least physically part. “The East end is in a
very unsatisfactory state, being lighted by a large
ugly square window. The question then arises, what
would be the best thing to do with this Eastern wall.
Now there are two courses open, viz either to fill
44
it with a composition in the Norman style, so as to
accord with the rest of the building, or to do as an
architect would have done in the Middle Ages, and
indeed in every age except our own, viz to fill it
with a composition of the most beautiful architecture
known to us”.
Burges’s dismissal of the aesthetic value of the
post-Dissolution work is clear, and it may be inferred
that he attributed little historical value to it. His
report implies that he saw it as a later, accidental
and disposable addition to the Norman fabric of
the nave in which Waltham’s true interest lay. The
remaking of the east end could not, however, be a
work of restoration or even imitation, given both
the fact that it had never previously been the end of
the church and Burges’ insistence on the importance
of the fragmentary character of the building. What
he proposed, therefore, was new work, and his
justification for this formed in effect a repudiation of
a certain approach to restoration.
“1ST. By having the east end in a different style,
the extent of the old work will be visible to the most
superficial spectator, and nobody, either now or hereafter
will be deceived as to the extent of the old work.
2ND. It will show the church to be what it is, a
fragment of a larger one, for it will then have no

pretensions to completeness.
3RD. Nothing will then be restored or made good
for which there is not ample authority in the church
itself.”
He concluded, having justified his use of the
style of the early 13th century because it is “now
universally considered the best”, by noting that
throughout “I have been guided by one great
consideration, viz to destroy no old work and to add
nothing of my own but what is absolutely necessary”.
The result provides a remarkably bold termination
to the church, but one whose subtlety is apparent
when viewed from the exterior. The new work rises
from the medieval screen that separated the parochial
church from the monastic nave, and sits within the
final Norman arch of the nave, the 19th century
stonework standing a little proud of the latter,
separated from it by a lead dressing.
The considerations that led Burges to the
conclusions he reached have a clear resonance
in Conservation Principles. He developed a clear
view of the interest of the church that militated
against restoration, both because to restore would
compromise what existed and because restoration
would go beyond what could be justified by
Waltham Abbey, interior looking east
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
evidence. He considered how best to preserve
the integrity of the building. If restoration was
inappropriate, the addition of new work was not.
His deliberations correspond both to the criteria
proposed in Conservation Principles against which to
test restoration and those against which to test new
work. His conclusions too seem to a large degree
not dissimilar to those we might reach were we
to evaluate what he did using these criteria – with
one striking exception. We would not dismiss so
lightly the post-Dissolution work, and indeed would
be very unlikely to conclude that its loss could be
justified.
Conclusion
This point returns us to the question of values. If
Conservation Principles provides a logical framework
for making decisions about conservation, based upon
an understanding of values, does its application
depend entirely on the values of those using it, or is
the consideration of heritage values that is central to
the documents framed in such a way as to reflect, at
least faintly, the particular values that have evolved
in the century and a quarter since the publication of
the SPAB’s Manifesto?
Waltham Abbey, east end with 19th century insertion
45
Modern Restoration? Case Studies in the Light of English Heritage’s Conservation Principles
‘Restoration’, in the broad sense of the word, will
always be with us. It is the obverse of the fascination
with decay that Rose Macaulay described so
eloquently in Pleasure of Ruins. To restore – to retrieve
or re-imagine – the buildings and monuments we
have inherited from the past is a natural impulse. Its
characteristic manifestation today may more typically
be the impulse to uncover old fabric rather than to
recreate lost features.
The consideration of restoration embodied in
the policy, criteria and guidance within Conservation
Principles, a consideration that extends to its discussion
of new work, makes a contribution to a long-
running conversation about the implications of
restoration, beneficial or dangerous as they might
be. If its tone is very different to that of William
Morris’s SPAB Manifesto, and its conclusions are
less dogmatic than the Manifesto’s clear prohibition
of restoration, Conservation Principles nevertheless,
through its careful definition of the term, and its
emphasis on the importance of the full range of
heritage values and on a cumulative understanding of
significance, enjoins a cautious approach.
Acknowledgements
This paper originated as a lecture given to the Annual
Conference of the Association on the 4th of March 2009.
John Neale is a Team Leader and Inspector of Historic
Buildings in English Heritage’s Eastern Region.
References
1 Manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings,
1877
2 Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the
Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment, English
Heritage, London, 2008, 4.2, p22. Hereafter, Conservation
Principles or Principles
3 Francoise Choay, The Invention of the Historic Monument,
Cambridge, 2001, translated by Lauren M O’Connell
from Allégorie du patrimoine
4 Ibid, p72
5 Ibid, p55
6 James Bettley and Nikolaus Pevsner, Essex, Buildings of
England, New Haven and London, 2007, p248
7 Conservation Principles, 138, p58
46
8 Venice Charter, 1964
9 Conservation Principles, 143, p59
10 Conservation Principles, p71
11 Bettley and Pevsner, Essex, p766; Mark Arman and
James Boutwood, Thaxted Guildhall, 3rd edition, 1994,
pp10–11, 13–14
12 Comparable dilemmas sometimes arise when dealing with
very austere late-Georgian work in late 17th or early 18th
century houses whose original finishes would have been
far richer in character. Sometimes simplicity has been
valued above richness, as happened at Stedcombe House,
Devon, whose rescue from near dereliction in the 1980s
was accompanied by a restoration of its wholly panelled
interiors of such purity that a rococo chimneypiece of
exceptional scale and quality was removed.
13 Quoted in Gavin Stamp, In Search of the Byzantine: George
Gilbert Scott’s Diary of an Architectural Tour in France in
1862, Architectural History, vol 46: 2003, p195. Stamp’s
introduction and notes provide a fascinating account of
attitudes towards restoration in England and France at
this time.
14 Stamp, In Search of the Byzantine, p192
15 SPAB Manifesto
16 Francois Voinchet, Faut-il restaurer les restaurations du XIXe
siècle?; Jean-Jacques Sill, L’abbatiale d’Aubazine, L’église
de Bénévent-l’Abbaye : Monumental – Revue Scientifique et
Technique de Monuments Historiques, Paris, 1996
17 “Toute enterprise de travaux sur le Patrimoine
qui nous a été légué est de nature à modifier son
authenticité et la perception que nous en faisons.
C’est la raison pur laquelle le principal problème
qui se pose aux restaurateurs est de distinguer parmi
les transformations anciennes celles qui font partie
de l’histoire de l’édifice, au sens noble de terme, et
doivent à ce titre être considérées comme des éléments
du patrimoine, de celles qui ne sont que de fâcheux
errements”, Monumental, p69
18 Conservation Principles, 82, p40
19 “corriger sans effacer” Monumental, p75
20 An illustration of 1854 is reproduced in Stamp, In Search
of the Byzantine, p205
21 Extensive extracts are reproduced in J Mordaunt
Crook, William Burges and the High Victorian Dream,
London, 1981, in the course of a full account of the
work, pp184–192
Hadlow Tower, Kent: Repair and
Reconstruction with Natural Cement
Rena Pitsilli-Graham

This paper gives an overview of a noteworthy project for the rescue of an important historic building and outlines the current
proposals for its repair, conservation and reuse. There are three strands to the narrative. The first sets out the importance of the
building in terms of English and European social, architectural and constructional history, the second summarises the long battle
to save and restore it for posterity, highlighting the key factors and dates, and the third describes the design and technical challenges
posed by the building and the brief for repair and reuse, and relates these to the proposed use of natural cement to repair and restore
the exterior of the building.

Fig 1 Hadlow Castle and Tower in 1951 before demolition of the castle

H adlow Tower is located in the south of England

in the village of Hadlow, near Tonbridge in
Kent. It is a remarkable building, constructed in 1838
for the Barton-May family to a design by George
Ledwell Taylor, a naval architect working in the
nearby Chatham Dockyard. It was built as a folly, a
prospect tower attached to an 18th century Gothic
castle. It was 44 metres high with nine floors, but was
extended upwards by the introduction of the lantern
in 1840, adding another 9m. The tower is still known
locally as May’s Folly.
Hadlow Tower is an octagonal structure, solidly

47
Hadlow Tower, Kent: Repair and Reconstruction with Natural Cement
Fig 2 Fonthill – plate 11
built with good quality brick walls. It is reinforced
at the base with three projecting bays forming
buttresses, which rise to steep gables at level 5. A
square tower attached to the fourth side is an earlier
structure and a remnant of the original castle.
The upper part was rendered with natural
cement (known as Roman or Parker’s cement, after
the entrepreneur who patented the material). The
lower part was rendered with a feebly hydraulic lime
mortar, but the float coat may also be in Roman
cement. The bricks, lime and sand would have
been sourced locally. The cement would have been
obtained from the Isle of Sheppey, on the north
coast of Kent, one of Britain’s historic sources of the
Fig 3 Details of construction and decorative elements at Hadlow Tower
Fig 3a The traceried parapet on the top of Fig 3b Decayed spirelets – Note the brick
the lantern before dismantling infill and iron pins at the top
48
cement. The render was lined out in false ashlar lines
and was washed to resemble Bath stone (Fig 16).
Roman cement was also used for the precast
Gothic decoration. There were 2.7m high pinnacles
at the buttress gables, eight pinnacles at the top
of the original tower and eight more at the top
of the lantern. Traceried parapets and windows
were made with precast cement units. Projecting
“splashes” (canopies) were constructed with a
combination of precast units, run mouldings and in
situ modelled work. Furthermore there was applied
precast decoration in the form of spirelets – engaged
shafts with crockets cast with a central rod of iron
reinforcement and with tiles used to reduce the
amount of mortar used (Fig 3). Rosettes of two
designs were pinned to the underside of cornices
(Fig 6). Cornices, string courses and tops of parapets
were formed with run work applied on a background
of bricks and mortar. The bricks supporting the
render on top of the parapets were specially formed
with roll mouldings to facilitate the Gothic detail.
There are deeply undercut run mouldings on the
window surrounds, where the limewash remnants
were found.
The lantern (an afterthought by Barton May,
whose motive is rumoured to have been to spy on
the walks of an unfaithful wife from its top) was
also in brick and Roman cement, but supported on
a massive timber structure inserted in stages 6–9 of
the original tower. The mortar here was rougher and
Fig 3c Detail of the underside of the splash-
precast and run work and in situ modelling

Fig 4 Hadlow Tower at present
the work of poorer quality than the original phase of
construction.
Hadlow Castle and Tower had similarities to
another large late 18th century Gothic Revival
country house, Fonthill Abbey, in Wiltshire,
designed by James Wyatt for Thomas Beckford,
the eccentric dilettante and author of the Gothic
novel Vathek. Fonthill was known as Beckford’s
Folly (Fig 2). However, unlike Beckford’s tower
which collapsed and was rebuilt three times,
Hadlow Tower still stands. The Tower survived
the demolition of the castle in 1951 together
with the stable yard buildings, which are now in
multiple domestic use. It sits in the original castle
grounds, dominating the village of Hadlow and the
surrounding flat Kent countryside. It is listed Grade
I and its environs are listed Grade II. In 1998, the
World Monuments Fund included it on the list of
the 100 most endangered significant sites worldwide.
Its architectural significance is within the Gothic
Revival tradition, its constructional history
significance rests in its use of prefabrication, and its
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
local significance lies in its presence as an important
landmark in the landscape.
Lack of maintenance (the height of the Tower
is a prohibitive factor) has meant that render and
applied decoration has been gradually lost, although
still largely intact in 1951, as can be seen from the
photograph in Fig 1. The lantern became unsafe
after the storms of 1987 and was carefully dismantled
in 1993. All dismantled material was stored on site.
Following emergency repairs by the local authority,
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC),
in 1993 which stabilised the fabric as far as possible,
several attempts were made to find a building
preservation trust to work with a local action group
to save the Tower. Condition surveys and schedules
of repairs as well as feasibility studies for a new use
had been prepared and there was one failed attempt
to engage a building preservation trust, which
pulled out, daunted by the challenges ahead. The
local conservation officer, David Duce, working for
over 18 years on the case, was instrumental in these
efforts, which finally came to fruition in 2003.
The Vivat Trust (VT) a small charitable
organisation, devoted to the rescue of unusual
architectural gems, entered into partnership with the
local council and the Save Hadlow Tower Action
Group (SHTAG), a local group campaigning for
the rescue of the building. Thomas Ford & Partners
Architects (TFP) was appointed by the VT in 2004
to prepare a specification and plans for the repair
and restoration of the Tower and its conversion into
a holiday house. There was a successful compulsory
purchase order in 2008 by TMBC and the VT has
raised the funds required for the repair, through
applications to the Heritage Lottery Fund and other
charitable organisations. The work has been tendered
and is expected to start on site in early 2011.
Project Scope
Levels 1–5 including the adjacent square tower will
be converted into holiday accommodation with
four bedrooms and bathrooms, dining and kitchen
areas, and a living room. On the ground floor an
exhibition room for local history, including that
of the Tower, will be funded and organised by
SHTAG. A lift will be introduced in the southern
buttress and there will be wheelchair access. Letting
of the house by the VT will generate sufficient
income for the maintenance of the building, so
49
Hadlow Tower, Kent: Repair and Reconstruction with Natural Cement
The lantern will
be rebuilt.
The upper part
will house a new
staircase to give
access to the top
and support the
new lantern.
The lower
part will house
letable holiday
accommodation.
Fig 5 Architect’s drawing showing proposed section
ensuring its continued survival.
The exterior will be re-rendered and washed
with materials to match the original as closely as
possible and all original missing decoration will be
reproduced. Original render where it survives and
other original features will be retained.
The dismantled lantern will be reinstated,
supported on a new steel structure, which will also
carry a new spiral staircase in levels 6–9 to allow the
public to access the parapet walkway at the foot of
the lantern to view the surrounding countryside as
Barton May did in 1840.
Documentary Evidence
Prior to dismantling the lantern in 1993, TMBC
commissioned a survey of the building. The
elevations were photogrammetrically recorded
and Autocad drawings produced. The plans and
sections were measured and hand drawn by Stuart
Page Architects, showing timber structures and
other details. Archaeologist Peter Leach recorded
the external decorative elements by drawing at 1:2
scale (Fig 6). Over 500 record photographs were
50
Fig 6 Archaeologist’s drawing showing tracery above splashes and
details of rosettes
taken throughout, including detailed photographs of
the elevations and applied decoration (Fig 7). This
extraordinary record was an invaluable source of
information to TFP in preparing its work.
Survey and Research in Preparation
for the Specification and Tender
As in any conservation project, one of the first tasks,
for TFP was the condition survey of the building.
This was carried out using roped access specialists
in a week-long process, in June 2004, (ten years
after the archaeological survey) to assess how much
original material still survived and to understand
the construction methods at first hand. The entire
external surfaces of the building were examined and
recorded on video footage. The main defects were
significant loss of render, possibly through lack of
key, loss of all weathering surfaces such as cornices
and buttress tops, loss of decorative detail through
rusting iron reinforcement. These defects and
significant extant architectural details were marked
on the elevational drawings that had been produced
in 1993. The drawings were then expanded to
produce the repair drawings.
At the same time TFP researched the historical
use of Roman cement in Britain in an effort to
understand the material and its properties, especially
in its use for prefabrication. An approach to the
Construction History Society put TFP in touch with
Simon Swann, conservator and specialist in the repair
of Roman cement. The structural engineer for the
project suggested Knebworth House as a relevant
case study in the repair of Roman cement precast
elements.
 aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010

When TFP was appointed to the project in

2004, the view within British conservation circles
was that Roman cement was no longer available.
The source of the material and the skills for its use
and application had been lost. Throughout the 20th
century, repairs to Roman cement surfaces were
carried out in Portland cement and in the latter two
decades of the last century, after the conservation
movement built up momentum, hydraulic lime was
used instead. Several important buildings in London
and elsewhere in Britain are rendered with Roman
cement and were repaired thus.
In September 2005, TFP invited members of the
wider conservation community who had relevant
knowledge and experience to a conference in
Hadlow, in order to share thoughts and ideas, debate
the conservation dilemmas faced by a project of this
nature, discuss the proposed repair techniques and
reach a consensus in the proposed repair strategy.
There was agreement on the main areas of repair,
reinstatement and conservation outlined above.
In 2005 the Europe-wide project into the historic
use of Roman cement (ROCEM) was reaching its
conclusion. In May 2006 at the presentation of the
Fig 7 Photographic record by Stuart Page Architects

Fig 8 Malcolm Brown of CBR examines stored items from dismantling operation.

51
Hadlow Tower, Kent: Repair and Reconstruction with Natural Cement

Backscattered electron image (Note 1): A rounded particle occurs in

the centre of the field of view that resembles a rounded clot of
cement that may have formed during the mixing of the render.

calcium-rich
hydration
rim
rounded
Roman
cement
clot

Note 1: The brightness of the image is proportional to the atomic weight of

the elements present.

Fig 10 Backscattered electron image of sample 6963/2 from crocket

moulding attached to spirelet taken from GMRS report 7000 Jan 2007

Fig 9 Retention of existing elements requires repair mortars to match

existing. render and precast decoration. The repair mortars
therefore need to be compatible both in porosity and
ROCEM conclusions in Bradford, TFP began its vapour permeability and also in colour and texture.
co-operation with Simon Swann and with Vicat, the Fig 9.
last remaining large scale manufacturer of natural In December 2006 (a mild winter year) trial
cement. In November 2006 there was a visit to the render panels were applied on the south wall of the
Vicat cement quarries and kilns in Grenoble, France. tower (Fig 13) and run mouldings to the cornices
A series of trials and tests was undertaken both on the south and south east facets of the building.
on the tower itself and adjacent garden walls and Precast tracery panels on the windows on the south
in the laboratory and the conservator’s workshop. face were also repaired in situ with trial mortars. The
Core samples of the historic mortars on the building
were examined petrographically and using electron
microprobes by Geomaterials Research Laboratory
(GMRS) Figs 10 and 11. The cement binder was
classified as natural cement using the Hydraulic Index
of Cowper, 1927 and the Cementation Index of
Eckel, 1928. Fig 12.
Further work was carried out by Denis Sommain
in France in order to find the cement:aggregate ratio
and the porosity of the historic mortars, with the
aim of designing new mortar mixes with present
day natural cement, as manufactured by Vicat,
to match the properties and characteristics of the
existing cements on the building. This is particularly
Fig 11 Resin impregnated sample from the blind arcade taken from
important, as one key element of the repair GMRS report 7000 Jan 2007. Note fine outer layer and coarse inner
philosophy is the retention and repair of existing layer of mortar.

52
 aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010

The following table gives the classification of the binder types in

each layer of render and the mortar using the Hydraulic Index of
Cowper, 1927 and the Cementation Index of Eckel, 1928. These
classifications are based on the chemical analyses made of the
matrix with the electron microprobe.

7000/1 7000/1 7000/1

– outer, fine – central and – mortar on
render Inner, coarse inner surface
render of render
Hydraulic
0.5 0.5 0.1
Index (HI)
natural / natural / fat
HI
Portland Portland lime / feebly
Classification
cement cement hydraulic lime
Cementation
1.2 1.2 0.1
Index (CI)

Fig 12 Cement classification table taken from GMRS report 7000 Fig 13 4 trial render panels – run mouldings on cornice to the right
Jan 2007 and in situ repairs on the window tracery

details of the mixes were discussed by Vicat, Simon particular applications such as three-coat render
Swann, Ugo Spano, of St Astier Limes, Malcolm work, three-coat run mouldings, core and finish
Brown of CBR Ltd and the architect. Malcolm mortars for cast work. The final decision on the
Brown had worked with David Ball Restoration necessity for these various mortars and their design
on the repair of Knebworth House, Hertfordshire, characteristics rests with the architect.
a two storey mansion with Roman cement renders
and precast decoration. At Knebworth, the repair Project Documentation
mortars were based on hydraulic lime, but the Like most conservation projects this one is unique,
practical experience of Knebworth was useful in the but in the case of Hadlow Tower the height of the
early stages of the Hadlow project. CBR was the building and the first time attempt to repair historic
contractor who undertook the trials. The trial panels natural cement renders in a like for like manner made
are still on the building and will be reviewed prior to it imperative that the information for tender was
the work commencing on site. They have survived produced in such a manner as to limit the financial
five winters. Various mortar mixes were tried in the risk to the client. This was particularly important,
same applications. Details of these were retained by given that the project is largely publicly funded.
the architect and made available to the tenderers.
In March 2007, further render and run mouldings
trials were carried out on the wall in the stable
courtyard of the Castle. These trials were primarily
aimed at validating the mortar mixes designed by
Denis Sommain, and testing application methods and
trial mixes with different aggregates and pigments
suggested by Simon Swann (Fig 14). In the spring
of 2008, Simon Swann was commissioned by TFP
to undertake casting trials of the spirelets in his
workshop. The results were presented in a report
to the architect and also at the workshop held in
December 2009, see below. The details of these trials
were recorded by Simon Swann.
The final specification included nine main types
of mortar to suit particular elements and locations
in terms of exposure and repair techniques. Within
these there is greater complexity still, to suit Fig 14 Simon Swann running a string course on the garden wall at Hadlow

53
Hadlow Tower, Kent: Repair and Reconstruction with Natural Cement
Fig 15 Spirelets and rosettes trialed by Simon Swann and presented at the workshop in December 2009
The condition survey of the building, the research
into available information and into the possible
use of natural cement for repairs enabled TFP to
prepare tender documents in a detailed and thorough
manner. The video footage and the survey notes
taken during the roped access survey were relied on
exclusively in preparing 1:20 scale elevation drawings
showing repairs. A key was used to describe the
spectrum of repairs with relevant specification clauses
affixed to the key (Fig 17). A detailed specification
for Materials and Workmanship was prepared, based
on the architect’s knowledge of historic building
conservation and, in the case of repair mortars, based
on a year-long correspondence and discussion with
Vicat, Simon Swann and others. A schedule of all
the precast elements to be reproduced was written,
using the archaeological and photographic records.
A detailed Schedule of Repair work, described the
nature and method of repair to be undertaken. In
this, TFP aimed to describe methods of repair and
pre-fabrication as close to the original as could be
54
deduced from the survey of the building and analysis
of the samples.
Particular allowance was made within the tender
documentation for an initial period of investigations,
trials, and sorting of stored historic material at the
start of the project (Fig 8). The importance of this
period was highlighted in the tender documents to
be priced by the tenderers.
The conversion of the lower half of the Tower
into holiday accommodation presented different
challenges to those for its repair. These were
architectural design challenges, as there is only one
room on each floor of both the octagonal and the
adjacent square towers and there are differences in
level between them. Other disciplines involved in
this task were services and structural engineers. The
structural engineer is involved in the introduction
of the stair, designed to act as a vertical cantilever
(Fig 5), in the casting and fixing details for the new
pinnacles (the largest is 2.7m high) and of course in
the design for the scaffold to allow the repair work to
 aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010

take place. This will be a substantial structure in its

own right.
Bills of Quantities were prepared by the project
quantity surveyor and tenders sought from five main
contractors and four specialist subcontractors.

Tender Process and Training of

Operatives
Masonry conservation in Britain has advanced
in the last 30 years and there is now considerable
understanding and acceptance of lime mortars.
However, the skills required for the application of
Roman cement need to be relearned.
Throughout the period of research and
investigations and the production of the specification,
a paramount concern of the architect was the need
to introduce prospective tenderers to the nature of
natural cement. This was to deter tenderers from
over-pricing the risk of an unknown material and to
minimise the risk to the contract.
The architect also felt that given sufficient
training, competent masons and plasterers would
master the particular requirements for the application
of Roman cement. Training therefore is an important
process in this project and one that the funding
Fig 16
bodies and the VT insist on. The tender documents
specified that the successful tenderer would be
required to organise a workshop to be run by Vicat
and the architect, to train their masons in the use of
Fig 17 Architect’s detail drawing for repairs
Roman cement.

55
Hadlow Tower, Kent: Repair and Reconstruction with Natural Cement
Fig 18 Workshop for prospective tenderers. Simon Swann standing and Denis Sommain seated in the centre in December 2009
In compiling a long tender list, specialist
subcontractors (masonry and conservator type firms)
were considered, as well as main contractors who
would be able to oversee the considerable logistics of
site organisation (problematic access through a land-
locked site, scaffolding challenges and project and
programme management).
All firms on the long list were invited to attend a
workshop in December 2009 for an introduction to
the project, the outline specification and the nature
of the Prompt cement prior to the tender process.
Presentations were made by TFP, Vicat and Simon
Swann and hands on experiments were carried out at
the workshop in casting rosettes and applying natural
cement render. It was reassuring to see the interest
expressed and the contributions made by experienced
masons, conservators and contractor managers from
those in the audience.
A short list of main and specialist contactors
was prepared based on submission of information
in response to a questionnaire tailored to the
needs of the project and a subsequent interview.
The compulsory purchase order procedure is now
complete, enabling the project to proceed. The
training of the successful contractor in the use of
natural cement and extensive trials and investigations
will be undertaken at the start of the work on site.
56
Conclusion
The challenges posed by this project were immense.
A long period of neglect resulted in the loss of
material and entire architectural elements. The
greater the losses became with time, the greater
became the difficulties of rescuing the building and
finding a viable use for it. The legal ramifications
for compulsorily purchasing the building were
complex, so bringing it into the public domain where
it could attract funding for its conservation was a
long drawn out process. The commitment to the
project by the VT was a brave decision for a small
organisation. Raising the necessary funds was also
an enormous task for the VT. The local conservation
group set itself difficult targets in campaigning
for the rescue of the building and making its own
financial contribution to the project. The local
authority and in particular the local conservation and
planning officers showed dedication in pursuing the
stabilisation of the building after the storm and the
compulsory purchase order. Those involved currently
come in a long line of organisations and individuals
who have contributed towards making the present
project possible.
The challenges faced by the present team are of
a practical and technical nature. The height of the
building is a challenge in several respects:

Fig 19 Casting rosettes at the workshop for prospective tenderers in December 2009
• The severe weather exposure requires that the
specification for new materials and the methods of
construction are carefully considered and that the
execution and application of the specification is
carefully controlled.
• It presents practical problems in raising materials
and operatives to work at the top.
• The considerable scaffold required to reach the
top creates significant design challenges in terms
of vertical and lateral loads, wind load, hoist
arrangement etc.
The decision to repair the building with like for like
materials was perhaps the greatest challenge:
• This will be the first time in Britain that a
Roman cement building on this scale is repaired
with natural cement.
• The technical specification needed to be based on
a sound foundation, hence the need to understand
the existing mortars and match the new mortars
as closely as possible.
• The skills for applying natural cement renders and
making casts need to be relearned. The process so
far has shown that it is possible for the skills to be
relearned.
• Pre casting small elements such as rosettes could
be considered fairly easy, when compared with
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
precasting large two metre high pinnacles in a
‘new’ cement, raising them and securely fixing
them in place, 50m up in the air.
The challenges were approached with an open
mind, pursuing understanding and knowledge for
the sole purpose of conserving an important historic
monument in line with ICOMOS guidelines for
conservation. If successful, the repair and restoration
of Hadlow Tower will have important repercussions
in the repair of buildings where natural cement
is used, both in Britain and across Europe, and
expand the knowledge base for historic building
conservation.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due Donovan Hailstone for permission to reproduce
Fig 1, to Stuart Page Architects for Figs 3a and 3c, to Peter
Leach for Fig 6, to Mike Eden of Geomaterials Research
Services for Figs 10, 11 and 12, and to Catherine Hassall for
Fig 16. Fig 2 appears in Wikipedia.
All other images are the copyright of Thomas Ford & Partners.
Rena Pitsilli-Graham is a Senior Architect and Associate at
Thomas Ford & Partners.
57
Conventions and Charters: a Shifting Focus
Christopher Young

Riga, Vienna, Athens, Venice, London, Granada, Florence, Faro, Washington, Nara, Nairobi, Lausanne, Delhi, the
Hague, Valletta, Pecs, Vimy are all historic places, many of great beauty and interest. Another feature they all have in
common, along with many other places, is that they have given their name to documents providing international guidance
on conservation of the historic environment. The number of such documents is very great and they come in a sometimes
bewildering range of formats and descriptions – Conventions, Charters, Recommendations, Declarations, Documents,
Memoranda. Individually and collectively they can have a considerable effect on how conservation is carried out in
individual countries. Some have legal force, others are advisory only but have considerable influence on national theory
and practice. Some are produced by International Government Organisations (IGOs) which are official bodies at which
states are represented by their governments. Others are developed by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) whose
membership can be drawn from individuals or from national-level NGOs.

Naming of Parts Paradoxically, however, actions taken by the

At first sight, the range of terminology used is
confusing as is the function and purpose of many
of these documents. In any consideration of their
influence and impact, it is necessary to be clear from
the outset on the status and effectiveness of these
various types of document. Such clarity is essential
if such documents are to be cited effectively in
discussion of the treatment of a particular building
or site.
Conventions have both the clearest definition
and the most legal effect, once joined by an
individual state. They are treaties and their terms
are legally binding on states which have formally
ratified them. They are developed between states or
more normally by IGOs. A Convention developed
by an IGO has first to be endorsed or adopted by
the IGO concerned. It is then up to the individual
member states of that IGO to decide whether or not
they will ratify that Convention and thereby apply
it to their territory. In the field of conservation the
two organisations most concerned with the creation
of such treaties are UNESCO, the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation,
and, for Europe, the Council of Europe, not to be
confused with the European Union which has little
legal competence in the cultural field (see Tables
1 and 2).
European Union can have more effect on the
management of the historic environment of its
27 member countries than any of the Conventions
focused on heritage. Although the EU may become
more involved with cultural heritage through the
development of its proposals for a European Heritage
Label, so far the only measures directly taken by the
European Union in the cultural heritage field have
been relatively small-scale funding programmes
such as Culture 2000, and the Directive controlling
illicit trade in antiquities and works of art (Council
Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural
objects unlawfully removed from the territory of
a Member State). However, measures taken by
the EU for other purposes can have a considerable
impact on conservation practice. EU guidance
on environmental impact assessment and strategic
environmental assessment both include the historic
environment, partly as the result of lobbying by
heritage bodies. EU Directives, developed primarily
for health and safety reasons, can affect the materials
used for conservation, such as lead paints and tar oil,
both of which have required specific derogations for
their continued use on historic buildings.
The EU’s rules on Value Added Tax can influence
taxation on building conservation, repair and
adaptation. EU funding for purposes not directly

58
 aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010

UNESCO COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Convention Title
1954 Convention on the
Protection of Cultural Property
in Times of Conflict and First
Protocol (1954) and Second
Protocol (1999)
1970 Convention on the Means
of Prohibiting and Preventing the
Illicit Import, Export and Transfer
of Ownership of Cultural Property
1972 Convention concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage
2001 Convention on the
Protection of Underwater Cultural
Heritage
2003 Convention on the
Protection of Intangible Cultural
Heritage
2005 Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions
Purpose
Protection of cultural property,
immovable and movable, in
times of war or internal conflict
Prevention of illegal
international trade in cultural
property
Protection of the world’s
cultural and natural heritage
of outstanding universal value,
primarily through inscription of
World Heritage Sites
Protection of archaeological
sites, wrecks and other cultural
heritage under the sea
Protection of all forms of
intangible cultural heritage
Protection of the creation,
production, distribution/
dissemination, access
and enjoyment of cultural
expressions, as conveyed by
cultural activities, goods and
services
Convention Title Purpose
1954 European Cultural Convention Designed to foster the study
of the languages, history and
civilisation of European states
and of the civilisation which is
common to them all
1969 European Convention on the Dealt mainly with
Protection of the Archaeological archaeological excavations and
Heritage – the London Convention the information they provide
1985 European Convention on Prevention of illicit trade in
Offences relating to Cultural cultural property
Property – the Delphi Convention
(NB this never came into force
as it was not ratified by any states)
1985 European Convention for Provides for the protection of
the Protection of the Architectural architectural heritage, adoption
Heritage of Europe – the Granada of integrated conservation
Convention policies, consultation and
cooperation
1992 European Convention on the Provides for the protection of
Protection of the Archaeological archaeological sites, regulation
Heritage (revised) – the Valletta of excavations, integrated
Convention conservation and developer
funding of excavation
2000 European Landscape Provides for the integrated
Convention – the Florence protection and management of
Convention all landscapes
2005 Council of Europe Framework Asserts that the knowledge
Convention on the Value of Cultural and use of heritage are part of
Heritage for Society – the Faro human rights
Convention

Table 1: UNESCO Conventions dealing with cultural heritage Table 2: Council of Europe Conventions dealing with cultural heritage

related to conservation can also have a considerable
impact. In the past, European Regional Development
Funds have spent considerable amounts on
conservation and access to the historic environment.
In some parts of the EU, including the UK, the
use of parts of Common Agricultural Programme
funding for agri-environmental purposes has had
very considerable positive impacts, both in removing
archaeological sites from arable cultivation and in the
conservation and re-use of historic farm buildings.
Because their terms are legally binding on states
which have joined them, Conventions are often
written in very general terms so that their burden on
national governments is not perceived as being too
onerous. It is up to each state joining a Convention
to decide how it is going to implement it. In some
cases, it will be necessary to ‘domesticate’ the treaty
by incorporating it in whole or in part in national
legislation, for example where it is necessary to create
a criminal offence as part of the implementation.
In other cases, Conventions will be implemented
by government policy and administrative practice.
Which approach is adopted will depend both on the
terms of the Convention concerned, and also on the
state’s own legal system since in some systems, all
international treaties have to be incorporated into
national legislation.
The UK has tended to implement conventions
dealing with conservation by government policy
and administrative practice unless primary
legislation is essential. The UNESCO World
Heritage Convention, for example, is implemented
by government policy and by planning guidance
while ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention,
government policy since 2004, has been held up
by the need for primary legislation to create the
necessary criminal offence. While a Bill has been in
draft for some time, it has not yet been possible to
find the necessary time in Parliament to discuss it.
Adoption of Conventions can have considerable

59
Conventions and Charters: a Shifting Focus

UNESCO
Title Purpose
1956 Recommendation Recommends member states
on International Principles to take measures for control
Applicable to Archaeological of archaeological excavation,
Excavations including international cooperation
and for protection of archaeology

1962 Recommendation Recommends member states to

concerning the Safeguarding take measures for protection of
of Beauty and Character of landscapes, both urban and rural
Landscapes and Sites
1964 Recommendation on Recommends member states to
the Means of Prohibiting take measures for the prevention
and Preventing the Illicit of illicit traffic in cultural
Export, Import and Transfer of property both within states and
Ownership of Cultural Property internationally
1968 Recommendation Recommends member states
concerning the Preservation of to take measures to protect
Cultural Property Endangered and record cultural property,
Reconstructed trench at Vimy, after which was named the Vimy by Public or Private works immovable or movable, threatened
Declaration on the Conservation of Battlefield Terrain by development
1972 Recommendation Recommends member states to
concerning the Protection, at take measures to protect cultural
effect on how states manage the conservation of National Level, of the Cultural and natural heritage of national
the historic government. Before the Netherlands and Natural Heritage importance
could ratify the 1992 European Convention on the 1976 Recommendation Recommends member states to
Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised) concerning the Safeguarding take measures to protect historic
and Contemporary Role of areas and to adapt them to the
(the Valletta Convention), it was necessary for them to
Historic Areas requirements of modern living
re-organise their entire approach to rescue archaeology.
1978 Recommendation for the Recommends member states to
Often though, for many states it is relatively easy Protection of Movable Cultural take further measures to protect
to adopt existing practice to cover a newly ratified Property movable cultural property from
Convention. With the same Valletta Convention, the theft, disaster and general decay
UK authorities did not feel it necessary to change 2003 UNESCO Declaration Calls on members states to take
concerning the Intentional all necessary measures to prevent
current practices for regulating excavations despite the
Destruction of Cultural Heritage deliberate destruction of cultural
fact that most other countries which have ratified it property and to protect it both
consider that it requires the introduction of a licensing in peacetime and in the event of
scheme for all excavation work. armed conflict
It is also possible for national conservation practice Table 3: UNESCO Recommendations and similar documents
to be affected by Conventions even if they have not
been formally adopted. The UK government has so (see Tables 3 and 4). They have no legal binding
far declined to ratify the 2001 Convention on the power. As a statement of best practice they should
Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. It has carry considerable moral weight. In practice they
however undertaken to follow the Code of Practice are largely forgotten shortly after their adoption,
which is annexed to the Convention. because they have no legal effect and because
Beyond Conventions, the situation is much more little is done after their adoption to promote their
confused. What follows reflects general practice but subsequent use. This can be unfortunate since,
there can be exceptions to all these rules. An NGO often, they can go farther in what they say than is
can produce Recommendations while occasionally the case with a Convention, precisely because they
an IGO can sponsor a Charter (eg the European are recommendations only. A good example of
Charter of the Architectural Heritage, adopted by the this is to compare the UNESCO 1972 Convention
Council of Europe in 1975). concerning the protection of the World Cultural
Recommendations are developed mostly by and Natural Heritage with the 1972 UNESCO
IGOs such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe Recommendation Concerning the Protection,

60
 aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Title Purpose
1975 European Charter of the Architectural Heritage Recommends the adoption by member states of a policy of integrated
conservation of the architectural heritage, the raising of public interest in
such a policy
1980 R (80) 16: Recommendation on the specialised training of Recommends the development of integrated specialist training of those
architects, town planners, civil engineers and landscape designers responsible for the architectural heritage
1981 R (81) 13: Recommendation on action in aid of certain Recommends special consideration for revival of endangered crafts of
declining trades in the context of craft activity importance for conservation within overall policies for supporting craft
trades
1986 R (86) 15: Recommendation on the promotion of craft trades Recommends that member states develop policies for training
involved in the conservation of the architectural heritage craftsmen, stimulating the vitality of craft trades etc
1988 R (88) 5: Recommendation on control of physical deterioration Recommends member states to develop scientific research on the
of the architectural heritage accelerated by pollution degradation and conservation of materials, and to take into account
the need to protect architectural heritage when implementing general
policies to reduce pollution
1989 R (89) 5: Recommendation on the protection and enhancement Recommends member states to develop measures to protect
of the archaeological heritage in the context of town and country archaeological sites in the context of urban and rural development
planning operations
1989 R (89) 6: Recommendation on the protection and enhancement Recommends member states to take measures to incorporate the
of the rural architectural heritage protection of built heritage into the planning process, activate the
enhancement of the heritage as a vital factor of local development, and
to promote greater respect for, and knowledge of rural heritage
1990 R (90) 20: Recommendation on the protection and Recommends member states to take measures to identify, protect and
conservation of the industrial, technical and civil engineering promote knowledge of the industrial, technical and civil engineering
heritage in Europe heritage
1991 R (91) 6: Recommendation on measures likely to promote the Recommends member states to promote funding of the conservation of
funding of the conservation of the architectural heritage the architectural heritage
1991 R (91) 13: Recommendation on the protection of the Recommends members states to develop strategies for the
20th-century architectural heritage identification, conservation, restoration and public awareness of
20th-century architecture as part of their general policy for conserving
the built heritage and, where necessary, by special means
1993 R (93) 9: Recommendation on the protection of the Recommends member states to adopt policies for protecting
architectural heritage against natural disasters architectural heritage against natural disasters
1995 R (95) 3: Recommendation on coordinating documentation Recommends member states to cooperate on the principles and
methods and systems related to historic buildings and monuments methods on information compilation in order to develop further the
of the architectural heritage management and understanding of the architectural heritage by
publication and regular updating of inventories, and to adopt a common
Core Data Index within their inventories to facilitate the exchange of
information
R (95) 9: Recommendation on the integrated conservation of cultural Recommends member states to shape their policies for cultural
landscape areas as part of landscape policies landscape area conservation and managed evolution within the context
of general landscape policy
R (96) 6: Recommendation on the protection of the cultural heritage Recommends member states to take measures to reduce risk to
against unlawful acts cultural heritage from unlawful acts within the context of their overall
conservation and protection policy for the cultural heritage
R (97) 2: Recommendation on sustained care of the cultural heritage Replaces Recommendation R (88) 5 (see above) and recommends
against physical deterioration due to pollution and other similar member states to formulate general policies to combat air pollution and
factors other similar causes of deterioration as well as overall conservation and
protection policies for the cultural heritage
R (98) 4: Recommendation on measures to promote the integrated Recommends member states to create conditions to ensure the
conservation of historic complexes composed of immovable and protection of historic complexes composed on immovable and movable
movable property property

Table 4: Council of Europe Recommendations and similar documents

61
Conventions and Charters: a Shifting Focus

CHARTERS AND SIMILAR DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS

Issuing Organisation Document Title Purpose
First International Congress of Architects 1931 The Athens Charter for the First international statement of principles of conservation
and Technicians of Historic Monuments Restoration of Historic Monuments

Second International Congress of 1964 The Venice Charter: International Statement of international principles of conservation
Architects and Technicians of Historic Charter for the Conservation and based on, and further developed from the Athens Charter
Monuments Restoration of Monuments and Sites

Congress on the European Architectural 1975 Amsterdam Declaration Recommendations on the integrated conservation of the
Heritage architectural heritage

ICOMOS Australia 1979 The Burra Charter: The Australia Sets out principles for conservation of cultural heritage
ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural in Australia but widely used elsewhere.
Significance (revised 1981, 1988, 1999)

ICOMOS 1982 The Florence Charter: Historic Sets out specific recommendations on the conservation
Gardens of historic gardens

ICOMOS 1987 Washington Charter for the Defines the principles, objectives, and methods
conservation of historic towns and urban necessary for the conservation of historic towns and
areas urban areas and seeks to promote the harmony of both
private and community life in these areas

ICOMOS 1990 Lausanne Charter for the protection Sets out specific recommendations for the conservation
and management of the archaeological of archaeological heritage
heritage

International Expert Meeting 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity Defines the authenticity of cultural heritage sites within
their cultural context.

ICOMOS 1996 Sofia Charter on the protection Sets out recommendations for the conservation of
and management of underwater cultural underwater heritage
heritage

ICOMOS 1999 International Cultural Tourism Sets out principles for making heritage places
Charter: Managing Tourism at Places of accessible, in ways that respect and enhance the
Heritage Significance heritage and living cultures of host communities

ICOMOS 1999 Charter on the built vernacular Establishes principles for the care and protection of
heritage vernacular heritage

ICOMOS 1999 Principles for the preservation of Defines basic and universally applicable principles and
historic timber structures practices for the protection and preservation of historic
timber structures with due respect to their cultural
significance

International Expert Meeting 2000 Riga Charter on authenticity and Sets out principles for dealing with proposals for
historical reconstruction in relationship reconstruction of historic places
to cultural heritage

ICOMOS 2003 Principles for the analysis, Makes recommendations to ensure rational methods of
conservation and structural restoration of analysis and repair methods appropriate to the cultural
architectural heritage context

ICOMOS 2003 Principles for the preservation Sets out basic and universally applicable principles and
and conservation-restoration of wall practices for the care of wall paintings
paintings

Table 5: Principal guidance documents issued by NGOs

62

Liverpool Pier Head: new canal cut and Museum of Liverpool building; the latter was the subject of a UNESCO / ICOMOS mission in 2006.
at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural
Heritage, adopted at the same time. The latter
contains much useful material not included in the
World Heritage Convention itself but is very rarely
remembered or cited.
Charters are produced mainly by IGOs
(see Table 5). For the historic environment, the
International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS) has been their primary developer
since its foundation in 1965, though paradoxically
they were not responsible for the best known of
all such documents, the Venice Charter. This was
developed in 1964 by the Second International
Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic
Monuments. Essentially Charters are distillations of
best practice and statements of principle developed
by professionals working in the field. They have no
legal power at all unless an IGO or an individual
country adopts them in some form. The Venice
Charter, for example is indirectly cited in the
Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage
Convention.
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
Charters can be developed on an international
basis with the intention that they should provide
guidance to the whole world or a region of it, or they
can be developed nationally – the Burra Charter, for
example, was developed by the Australian national
committee of ICOMOS to guide conservation in
Australia, not internationally. Normally, these days,
Charters will be developed iteratively over a period
of years.
Other international guidance documents can be
entitled Declarations, Statements, Documents or
even Memoranda. These tend to be more ephemeral,
often produced to mark a particular conference or
gathering, and are often quickly forgotten. There
can however be exceptions to this generalisation,
particularly if such a document is subsequently
endorsed as good practice by an IGO such as
UNESCO or written into the guidance for the
implementation of a Convention.
Out of this mass of guidance, therefore, only
Conventions have legal force. Of the rest, most have
little effect. The exceptions, however, can be very
63
Conventions and Charters: a Shifting Focus
powerful in their influence. The Venice Charter,
for example, 45 years on from its adoption, is still
regarded by many as the bedrock of conservation
philosophy, though by others it is seen as a
manifesto for modernism with its insistence that
interventions should be frankly modern and in no
way pastiche. Some documents retain influence
because they have been adopted as guidance for
implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
Examples of this are the 1994 Nara Declaration on
Authenticity and the 2005 Vienna Memorandum on
the management of development in urban areas.
Apart from these, however, it is very difficult to
predict at the time of adoption whether a document
will be influential or not. Many sink without trace.
The Burra Charter, on the other hand, written
to provide guidance within Australia, has struck
a chord and become very influential across the
world, mainly in Anglophone countries. To become
influential in this way, a charter or Declaration has
to meet a real need and has to be broadly acceptable
to those who might wish to use it. In the case
of the Burra Charter, it articulated a need and
methodology for managing sites according to their
values.
Interaction of International Guidance
and National Practice
The ways in which international guidance and
legislation affect national practice are not necessarily
obvious. The most straightforward process should
be the adoption of an international conservation
convention since the ratifying state is required to
apply its provisions. How far this actually impacts
on national practice will depend both on the
nature of the Convention and also on the particular
governmental approach. The UK, for example, has
said of a number of Conventions that no change
to legislation and practice is needed because our
current processes are adequate to meet the needs of
the Convention. Most Conventions, too, deal with
general principles rather than specific designations.
Awareness of the World Heritage Convention
tends to be much higher precisely because it
deals with specific designations (World Heritage
properties) which then have to be managed in
accordance with the concerns of the UNESCO
World Heritage Committee. In response to this,
specific planning guidance relating to the World
64
Heritage Convention has been developed in all four
parts of the UK. The UK has also developed an
action plan for the implementation of the European
Landscape Convention but this is unusual in the UK
context.
How far a Convention has an effect on national
practice will depend also on the extent to which it
is used by practitioners in and out of government.
Recognition that the World Heritage Convention
did have an impact on UK planning practice was
the result of four public inquiries in the late 1980s
and early 1990s into planning proposals affecting the
World Heritage properties of Avebury, Ironbridge
and Hadrian’s Wall. In each case, conservation
bodies, both official and non-governmental, argued
that the World Heritage designation had changed the
context in which the planning decisions should be
taken because the government had signed up to the
obligations of the World Heritage Convention. In
each case also, the eventual decision of the Secretary
of State was to refuse the application because of the
potential impact on the outstanding universal value
of the particular World Heritage property. These
decisions led to the inclusion of specific guidance on
World Heritage properties in PPG15 in 1994. More
recently, UNESCO World Heritage Committee
decisions and subsequent missions to Liverpool, the
Tower of London and Westminster in 2006 have
clear causal links to the CLG Planning Circular
07/2009 on the protection of World Heritage sites
and the references to World Heritage in PPS5.
The links to Charters and Recommendations
are much less clear. Many of these documents are
quickly forgotten and therefore have very little effect.
Some do have a considerable impact either directly
because they are used by conservation practitioners,
or indirectly because their themes and ideas are
picked up in national guidance. An example of the
latter process is the development of the English
Heritage Conservation Principles in 2008 which refer
directly to a number of Conventions and are strongly
influenced by the ideas of values-led management of
historic places developed, among other places, in the
Australian Burra Charter.
As noted above, this was written as national
guidance for conservation of heritage (initially
colonial period) places in Australia. Because it struck
a chord in its advocacy of values led management
it has been widely influential, particularly in the

Hadrian’s Wall: Muckle Bank Turret; planning applications affecting the Wall helped lead to the recognition of World Heritage Sites as key
material considerations in the UK planning system.
English-speaking world. Its effect may also have
to do with the extent to which Australian-trained
conservationists have worked in other parts of the
world, and because of a number of well-written
and persuasive publications. Largely it has been
effective because it clearly and accessibly articulated
a particular approach to conservation which was
developing in the Antipodes, North America and
parts of Europe. However, if the equivalent New
Zealand Charter had been advocated as strongly
we might now all be citing it rather than the Burra
Charter.
The particular effectiveness of the Burra Charter
in the Anglophone world also underlines another
aspect of the links between national practice and
international practice. This relates both to existing
levels of conservation expertise in a particular
country and also to each nation’s underlying
approach to its heritage. In Europe, there is a (not
always justified) tendency to feel that international
guidance follows national practice rather than the
other way round. In some other parts of the world,
international conventions, particularly the World
Heritage Convention, have been the stimulus for the
development of national approaches to conservation.
They have also led to articulation and justification of
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
particular national approaches to conservation.
The best known example of this is the
development of the 1994 Nara Declaration on
Authenticity. The moves leading to the Declaration
were begun by Japanese concerns that joining
the World Heritage Convention could lead to
the application to their nominations to the World
Heritage List of the perceived monumentalist
approach of the Venice Charter. They were
concerned that this could lead to questioning
of the authenticity of major timber religious
structures which are conserved by means of periodic
dismantling and re-assembly with the inclusion of
new timber as necessary. The Nara Declaration deals
with this by articulating a less monumental approach
to authenticity as well as making it clear that the
definition of authenticity should relate to a particular
culture rather than be an absolute standard.
In practice, it is possible to distinguish differences
in practice between countries, and even within
countries, in their application of international
guidance. Conservation practitioners in every
European country would say that they adhere to
the principles of the Venice Charter, including the
stipulations (Article 9) that [restoration] must stop at
the point where conjecture begins and (Article 15)
65
Conventions and Charters: a Shifting Focus
Coucy le Chateau: the remains of the Great Keep, blown up by the Germans in 1917 and preserved as a ruin by decree of the French National
Assembly
Arras: largely restored after destruction by bombardment in
World War I
that all restoration [on archaeological sites] must
be ruled out a priori. Only anastylosis … can be
permitted. In practice, these policies are applied
in very different ways in different countries across
Europe ranging from relatively strict adherence
to the letter of the text through to considerable
interpretation of the spirit of what is said.
These differences in practice relate often to the
overall values attributed to the cultural heritage of a
country. Where historic places are seen as expressing
66
national identity it may well be felt that more latitude
is acceptable, as for example in the restoration of the
Old Town of Warsaw after World War II or of the
Mostar Bridge after its destruction in the Bosnian
war. In such cases, politics can interact very directly
with conservation. In the case of Warsaw, restoration
of the Old Town began immediately after the end of
the war. The restoration of the Royal Castle in the
Old Town, however, was not begun until 1971 for
political reasons and was, for similar reasons, funded
entirely by voluntary contributions. For equally
political reasons it can be decided that a place should
not be restored. An example of this is the Chateau
de Coucy in northern France. Its 55m high keep
was blown up by the Germans in 1917 and the ruin
was deliberately preserved by the French National
Assembly as a monument to the barbarity of the
enemy, in contrast to the extensive restoration of
settlements along the Western Front, such as Arras.
Like all aspects of conservation, therefore,
adherence or otherwise to international guidance
will reflect national, regional and local conceptions
of heritage and its values. Because international
guidance is inevitably written in very broad terms,
there is inevitably great scope for interpretation of
its meaning and this is reflected in various aspects

of national practice across the world. Inevitably,
too, much of the guidance is little known and
largely forgotten. This reflects the large number of
documents that exist and also, it has to be said, the
varying quality of some of them. Nonetheless, some
documents, as shown above, have had and continue
to have considerable influence on conservation
practice, even if mediated through national practices
and conceptions of the value of heritage.
Trends in International Guidance
Apart from the Conventions which are widely
supported, such as the 1972 World Heritage
Convention, and the Charters and other documents
which are regarded almost as doctrinal, the mass
of international guidance which exists does repay
further study. The earliest reference to the need
for protection of historic monuments is in the
1907 Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs
of War on Land which prohibits the seizure,
destruction or wilful damage of, inter alia, historic
monuments. The first charter is the 1931 Athens
Charter. After the Second World War, the first
Convention dealing with historic sites was the
1954 Hague Convention for the protection of
cultural property in times of conflict. The first
doctrinal document was the Venice Charter of
1964 and since then there has been a never ending
stream of Conventions, Charters and other guidance
documents.
Each of these documents reflects the concerns,
preoccupations and pressing problems of its time.
Taken as a whole, the corpus of material shows
how interest in the preservation of the evidence
of our past has developed. This shows clearly
both in Conventions, dealing primarily with legal
protection of one form or another, and in guidance
documents which demonstrate a changing focus in
our perceptions of the past and what needs to be
protected. As an example of this, Tables 1 and 2
list, respectively, UNESCO and Council of Europe
Conventions dealing with cultural heritage. There
are a number of perceptible trends within these
Conventions, and also within charters and other
guidance documents (see Tables 3 to 5).
Firstly, the definition of heritage broadens
over time. In the early Conventions, heritage is
conceived as individual buildings or groups of
buildings, monuments or archaeological sites.
aschb – transactions vol 33 • 2010
Definitions then broaden to include landscapes,
through instruments such as the 2000 European
Landscape Convention or through the recognition
in 1992 that the 1972 World Heritage Convention
could be applied to cultural landscapes. In 2001,
UNESCO recognised the concept of underwater
cultural heritage. This development is paralleled, for
example, by ICOMOS Charters and sometimes led
by them. This reflects general development of an
understanding that the whole of our environment
has been affected by humanity so that all aspects of
it are capable of having heritage value which may
need to be managed.
Linked to this trend are changing concepts of
what needs to be prevented through international
legislation. The early focus (from 1907 in fact) is the
prevention of damage to historic places in times of
conflict, leading to the adoption of the UNESCO
1954 Hague Convention in the aftermath of the
most destructive war in human history. The next
major international concern was the control of illicit
traffic in antiquities and works of art, as shown in
the 1970 UNESCO Convention and the abortive
Council of Europe Delphi Convention. This in part
again reflects the impact of the Second World War
but also increased levels of looting of archaeological
sites.
Alongside these concerns, which continue as
evidenced by the Second Protocol to the Hague
Convention in 1999, others have developed which
reflect both the increasingly wide definition
of heritage and also the increasing ability of
humanity to damage the evidence of its past, for
example through development or increased access
to underwater heritage. This has led to the 1972
UNESCO World Heritage Convention and also to
the 2001 Underwater Heritage Convention. The
need to deal with development pressures was also an
important factor in the drafting of the 1992 revised
European Convention on the Protection of the
Archaeological Heritage, introducing internationally
the concept of developer-funded rescue archaeology.
More recently, the focus has moved towards
intangible heritage. The 2003 UNESCO
Convention provides a system for the recognition
and protection of intangible heritage. The 2005
Council of Europe Convention takes this idea
further and introduces the concept of a human right
to experience heritage and a duty to respect the
67
heritage of others. This concept is also developed
to some extent in the UNESCO 2005 Convention
on protecting and promoting cultural diversity.
Even with historic places, there has been a move
away from any total preoccupation with fabric
and also recognition that places can have other
heritage values. This concept has been developed by
documents such as the Nara Declaration with their
more nuanced interpretation of authenticity, as well
as by the practice of the UNESCO World Heritage
Committee in its recognition of broader concepts of
outstanding universal value.
Alongside the broadening concept of heritage
has come the recognition that not all aspects of it
can be preserved unchanged. This is unavoidable
once it is recognised that our entire environment
has been changed by its relationship with humanity.
If everything around us is historic, it cannot all
be preserved and much of it must change to meet
the needs of present and future generations. The
beginning of this trend can be recognised in the
Venice Charter stipulation (Article 5) that the
conservation of monuments is always facilitated
by making use of them for some socially useful
purpose. It has been developed much further in
documents such as the 2005 Vienna Memorandum
and the draft UNESCO Recommendation on
historic urban landscapes.
Alongside this trend, and linked to it, is the need
to identify the values of the heritage which is being
managed. If the need for change is accepted then it
becomes much more important to understand what
aspects of a historic place are significant, and why.
It is no longer possible automatically to preserve
something exactly as it is, so in order to change it is
essential to understand its values so that change does
not detract from them. A final trend is the increasing
recognition of the need for heritage to play a role
in the life of community. It is not enough just to
preserve a place. It has to have some relevance to
its community and to contribute to a sense of well-
being and identity, and possibly economically as well.
It is possible to summarise the changing focus of
conservation and understanding of our physical past
reflected in international legislation and guidance in
the following statements:
1. The historic environment is all embracing, since
human activity has changed everything we have
touched
68
2. Conservation must be about the management of
change since not everything can be preserved
unaltered
3. Conservation must therefore be directed at
identification and preservation of the attributes
expressing the values and significance of historic
places since not everywhere can be preserved
untouched and unchanged.
4. Conservation is no longer the exclusive preserve
of the specialist but must take into account the
views of others
5. Historic places should have a role in the life of
the community and the rights of humans to
experience their heritage should be respected.
These general statements reflect moves within
the conservation community nationally and
internationally. Sometimes the international
documents discussed above have followed existing
trends. Sometimes they have forced the pace and
influenced national developments, as for example
the Nara Declaration. National practice is inevitably
influenced by international guidance, and it is good
that it should be so, even if often at one or more
removes. One question that must be asked is whether
international bodies should continue to produce
guidance at the current pace. Much of what has been
produced in the past has sunk without trace, some
of it justifiably, but there is much more that could be
usefully reviewed and used.
Rather than producing new guidance, there
is a case for UNESCO, the Council of Europe
and NGOs such as ICOMOS to devote more
effort to promoting and using what they have
already produced. There are some signs that this
is happening such as the development by the
Council of Europe of an ‘observatory’ to monitor
the application of its Conventions and UNESCO’s
inclusion in its draft Recommendation on historic
urban landscapes of a section on its implementation
and follow up. ICOMOS too is examining its use of
doctrinal documents. Hopefully, out of all this may
come a more reflective use of international guidance
with more focus than has sometimes been the case
on what new guidance is actually needed and how
it should be disseminated, and on the use of what
already exists if it is still fit for purpose.
Christopher Young is Head of International Advice at
English Heritage.