See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235311457

Building conservation philosophy for masonry repair: Part 1 - "ethics"

Article in Structural Survey · June 2010

DOI: 10.1108/02630801011044208

CITATIONS READS

41 1,254

1 author:

Alan Forster
Heriot-Watt University
87 PUBLICATIONS 1,031 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alan Forster on 23 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Building conservation philosophy for masonry repair:
Part 1 -‘Ethics’
Dr Alan M Forster, School of the Built Environment,
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

Abstract
The techniques available for the repair of historic masonry structures are extremely
wide ranging. The advantages and disadvantages of each type of repair can be
evaluated in terms of cost, time and quality as with modern projects. It is however,
important to realise that when repairs to historic buildings are selected they must
conform to building conservation philosophy, or an ethical and principle based
evaluation. This paper (part 1 of 2) establishes what is meant by ethics in this context
and wherever possible applies practical examples to these concepts.

Design/methodology/approach
Evaluation of the ethics encapsulated within building conservation philosophy
utilising them to stimulate discussion on practical repair interventions.

Findings
It has been shown that ethical considerations are of prime importance for decisions
relating to masonry repairs. These repairs have varying degrees of defensibility, and
will ultimately lead to good or bad conservation approaches. This paper briefly
discusses the ethics, highlighting some of the issues that may be initially confusing to
the practitioner.

Originality/value
The evaluation of building conservation philosophy and more specifically, ethical
considerations for masonry repair has been little studied. The importance of this
undervalued aspect of building conservation cannot be over emphasised and far from
being an esoteric concept, it affects every practical repair. This work brings together
the study of the philosophical and practical, enabling practitioners to better understand
the ramifications of building conservation philosophy upon their projects. It must
however be emphasised that as with any aspect of philosophy, there is not necessarily
a right or wrong answer, only higher levels of defence for the selected repairs.

Keywords
Building Conservation Philosophy, Masonry Repair, Ethics

Paper type
View point / conceptual paper

1
Introduction
This paper is the first of 2 parts investigating philosophy of masonry repair. The
combination of both, will holistically discuss the ethics and principles that underpin
the options and ultimately the defensibility of decisions made for various masonry
repair techniques. The first part deals with ‘ethics’ and the second ‘principles’. For the
purpose of clarity a list of principles have also been included, but will not be
discussed in this paper.

The way in which we approach any repair project should be underpinned by building
conservation philosophy. Although the topic may appear disconnected, and somewhat
esoteric from practical decisions, it is important to realise that almost every technical
repair intervention should be assess against the ‘guiding lights’ (Earl, 2006) or
‘ethics’ (those forming the broader issues or key concepts to be considered) and
‘principles’ (specific criteria upon which conservation works should be based) of
building conservation philosophy. The majority of these ethics and principles were
established over 100 years ago by William Morris (SPAB: 1877) and his then newly
founded Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Additions to the ethical
concepts and principles were included after Morris, reflecting the changing needs of
conservation, as it was set in a broader social and environmental context. These ethics
and principles include (Bell 1997: 27-33);

Ethics (Broader issues or key concepts to be considered)

 Authenticity (non-distortion of evidence)
 Integrity
 Avoidance of conjecture (the need for incontestable evidence)
 Respect for age and historic patina
 Respect for the contribution of all periods
 Inseparable bond with setting
 Rights of the indigenous community

Principles (Specific criteria upon which conservation works should be based)

 Minimal (Least) intervention (or conservative repair)
 Legibility (Honesty and distinguishability)
 Materials and techniques (Like for like materials)
 Reversibility
 Documentation (Meticulous recording and documentation)
 Sustainability

Repairs selected, based upon the ethical concepts and a combination of the principles
should be defensible and should in theory lead to naturally ‘good’, well founded
conservation interventions. However, it could be argued that some of the principles
conflict, creating tensions, potentially confusing the technical decisions to intervene.
It is also important to understand that there are no absolutes in conservative repair,
only greater levels of defence for selected repairs. The first rule of conservation is that
there should be ‘no dogmatic rules’ (Powys: 1995:3), and as Powys (1995:3)
highlights ‘no fixed rule can be set up to be followed invariably. Each case must be
considered on its own merits’.

2
The decision to intervene and the nature of the repair itself are clearly influenced by
the technical situation, legislative framework, cultural values and financial
constraints. It must however be emphasised that good conservation should not
ultimately be governed by cost alone. That being said, Hill (1995:15) highlights the
unfortunate reality of many conservation jobs, indicating that the philosophical
approach taken to any repair project is based upon ‘the finances available, and will be
affected by current fashions in conservation philosophy’. Although there is a certain
amount of validity in Hill’s comment relating to cost, it is important to realise that
good conservation need not always be expensive. For example, one valid option is to
do nothing. Additionally, it is clear from Hill’s comment, that what we know as
conservation philosophy has changed throughout time, but to what degree it has
subject to fashions or ‘fads’ is generally one of interpretation by the user and wider
conservation norms.

This work will attempt to investigate the ethical considerations that may need to be
considered prior to masonry works commencing. As aforementioned this work has
been divided into two main sections, reflecting the ethics (part 1) and principles (part
2). Both papers, wherever possible, use practical examples of masonry repair to
stimulate discussion. The philosophical implications of various repair options will
also be discussed in an attempt to enable those entrusted with the care of our historic
buildings to make rational choices.

Philosophical Perspectives
It could be assumed that the importance associated with each of the ethics and
principles will vary from person to person, depending on their perspective and what
they perceive to be of greater value. It is obviously best to consider them as
holistically as possible, whilst comparing and contrasting the individual concepts. A
skewed focus, or over reliance on any one of the ethics or principles will lead to a
selected repair that may be eminently suitable in one respect, but clearly fails in other
aspects. Stirling (1997), believes that conservation professionals can be broadly
categorised as having one of 3 philosophical viewpoints, namely,

Purist view: ‘the idea that there can be alternative philosophical approaches to the
preservation of buildings is seriously misleading. Correctness cannot be watered
down’.

Pragmatists view: ‘a sound philosophy is one which points in the right general
direction – that of truthfulness. It’s precise application must depend on the building
and its circumstances. If I am in command of all the facts, then the building itself will
tell me what to do.’

Cynic’s view: ‘conservation is a completely artificial procedure, interfering with

natural processes of decay of absolution. Conservation philosophies are therefore
necessarily artificial.’

The 3 broad views indicate a wide range of opinions that would ultimately influence
the approach and treatment of a building. It is clear that the purist and cynics view are
polerised and as Hill (1995:18) highlights ‘Extremism in any direction is rarely a
good thing. It is all a question of philosophy, and there are no absolute rights and
wrongs’. As aforementioned, the chosen approach and technical repair solutions

3
selected will be greatly influenced by the mind set of the lead professional and
overseeing statutory bodies. However, certain safe guards could be argued to be
embedded into the system with legislative and financial restraints being imposed by
funding bodies, and historic buildings inspectorate.

Burman (1995:4) highlights that ‘conservation philosophy can be seen either

positively or negatively. It can generate much discussion, or it can invigorate and
inform our decision taking about the care and repair of historic buildings. There is
constant need for observation and debate, in a constructive and harmonious spirit.
There are no ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’, but there are skilful and unskilful solutions to
the repair of old buildings’. Whilst, Burman’s (1995) view is true, the implication of
an ill considered approach to repair could be catastrophic, leaving the building greatly
diminished in terms of its cultural significance.

In addition to the philosophical perspectives, Maguire (1997:17) believes that there

are 2 polarised meanings of conservation within architecture. These are;

 ‘Conservation means retaining and, where necessary, adapting or adding to

old environments, in such a way that a fresh entity is created to serve modern
life, in which the old is represented and valued for its contribution’, or

 ‘Conservation means retaining old environments and creating conditions in

which they may survive into the future (but essentially unchanged) and users
must accept the limitations on their way of life such restriction of change
imposes.’

Maguire (1997) continues to indicate that these 2 conflicting views are difficult to
reconcile, and cause confusion for those attempting to make practical project
decisions. For example, one view would be comfortable with the decision to utilise
contemporary architectural design within an historic setting, if well designed and
executed. Whilst the other would prefer a more traditional design to satisfy the
required works.

It is evident that we have different philosophical perspectives, and alternative

interpretations of what conservation actually means. This obviously complicates
decisions and it is the authors’ view that these issues cause many disagreements
between developers, lead professionals and overseeing statutory bodies. However, the
situation is further complicated when we assess work by Hill (1995:17) who classifies
buildings into 2 categories, namely, ‘living and dead’, eluding that the philosophical
treatment of these structures can be different. Hill (1995:17-18) emphasises that ‘The
foundations of a Roman fort, the roofless remains of an abbey and the chimney of an
abandoned tin mine are one thing – they are archaeological monuments of no further
practical value, and as such should receive only the absolute minimum of work in
order to preserve them. There is no good reason to do any more. Once a single stone
has been taken out and re-bedded, the monument is on the way to being
archaeologically ‘dead’ as far as further study is concerned. A medieval building, still
roofed and in use, is a living building, and must be kept in good repair in order to
maintain its structural integrity and the integrity of its design. Only by doing so can
due respect be paid to its designer and builders. Such buildings were built for the
people, to the glory of God, or for reasons of civic pride, but not for the historian.

4
They should therefore be maintained in the same way – to do otherwise would be to
break the continuity of purpose…There is no convincing evidence that these questions
have been satisfactorily resolved’.

Based upon this it is clear that the language used for all parties should attempt to be
defined and perspectives somewhat harmonised prior to initiation of the pre-tender
design stage. If a common acceptance can be reached in the early stages, delays and
damage can hopefully be mitigated.

These alternative philosophical views, the meanings of conservation, restoration and

the treatment of ‘living’ and ‘dead’ buildings will be discussed within this work.

ETHICS
As previously explained, ethics form the basis for broader issues or key concepts to be
considered on building conservation projects. Each of the ethical concepts will be
discussed individually, however, in situation where clarification can be gained from
comparing and contrasting the ethics and principles, this will also be undertaken.

Authenticity (non-distortion of evidence)

Authentic in its wider sense has been defined as ‘undisputed origin or veracity,
genuine’ (COED, 2008:88).

Bell (1997:28) indicates that ‘authenticity is not an easy concept. Each part of a site’s
development is authentic in its own right, as a reflection of its time (though not
necessarily of the original period of building), as well as an authentic part of the
whole’.

Bell (1997:28) importantly continues to indicate that ‘’Original’ and authentic

material are not necessarily the same. All original fabric is authentic but not all
authentic fabric is original. The area of authenticity must always be defined, then
carefully and explicitly evaluated, as conflict may arise between the conservation of a
totally authentic (in that no part of the site’s existence has been counterfeited or
eradicated) but aesthetically or historically imperfect whole, and its restoration by
removal of accretions, or reconstruction. Both processes potentially gain a greater
aesthetic or ‘period’ consistency at the cost of the authentic record of the site’s
existence, and its authentic present state of survival’. The removal of later repairs and
additions to an historic building will therefore in many cases enhance the aesthetic
value of the structure, but in most cases be at the detriment of the holistic ‘cultural
significance’. Cultural significance has been defined by the Burra Charter as
‘aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future
generations. Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting,
use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects. Places may
have a range of values for different individuals or groups’ (Burra Charter, 1999:4).

Quandaries may present themselves when confronted with a building that has had
many forms of masonry repair undertaken in the past. For example, if plastic repairs
had been undertaken in Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) in the 1970’s are they not
authentic to that specific period. Obviously a technical argument can be, and in the
authors view should be made for the removal of the repair in this situation, but, in

5
most situations these decisions are not as clearly defined. That being said, Earl (2006:
77) cites Morris who believed that ‘The authenticity of a historic building… depends
crucially on its design and on the integrity of its fabric. The unnecessary replacement
of historic fabric, no matter how carefully the work is carried out, will have an
adverse effect… and seriously reduce its value as a source of historic information’.
The application of value that Morris attached to integrity of the design in this case,
apparently supersedes the authenticity. It would be interesting to re-apply Morris’s
quote to a structure that had many previous repairs undertaken years earlier, and
would he have defended the retention of previous repairs based upon the authenticity
of each individual intervention? Bell (1997) and Powys (1995) highlight that as with
any philosophy no real answer can be achieved, however, when assessed from a purist
view point the original repair would be retained due to their relative authenticity
(unless the repair was causing deterioration of the fabric), whilst from a pragmatist or
cynics perspective they would be removed, enabling the integrity of the structure to be
restored. It is clear that authenticity and integrity are inextricably linked with one
enhancing or detracting from the other.

Earl (2006: 108) highlights that ‘the general rule that the work of modern hands
should be clearly seen, so as not to confuse the historical record or dilute the
authenticity of the original fabric, is so reasonable as to invite instant adoption. If a
building is being preserved because of its antiquity, its rarity, its historical,
architectural and artistic significance, its associations, singular construction, fine
craftsmanship or any combination of such reasons, then authenticity is of prime
importance’ . In this case, respect for a buildings authenticity has been correlated with
the attainment of an honest approach. If however, this approach were faithfully
implemented (especially to neo-classical buildings) the dilution in integrity could be
significant, due to the creation of a patchwork effect, associated with previous honest
repairs.

As we have seen the integrity of a structure as a whole is of prime importance and can
be achieved with the adoption of suitable craft skills and utilisation of replacement of
materials on a like for like basis. That being said, this approach could be argued to be
deceitful as it may be difficult to distinguish the original from repair material.
Alternative approaches such as honest (obtrusive) repair would reconcile this situation
but may compromise the integrity or wholeness of the building. It is clear that the
meaning of integrity could also be interpreted differently by individuals.

Integrity
Integrity in its wider sense has been defined as ‘the state of being whole, the condition
of being unified or sound in construction’ [COED, (2008:738)]. For the purpose of
investigating building conservation philosophy, the author believes that this definition
is suitable.

Bell (1997: 30) develops the concept of integrity applied to conservation charters
indicating that it is a combination of ‘purely physical and the more “moral”
meanings, i.e., “material wholeness”, “soundness” and “uncorrupted character”.

As seen in the previous section, integrity and authenticity may conflict. The desire to
retain the authenticity of the building using honest repairs, would undoubtedly lead to
problems, and potentially debase the integrity of the structure. This quandary is

6
difficult to reconcile, however, when we place this within the context of Hill’s (1995)
classification of ‘living’ and ‘dead’ buildings, it may be more easily addressed. For
example, if the building were a ruinous monument (therefore ‘dead’) then an honest
repair approach would be defensible as it enables historic analysis to be undertaken
without detriment to academic and practice based scholarship. Alternatively, if the
building were say, a 19th Century Neo-classical, ashlar built structure, that was still in
use then it would be classified by Hill (1995) as being a ‘living’ building. Its
treatment would therefore be directed towards a repair approach that drew greater
inspiration from the primary concept of integrity as opposed to authenticity. The
repairs selected (namely replacement of natural stone) may from a puritan
perspective, be considered as being dishonest, however, the integrity of the structure
would be retained.

Avoidance of conjecture (the need for incontestable evidence) and restoration

Conjecture has been defined (COED, 2008: 302) as ‘an opinion or conclusion based
on incomplete information. Whilst Chambers (2006:322) define it as ‘an opinion
formed without proof; an opinion formed on slight or defective evidence or not at all;
a guess’. The latter has been used for the purpose of this work.

Restoration has been defined in BS7913 (1998:10) as ‘Alteration of a building, part of

a building or artefact which has decayed, been lost or damaged or is thought to have
been inappropriately repaired or altered in the past, the objective of which is to make
it conform again to its design or appearance at a previous date. The accuracy of any
restoration depends on the extent to which the original design or appearance at a
previous date is known, or can be established by research’. BS7913 (1998:10),
highlights that ‘A presumption against restoration is a hallmark of the British
approach to building conservation. Restoration can therefore debase authenticity of
an historic building.

Interventions that are conjecturally based can cause problems for the interpretation of
history. Bell (1997:29) highlights that conjecture has major ramifications for the
authenticity of a site, believing that ‘any restoration or reconstruction work that
justifies itself as being an exact replacement or continuation of the authentic whole,
but which cannot be verified (ie, is conjectural) is potentially deceptive; a modern
counterfeit replaces the genuine qualities of age. Such conjectural work would falsify
both the original intention (and therefore the benefits that can be gained from its
traces) and the qualities acquired during the site’s entire existence’. Therefore, to
avoid conjecture, incontestable evidence is required. Unfortunately, evidence of this
nature is rarely available, even with the presence of good historic documentation.
Conjecture and restoration were believed by Ruskin (1989) to be ultimately inter
twined.

Ruskin (1989) and latterly Morris (1877) were greatly concerned with the 19th
Century fashion for cathedral restoration. The degree to which the historic fabric was
altered was often significant, with changes in both interiors and exteriors being
subject to the fashion of the day. The zeitgeist of many architects within this period
was to ‘restore’ the cathedrals to there supposed appearance in the medieval period.
This interpretation of the aesthetics, materials and techniques were generally poorly
researched and documentary evidence was in many cases unavailable or not utilised.
One significant example of restoration was that of St Albans Cathedral, shown in

7
plate No.1, illustrating a gothic building, with castellated parapets, flat roof and a
relatively plain façade (with the exception of the gothic profiled door and window).
Lord Grimthorpe (Earl, 2006:56) restored the cathedral in 1880 – 1885 and his
approach was ostensibly conjectural in nature.

Plate No. 1: St Albans Cathedral (pre restoration) ( National Monuments

Record)

The interventions to the building included the addition of pinnacles, the insertion of a
rose window, the creation of 2 additional decorated pedimented doorways, and what
could be considered, excessive neo-gothic decoration across the façade. The roof was
also altered from being flat in nature, to pitched, and the internal lime plaster, and
painted schemes were scraped off the walls to reveal the bear rubble masonry.

Plate No. 2: St Albans Cathedral (post restoration) ( National Monuments

Record)

To restore a building is therefore to take the structure back to a specific point in time,
utilising this as the base point for information gathering and ultimately, the
interpretation of evidence from this period. The unfortunate reality of restoration is
that it is often conjectural in nature, and therefore an educated guess. Prolific
restorers included, James Wyatt, (the destroyer), George Gilbert Scott and Viollet-Le-
Duc (Jokilehto, 2006). Viollet-Le-Duc (Earl, 2006) believed that restoration was an
appropriate approach to take, and was an advocate of returning a building back to a
point in time that may never have existed. Earl (2006:54) emphasises Viollet-Le-

8
Duc’s approach, indicating that ‘There can be no doubt that during Viollet-Le-Duc
regime the business of the Commission went far beyond preservation intact. The
recovery of an ideal and complete former state was for him a prime concern’. Earl
(2006:54) cites Viollet-Le-Duc, stating ‘to restore a building… is to re-establish it in
a state of completion which may never have existed at any given moment in the past’.

As aforementioned, this approach greatly concerned many learned members of 19th

century society and as Earl (2006:53) highlights, criticism was made by Pugin and
Ruskin towards Wyatt’s works, stating that it was ‘insensitive and unnecessarily
destructive. His approach was unashamedly that of the single-minded creative
architect, bent on ‘improving’ the imperfections of buildings entrusted to him by
carrying out partial reconstructions, removing monuments and…imposing
architectural symmetry wherever he thought it desirable’.

This approach to the treatment of historic buildings is clearly problematic as history

can become falsified and it is difficult to separate the truly original fabric, from the
later interventions. This view was strongly held by Ruskin (Ruskin: 1989: 196) who
succinctly and powerfully conveyed ‘Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing
is a lie from beginning to end!’, and ‘Restoration so called, is the worst manner of
destruction’.

This approach had serious consequences for the interpretation of architectural history.
This situation was unfortunately not uncommon in the 19th Century with Durham
Cathedral and others receiving unnecessary and un-welcomed interventions. It is clear
that our view of what is to be considered historic was created by the Victorian
‘restorers’ and was clearly conjectural in nature. For example, ‘restorers’ often
removed external and internal lime finishes by a process known as ‘scrapping’. It is
interesting to note that the alternative name for the SPAB in this period was the ‘anti-
scrape’ movement, and was clearly a reaction against the degree to which masonry
finishes were being unnecessarily removed from buildings.

The SPAB developed the concept of conservative repair that can be considered to be
the antithesis of restoration. Conservative repair has been discussed in BS7913
(1998:10) indicating that ‘A conservative approach to repair is fundamental to good
conservation. This means that no building or part of a building should be repaired
before such repair is strictly necessary or unless there is a good reason…A
traditional craft-based approach to repair, replacing decayed material on a like for
like basis is preferred’.

In addition, the apparent disregard for historic fabric shown by the restorers, could be
argued to have led to the development of custodianship, first highlighted by Morris
(1877). Morris (1877) stated that ‘these buildings do not belong to us only… they
belong to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them
false. They are not … our property to do as we like with. We are only trustees for
those that come after us’.

That being said, BS7913 (1998) makes a qualified case for restoration, especially to
buildings of a neo classical nature in which voids in an otherwise coherent design are
missing. Although these exceptions have been established they could still be argued
by some to be conjectural and therefore, dishonest.

9
It is clear that avoidance of conjecture is important on a macro (construction of
extensions and gap sites) and micro (replacement of isolated sections of masonry)
scale, with decisions to reinstate overall schemes and minor components needing
careful consideration prior to decisions being made. For example, the replacement
sections of the moulded profiled string course at Newcastle-Upon-Tyne keep, is
clearly meant to reflect the original line and profile of the fabric. It is not understood
to what degree this is based upon the existence of relatively intact similar profiled
stone located elsewhere around the building, or academic research underpinned by
assessment of other building details of a similar period. If the profile of the replaced
stone has been conjecturally derived then our understanding of Norman construction,
embellishment and weathering detail could be debased, and consequent academic
study or practical repair decisions could be misguided. In this case a mechanism of
clear differentiation from existing material and replaced components must be
achieved without deceiving the layperson or expert. An alternative approach could be
to carve a new moulding detail that is clearly modern, whilst retaining the integrity of
the overall building aesthetic.

Plate No. 3: Moulded profiled string course to base of wall at Newcastle Keep
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

An alternative approach could be to use profiled plastic repairs. The nature of these
repairs are honest and retain the integrity of the structure, however their durability
would be significantly lower than replacement stone.

The previous example, shows the problems that may be encountered even in relatively
minor decisions to replace. This situation is quite common and can be applied to most
badly eroded masonry, carved enrichment or sculptural pieces. Hill (1995:19) believes
that ‘there is an argument that future historians will not be able to study the original
features of a building that have been conserved by replacement, and will never be
sure whether replacements followed the original form’. He (Hill:1995 17) suggests
that ‘The solution is relatively simple… the best example of each moulding due for
replacement should be carefully removed, labelled, and put into permanent store.
They are then available for study and comparison at any time in the future.’ Although
this may be helpful in certain situations, this approach could be argued to be
problematic as invariably, stored materials are often lost or discarded, especially when
the people who initiated the process are no longer present. Additionally, the removal

10
of an element of a building may create conflict with the principle of ‘inseparable bond
with surroundings’.

Another example can be seen in Plate 4, illustrating a well executed recarving of a

medieval frieze. The actual degree to which the original fabric had eroded is difficult
to assess, however, it would be logical to assume that it was sufficiently weathered to
warrant replacement.

Plate No. 4: Replacement carved frieze of the torments of sin in hell, and the
harrowing of hell, Lincoln Cathedral

Plate No. 5: Original carved frieze of the torments of sin in hell, and the
harrowing of hell, Lincoln Cathedral

A certain degree of conjecture must have inadvertently been taken in decisions to

restore and re-carve the many missing faces and other carved enrichments. The
conservators highlighted (Lincoln Cathedral, 2009) ‘the original work is very
distinctive but only 75 to 80 per cent of it was in sufficiently good condition for us to
copy…we wanted to make the frieze as authentic as possible as we produced technical
drawings allowing us to recreate exactly as much as possible of the original’. This
raises the question; how accurate is the reproduction? In their defence the
conservators did utilise a considerable amount of documentary evidence along with
their own detailed drawings and therefore, reduced the degree of conjecture.
However, a purist stance could argue that future analysis of the reproduced scheme
could be argued to be automatically flawed as a degree of interpretation would have
been required for the reconstruction of the faces.

11
Recognition of this quandary can be seen in the approach taken for the works to York
Minster, West door. The medieval decorative masonry arch forming the door way had
eroded (due to earlier ‘breathane’ treatment) to such a degree that mouldings and
carved enrichments were difficult to identify. One approach would be to utilise known
architectural features of the period for design guidance and also to assess other
doorways from the building. This approach could be argued to be fundamentally
flawed as to replace the carving based upon comparative analysis may lead to a
misrepresentation of the former work. This case is interesting as the decision was
taken to utilise the concepts associated with conservative repair, and as little evidence
existed for the previous carving it was decided to create a scheme that clearly drew
inspiration from modern day life whilst respecting the integrity of the building. The
proposed arch utilised carved enrichments inspired by modern design features that
would identify the work as that of early 21st Century. This does not mean that the arch
detracts from the building and actually, gives a reflection of modern life and its
influences. This intervention will no doubt be of interest to contemporary historians
and reflect today’s society, and rather than detracting from the structure could be seen
as a welcomed addition to the history of the building that also reflects the time in
which the repair is undertaken.

It is clear that very good design skills are required for those attempting to undertake
conservative repair approaches, as it can be difficult to design something that is
clearly new, yet does not detract or compete with the original fabric.

Avoidance of conjecture: Wall line decisions

When a masonry building deteriorates the original perimeter of the structure
correspondingly erodes. The determination of the original wall line is clearly very
important as it defines the outer form of the building and also gives a true point to
which all masonry repairs should be set. If a replacement stone were set back from the
original line then the outer footprint of the building may be lost. The difficulty with
attempting to retain the original wall line is that newly replaced masonry protrudes
beyond the majority of the existing fabric and can lead to ponding of water upon the
upper surfaces of stone. This in turn can lead to accelerated masonry decay due to
increased incidence of freeze thaw. In addition, in certain circumstances a mortar
flaunch may be incorporated to the upper surface of the stone to shed water off the
newly repaired masonry. This may lead to better performance and greater longevity of
the natural stone, but is an additional process, altering the aesthetic outcome and also
affecting to cost of the repair.

This problem goes to the heart of repair projects, with the philosophically defensible
solution (namely bringing the stone out to the original wall line) potentially
conflicting with technical requirements for longevity of repair. The problem is
exacerbated if no clear existing wall line can be determined. Figure 2, diagramatically
represents this situation, indicating the additional process of flaunching the upper
surface of the replaced masonry.

12
 Eroded wall line

Mortar flaunch

Replacement stone built

flush with existing wall line

Existing masonry

Existing wall line

Figure 2: Flaunching technique for repairs following the existing wall line

Respect for age and historic patina

Historic buildings develop patina over their life. This mellowing of building fabric is
important as an old building that looks new (potentially due to cleaning or restoration)
may appear somewhat odd. Feilden, (1994: 245-248) discusses patina, indicating that
it is “acquired by materials through age, weathering and use… It is precious because
it can only be acquired by time.”

Bell (1997:31) develops this concept highlighting ‘patination by age or wear has both
an aesthetic and historic quality that helps to testify to authenticity of the
object…..and its destruction should be allowed only when essential to the protection
of the fabric. Falsification of patina should be avoided’’.

The way in which we repair our historic buildings must take this into consideration as
Fielden (1994:248) highlights ‘Craftsmen must be prevented from “making good”
because every chip, crack or texture contributes to patina and the building’s story’.
Respect for historic patina is not limited to the retention of a certain amount of
soiling, and also applies to lichen and certain other forms of biological growths. When
works are undertaken measures to retain these protected species must be taken into
consideration. Plate 6 shows a heavily lichen covered ruin that has been repointed in
lime mortar. The raking out of deteriorated mortar and application of new has not
been detrimental to the majority of lichen on the surface of the stone, thereby
retaining the historic patina.

13
 Plate No. 6: Consolidation of ruins (Fern Abbey) respecting historic patina

It is however, inevitable that a certain amount of patina will be removed during

conservation works. The education of the masonry squads in the importance of
retaining patina cannot be overemphasised and is essential for achieving the retention
of the maximum amount of patina. The authors’ experience of running masonry
projects and training operatives in conservative repair, has shown that it is essential to
invest in training and education relating to the basics of building conservation
philosophy, or more simply, informing the operatives of what we are attempting to
achieve.

Respect for age and historic patina: Stone cleaning

The decision to undertake stone cleaning must not be taken lightly as in certain
situations it can lead to irreversible stone decay (Webster; 1992). The technical
complexity of cleaning sand stones is out with the scope of this document, however,
some of the main issues will be discussed.

Various techniques currently exist for the cleaning of sandstones, including; abrasive
and air, abrasive and water, DOF, JOS and chemical cleaning (Webster, 1992). These
techniques, all have potentially serious consequences for the integrity of the building,
however, some may be more damaging than others. The process of cleaning is clearly
irreversible, and is not necessarily least intervention in nature. This type of
intervention is clearly an attempt at removing soiling, but obviously removes the
historic patina of the structure.

Simpson (Webster, 1995: 83) highlights that there is generally a presumption against
cleaning sandstone with the long term effects likely to be negative and possibly very
serious. Compounding the problem of stone cleaning, is the fact that all available
techniques are susceptible to operative error in application. Examples of these results
can be seen in plate 7 with the effects of aggressive cleaning techniques being visible.
The sandstone has suffered from discolouration and the surface has now taken on an
undulating appearance.

14
 Plate No. 7: Stone cleaned building adjacent to untreated structure

The regeneration of selected areas of towns, based on stone cleaning has lead to
accelerated deterioration of the fabric (Webster, 1992). In addition, when a building
has been individually cleaned (see plate 7) with the adjacent building being left soiled
it will always create an unhappy aesthetic outcome, detracting from the integrity of
the row of buildings. Resoiling of buildings after cleaning can occur quickly,
especially when placed in highly polluted environments. This situation has occurred
within a decade in the previous example.

Prior to selecting an approach for cleaning the following questions must be asked;
what advantages and disadvantages will be encountered from cleaning? And, what is
the likelihood of re-soiling? It appears nonsensical to subject the building to
unnecessary potential risk of accelerated decay associated with these interventions,
for a relative short period prior to re-soiling.

It must be emphasised that the cleaning of limestone substrates are generally less
onerous, as the stone is relatively homogenous and has a greater solubility than other
building stones. These materials can be relatively effectively cleaned using only water
(Webster, 1995 & Ashurst, 1998). This is out with the scope of this document and
advice should always be sought by an expert prior to deciding to undertake such
works.

Respect for all contributions

A principle tenet of building conservation philosophy is that of respect for all
contributions. This is important when confronted with a multi phase building with a
complex evolution.

An example of the respect for all contributions, on a micro scale is that of the use of
spent furnace slag to heighten walls. This is surprisingly common in Edinburgh. This
apparent unsightly intervention is however a good example of reuse of industrial by-
products and informs us of processes once undertaken in the surrounding locality. The
removal of these materials is common when the gentrification of the area occurs. It
could be argued that these additions should be left on the basis of least intervention
and that they form an important link to local industrial archaeology.

15
 Plate No. 8: Use of industrial waste products for the extension of wall heads,
Edinburgh

Article 11 of the Venice Charter (1964:2) indicates that 'the valid contributions of
all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is
not the aim of a restoration. When a building includes the superimposed work of
different periods, the revealing of the underlying state can only be justified in
exceptional circumstances and when what is removed is of little interest and the
material which is brought to light is of great historical, archaeological or
aesthetic value, and its state of preservation is good enough to justify the action.
Evaluation of the importance of the elements involved and the decision as to what
may be destroyed cannot rest solely on the individual in charge of the work'.

Inseparable bonds from surroundings

The removal of an entire building or artefact contravenes the concept of inseparable
bonds from surroundings. Bell (1997:32) cites the Venice Charter ‘A monument is
inseparable from history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it
occurs’. The Burra Charter (1979) expands upon this concept, indicating the
importance of setting and location. They explain that ‘a place can seldom be
separated from its setting. For most places aspects of the setting contribute to the
significance’, continuing to explain the importance of location, indicating that ‘the
location of most structures is integral to their history and significance. Relocation
should always be regarded as a last resort’

Beamish Museum, County Durham, have relocated and reconstructed various

buildings from one period (Circa 1910) with these structures been taken from
different locations across the North East of England. The degree of conjecture in
reconstructing the building is not known, however, the bond between its original
setting has been broken. An argument could be made to substantiate this type of
project as these buildings were to be demolished. The degree to which the public are
deceived is not known, although the author is aware of the incorrect use of mortars for
reconstruction.

The rights and wrongs of the dimantling, moving and reconstruction of structures is to
be debated and as with much of building conservation philosophy, clear arguments
could be made for both views.

16
Inseparable bond with its surroundings does not only relate to whole structures and
can equally be applied to associated artifacts located on or within the curliage of a
building. Article 8 of the Venice Charter (1964:2) highlights ‘Items of sculpture,
painting or decoration which form an integral part of a monument may only be
removed from it if this is the sole means of ensuring their preservation’. A well
known example of this situation is the rather contentious removal and transportation
of the ‘Elgin Marbles’ (Parthenon Marbles) in the 19th C. Reparation of the stones is
still being debated with the aim of restoring the sculpture to its original place of
origin.

Rights of the indigenous community

This ethical concept is not related to masonry repair, and is therefore out with the
scope of this document.

Conclusions
Throughout this paper it has been shown that ethical concepts must be considered
prior to design or implementation of repair works. Although definitions of the ethics
can be achieved, their application is open to various interpretations. The view of those
entrusted with these buildings is also wide ranging and will influence the type of
repair and sensitivity of the intervention undertaken. It has also been shown that as
with any aspect of philosophy, there is not necessarily a right or wrong answer, only
higher levels of defence for the selected repairs.

Ethics place a great deal of emphasis upon the integrity and authenticity of the
structure, and these have been shown to have the potential to create tensions if not
well managed. The authenticity of the fabric is also a key feature of building
conservation philosophy and if well applied can obviate conjecture.

The ethical concepts that relate to masonry repair must be individually and
collectively assessed, comparing and contrasting them to determine the ramifications
of their application.

Part 2 of this paper will continue to investigate the principles of building conservation
philosophy for masonry repair.

References

Ashurst, J & Ashurst, N (1988), ‘Practical Building Conservation: stone masonry:

English Heritage Technical Handbook Volume 1’, Gower Technical Press, Avon

Bell, D (1997) ‘Technical Advice Note 8: The Historic Scotland Guide to

International Charters’ HMSO, Edinburgh

Burman, P (1995) http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/ethics/ethics.htm

(accessed, July 2009)

Burra Charter (1999) ‘International Charters for the Conservation and Restoration of
Monuments and sites – ICOMOS’

BS 7913, (1998) ‘The principles of the conservation of historic buildings’ BSi

17
 Chambers Dictionary, (2006) ‘The Chambers Dictionary’ 10th Ed, Chambers Harrap
Pub

Earl, J (2006) ‘Building Conservation Philosophy’ 3rd Ed, Donhead, Somerset

Fielden, B (1994) ‘Conservation of historic buildings’ Butterworth-Heinemann

Hill, P (1995) ‘Conservation and the stonemason’, Journal of Architectural

Conservation, Vol: 1 Part 2, pp. 7-20

Jokilehto, J (2006) ‘A history of architectural conservation’ Elsevier

Lincoln Cathedral http://www.churchmousewebsite.co.uk/frieze/frieze2.htm

(accessed August 2009)

Maguire, R (1997) ‘Conservation and diverging philosophies’ Journal of Architectural

Conservation Vol: 3: Part 1 pp. 7-18

COED ‘Concise Oxford English Dictionary’ (2008) Oxford University Press

Powys, A.R (1995) ‘Repair of Ancient Buildings’ Society for the Protection of
Ancient Buildings

Ruskin, J (1989) ‘The seven lamps of architecture’ Dover Publications

SPAB (1877) ‘Manifesto’ http://www.spab.org.uk/what-is-spab/the-manifesto/

(accessed Septeber 2009)

Stirling, J.S (1997) ‘Building Conservation Philosophy’ Unpublished lecture notes,

Heriot-Watt University

Venice Charter, (1964) ‘International Charters for the Conservation and Restoration
of Monuments and sites’ ICOMOS

Webster, R (1992) ‘Stone cleaning and the nature, soiling and decay mechanisms of
stone’ Donhead, London

18

View publication stats