| ISSN 1357-4442 | Editor: Simon Denison |
|---|
| COMMENT |
• Please note: since publication, this building has received extensive refurbishment as a private home (2011).
At Barrington Park, some conservationists are answering 'yes'. Simon Denison looks at the issues
Is it ever acceptable to demolish a Grade I listed building? Most people who care about the historic features of our environment would probably, by instinct, answer 'no'. Buildings are listed in order to protect them. Demolition is therefore to be avoided - surely? - at all costs.
If only things were that simple. Consider a current proposal at Barrington Park in Gloucestershire. It is a case that has divided the conservation world, showing how complicated and uncertain - both morally and intellectually - some conservation decisions can be.
Barrington Park is a Grade I listed Georgian country house of the 1730s with two Victorian wings, a few miles west of Burford. The house is in a dire state, with gaping holes in the roof. Some 18th century ceilings have fallen in, and further structural collapse seems imminent. The owner has applied to demolish the two wings - to reduce the house to a manageable size and enable him to carry out emergency repairs.
The Georgian Group and English Heritage say the demolitions should go ahead. The Ancient Monuments Society, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Victorian Society, however, disapprove. Who is right?
The disapprovers point to the high quality of the 1870 wings, which were built in sympathetic 'Georgianising' style by a first-rate architect, John MacVicar Anderson. The wings, it is claimed, enhance the building as a whole, and demonstrate the exquisite way in which a building can be extended at a later date in one seamless architectural style.
They also cite a conservation principle - accepted in international conventions - that removing later additions is seldom justifiable on the grounds that the original design will be restored. (Think what such a policy would do to our splendid multi-phase cathedrals).
The objectors go on to say that demolition should be considered only as a last resort. In this case, alternatives have not been explored - such as subdivision of the wings into flats, or sale of the building to someone wealthy enough to restore it intact.
The approvers - a better word would perhaps be 'realists' - take a different line. They say that the owner's scheme, drawn up after close analysis of the building's historic fabric, is a model of its kind. It shows that the integrity of the Georgian core can be restored without guesswork.
They also argue that the owner, whose family has lived in the house for generations - whose own close ancestors built the wings 130 years ago - should not be treated in the same way as a property speculator, and be forced to sell up or share his home at the first sign of financial crisis.
The realists further point out that the loss of the wings is less awful than the loss of the whole building. If the owner were to fight his case through the courts - regarded as likely - the house could quickly fall into an irreparable state. The wings are considered architecturally less valuable than the Georgian core, and although good, are not so good as to be worth that risk.
Such are the arguments. I do not pretend they are easy to weigh. However, a number of issues are raised. The first is whether English Heritage's acquiescence in the proposal sets a dangerous precedent. Is there a risk now that other owners will refuse to repair, and refuse to sell, confident that English Heritage will finally cave in?
Against this, you have to wonder whether the rule against removing later additions to a listed building is sometimes applied too unthinkingly. Barrington Park's wings may, or may not, enhance the building as a whole. But we must all be aware of cases where applications to remove redundant and illmatching later additions - 1940s electrical fittings, say, or 1960s windows - have been fatuously refused on the grounds that these features are 'of their time' and therefore valuable.
A new romantic mood is pervading some aspects of building conservation. Last month, for example, English Heritage completed its conservation work at Wigmore Castle in Herefordshire, leaving it an overgrown ruin rather than a tidied-up tourist attraction of the old style. Whatever the other arguments, the romantic approach at Barrington may be to allow the owner's family to build and demolish, as times change, and to continue to live for generations to come in their ancestral home.
What do you think about Barrington Park, and listed buildings policy generally? Write to us and let us know. Barrington's case will almost certainly go to public inquiry. To influence the debate directly, write to Mike Hill, Conservation Officer, Cotswold District Council, Trinity Road, Cirencester GL7 1PX.
Simon Denison is Editor of British Archaeology
Return to the British Archaeology homepage
© Council for British Archaeology, 1999