Cardiff is a changing city, but we were fortunate in securing one of its enduring architectural jewels, the 1905 City Hall, as the main conference venue. The City Hall's competition-winning design established Lanchester, Stewart and Rickards' reputation for Edwardian Baroque civic architecture and delegates had abundant opportunity to experience its delights.

The theme was chosen to explore the process of achieving a satisfactory conservation project: conservation plans, surveys, recording, specifying, tendering, contracts, the selection of consultants and contractors, and funding the works. This was spiced with presentations on Cardiff architecture and on current conservation projects in Glamorgan.

The school organising committee was ably driven by Richard Dean and John Edwards. To John goes the credit for providing and developing the principal theme for the school, whilst asking Richard to chair the committee was Neil's best decision; the remainder of the committee - Fiona Cairns, Simon Cairns, Elizabeth Evans, Mary Kelly, David Lermon, Pat Martin and Trefor Thorpe - are thankful that Richard kept us all going. We were also helped enormously by our Registrar, Sue Tomlinson.

The main sponsors were Dimbylow Crump Conservation Contractors Ltd., specialist contractors who have enjoyed an expanding presence in Wales in recent years. They also sponsored the IHBC Annual Dinner. Other sponsors were Rockwool, the Welsh School of Architecture, and Acanthus Associated Architectural Practices Ltd. HallMcCartney Ltd organised trade exhibitors in an exhibition area adjacent to the main conference hall.

Day 1: Thursday
Delegates' first real taste of City Hall's splendour was lunch in the Marble Foyer, observed by statuesque Welsh heroes (St David, Owain Glyndwr, Dafydd ap Gwilym, etc.) and the watchful eyes of the late Princess of Wales in oils. Proceedings then began with Matthew Williams, Curator of Cardiff Castle describing Cardiffs foundation as a Roman fort, whose 3rd century remains can be seen in the Castle. The fort provided the site for the 12th century keep and later medieval additions. The only other significant preVictorian building outside the Castle walls is the 15th century St. John's Church. He described the influence of the 2nd Marquis of Bute, who owned the Castle and the foreshore and built Cardiff's first dock, in 1839 providing the economic stimulus for Cardiff's growth and enabling the 3rd Marquis to fund the remodelling of Cardiff Castle through his architect William Burges, commencing in 1868. Burges also designed Park House and Castell Coch, and from the 1870s these influenced many buildings within the city. 'What John Wood is to Bath and Mackintosh is to Glasgow, William Burges is to Cardiff', declared Mr Williams. He went on to describe the development from 1898 of the Civic Centre in Cathays Park; the City Hall was the first major building to be completed, and Cardiff was simultaneously declared a city. City Hall reflected the self-confidence of Cardiff and is widely considered the finest civic centre in the British Isles. John Edwards, Surveyor to the Fabric at Cardiff Castle described the stylistic consistency of housing in Victorian Cardiff because nearly all houses were built on leasehold ground, a very unusual situation in the period. The quality was also high with above-minimum standards. The Bute estate's control of a third of all land in Cardiff resulted in the predominance of gothic detailing and this fashion was followed by other ground landlords. Of Cardiff's 114,000 households, 40% live in Victorian terraced housing.

The sunny afternoon then continued with alternative tours: John Hilling, architect and architectural historian formerly with Cadw led a walking tour around the Civic Centre and an opentop bus tour of Cardiff, its conservation areas and Cardiff Bay was led by Andrew Hill, Conservation Officer, Cardiff County Council. Coaches also left for Castell Coch, where delegates were met by David McLees and Jane Chamberlain of Cadw, and for Caerphilly Castle, where delegates were met by Jeremy Knight, former Inspector of Ancient Monuments with Cadw and Mary Kelly of Cadw.

Castell Coch (the Red Castle) is Burges' romantic 1870s reconstruction of a 13th century castle, remarkable for its wooded setting above the River Taff and for its fabulous (literally) interior. Delegates were treated to a comprehensive tour including the normally inaccessible Well Tower and were astounded by tales of Cadw's modest budget for essential conservation work. At Caerphilly Castle, Mr Knight gave an amusing glance at Caerphilly's history from its 13th century origins. The great hall, the leaning tower and the siege engines were examined and Mary described some of the recent works to stem the leaking moat and the proposals to conserve the medieval kitchens.

In the evening, Malcolm Parry, Head of the Welsh School of Architecture graciously stood in for the Lord Mayor of Cardiff, and hosted the Civic Reception at the WSA. Mr Parry is a seasoned TV performer and it showed. Perhaps his most hilarious anecdote was when he described how the president of the RIBA mistook him for Norman Foster. He assured some sceptical Welsh members that the WSA really did support historic building conservation and so we look forward to developments!

Later Stephen Thomas, Director, UNA Welsh Centre for International Affairs and Richard Dean, took a group on a tour of the Temple of Peace and Health in Cathays Park explaining that the Temple was designed by Sir Percy Thomas (1937-8) and was a gift to the Welsh nation by Lord Davies of Llandinam. It was built to promote international peace and health, and in memory of those who had fallen in World War I - It is now occupied by the Welsh Centre for International Affairs and the local health authority. Richard noted that the Temple immediately followed Thomas' design masterpiece the Guildhall, Swansea and that the continuity of architectural style between the two buildings is clearly evident. Both are of the "stripped classical" school with large bold areas of plain stonework, yet, while the Guildhall has the more traditionally classical interior, the Temple of Peace is much closer to the art deco style of the 1930s.

Mr Lloyd thanked Dimbylow Crump for sponsoring the Annual School, and invited Iorwerth Esau, Regional Director, to review their work in Wales,. Mr Esau described work at Aberdeunant, a stone and cob built farmhouse with cruck trusses and thatched roof; St Fagans, an Elizabethan castle; Sker House, a medieval grange; the fortified priory of Ewenny; and Aberglasney House. In contrast to these were the industrial sites at Stepaside and Tondu ironworks.

Kate Clarke, Head of Historical Research for English Heritage and advisor to the HLF, spoke about Conservation Plans which she hoped would become an increasingly useful tool. Buildings are listed today for a variety of reasons: social, political, environmental, to mention a few, Ms Clarke emphasised the importance of establishing the significance of a site before any work is undertaken, although many monuments have more than one significance. A Georgian building may have a later addition by a famous architect, so are both parts equally important?; ; Wigmore Castle has grown vegetation which over the years has acquired a significance of its own; Robben Island in South Africa for 100 years an asylum, now holds an important collection of World War 2 military equipment, has an interesting ecology, and was where Nelson Mandela was imprisoned. All significant aspects need to be reconciled. Ms Clarke drew on many examples where one significance is in conflict with another and concluded that for every conservation decision there is an equal and oppo~ site reaction to face. There is a danger of concentrating only on the big things. Damage can arise through lack of understanding and finding out the significance too late.

David Watt, Senior Research Fellow at De Montfort University and coauthor of Surveying Historic Buildings spoke on "Surveying and Specifying the Works". The audience warmed to Dr Watt's acknowledgement that "the lot of a Conservation Officer is not an easy one" as he gave examples of the results of neglecting to survey and specify properly, and of not fully appreciating what one is looking at. He encouraged those surveying historic buildings to "not only use their eyes but also engage the mind". The different uses of surveys for different purposes were explained, as was the variety of survey formats. The importance of using the correct tool for the job was stressed and the three principal survey types for use on historic properties were described in more detail, i.e. building surveys, specialist or elemental surveys and investigations, and measured surveys.

It was always important to decide on the purpose. For measured surveys Dr Watt encouraged an analysis of what the drawings were to be used for, e.g. would a simple diagram suffice, would they be accurate, and would they contain the relevant information? It was pointed out that the needs of the surveyor and those of the end-user may differ and that there is a need to consider both content and cost. Dr Watt summarised the most important things to consider when making surveys as:
(a) get the purpose straight in one's mind;
(b) consider the client's interests and the needs of the property;
(c) assess the need for specific consents (e.g. LBC for selective opening up of protected structures);
(d) the form of survey;
(e) whether an unfamiliar surveyor will know what he is looking at or assimilate possible local 'quirky' features; and
(f) how much use should be made of specialists and non-destructive methods of investigation, and how good the interpretation of the results of such investigations will be.

A potentially useful reference in Practice Statement 7 of the RICS Appraisal and Evaluation Manual recommends valuers to take advice from those with specialist knowledge before deciding upon works which might alter listed buildings or those of unusual construction. Surveyors should be competent to give advice without prejudice to the special characteristics of those buildings. Dr Watt thought this would be useful when dealing, for example, with budding society surveyors intent on the dubious insertion of chemical dampproof courses, timber treatments etc.

On specifications Dr Watt defined their essential purpose as providing qualitative and quantitative information to enable the works to be carried out in the manner intended, to time, and to cost targets. It was essential that specifications should be precise, comprehensive, easy to use and, importantly, valid - "to know what you want and to be able to express it clearly". On tendering and contracts information should be kept simple, especially resumes for the benefit of lay clients. Even for contractors informative photographs were often deemed of better value than pages of text. He concluded with some wise precautionary points, viz. the need for critical judgement, to learn to expect the unexpected, and to have an eye for the future as well as the past.

The keynote speech from Tom Cassidy, Cadw's Chief Executive informed delegates that one of Mr Lloyd's dogs is named Cadw and wondered whether this may reflect what Mr Lloyd really felt about them, "come here Cadw ... sit up and beg Cadw"! Mr Cassidy explained that Cadw is not an acronym, but a Welsh word meaning "to keep or preserve" and it thus shared with the IHBC a profound interest in the preservation of the built heritage. Being an executive agency of the National Assembly for Wales, Cadw mirrored Historic Scotland in terms of its role and status as a part of government and was not (as in the case of English Heritage) a non-governmental public body. However, Historic Scotland was three times larger than Cadw - English Heritage much larger still. Cadw therefore was roughly equivalent in size to one of the latter's new regions.

Mr Cassidy drew a comparison between the typical local government Conservation Officer, often working within small units or even alone, with Cadw's own comparatively small organisational establishment, also working as small groups with really no more than a handful of architects and archaeologists to cover the area and workload. Wales is a small country but overheads get proportionally more burdensome for smaller organisations, and they can also find it difficult to cover as broad a spectrum of issues as larger organisations. As a result many outputs become less numerous and others are absent entirely. This problem frequently found Cadw trying to bridge a gap between reality and expectation.

Cadw is required to deliver a portfolio of statutory duties and as part of government is precluded from operating as a lobby for conservation views. As the lead organisation for the built heritage in Wales, however, there is an expectation that it will pick up initiatives and issues because there is usually no other obvious "owner". Tensions have to be dealt with every time statutory responsibilities (e.g. dealing with LBC cases) fill up the day and squeeze out non-statutory good works which might actually do more to sustain the built heritage. Amongst tangible statutory responsibilities, listing and scheduling plans figure prominently although, as in Scotland, Cadw's listing re-survey has some time left to run and the accelerated programme will only be completed in 2005. Mr Cassidy outlined Cadw's responsibility for the management and care of 130 scheduled monuments and quoted a Cadw saying that, "... our careers are in ruins" - that the vast majority of the monuments in care date from the engine room of Welsh history during the 11th and 12th centuries or from the Industrial Revolution, and are literally roofless ruins. Whilst this limited Cadw's ability to accommodate events and presentations, Mr Cassidy took pride in the acclaimed interpretative material it is producing.

The danger in concentrating on what "must be done" is of squeezing out the intangibles, a campaign for "hearts and minds", i.e. increasing the constituency which has an interest in the built heritage. This was an area which needed more attention in Wales, where views on heritage often tend to veer towards linguistic issues and the vocal/choral tradition. He considered that Cadw had to make more time for such issues and referred to two helpful mechanisms, i.e. concentrating on opportunities which really "add value", and wringing every advantage possible from partnerships with others active in the field.

Stephen Bond, Director of Tuffin, Ferraby & Taylor and formerly Surveyor to the Fabric, Historic Royal Palaces spoke on the theme "Selection and Appointment of Consultants and Contractors: a Client's Viewpoint". This he said was "not a sexy subject" but nevertheless an important one which in his view, we got wrong far too often. The key to making good appointments was investment: what one put in at the beginning in terms of time, effort and resources, sensibly related to what one was trying to do, was something that paid dividends later on. Also, in terms of specifying for consultant and contractor appointments, "the devil is in the detail". Despite his initial health warning, Mr Bond gave an illuminating talk liberally spiced with his experiences working with the Historic Royal Palaces Agency, implementing the recommendations his practice had made in a contract for the improvement of the Agency's works and maintenance operations. This had been both a challenge and a culture shock. indeed, the importance of understanding the way in which organisations operated and how this might critically affect the running of contracts was one of Mr Bond's themes. Whilst his overall recommendations had been correct, he admitted that in the analysis of organisational processes and systems, one of the biggest lessons learnt had been that of understanding their "soft" as opposed to their "hard wiring", i.e. the social culture and modus operandi of the organisation rather than its technical procedures. This was something that was difficult for an outsider to grasp, but essential to understand and convey to others with whom the organisation has to operate, and is something which is rarely considered in practice.

The Agency looks after the 5 estates of Hampton Court, Tower of London, half of Kensington Palace, the Banqueting House in Whitehall, and Kew Palace. Between 1990 and 1997 it spent around £10 million on capital projects and a further £2 million on maintenance and repairs. it was divided up, following Mr Bond's initial recommendations, into three consultancy teams, one each dedicated to the Tower ' to Hampton Court, and to the remainder. The teams, which included in-house as well as external consultants and specialists, had been recommended on the basis of retaining continuity and developing a core of understanding. Although this system did often work, Mr Bond reflected that it might have been better to have had a more flexible panel of specialists working across the whole spectrum of the estate. There had been occasions when it had been difficult to ensure a consistent flow of work to make dedicated teams viable and some breakdown of confidence occurred between the client, project team managers, and the consultants assigned to them.

There had been an initial desperate need to understand the problems and needs of the buildings that were to be managed and it was therefore decided that full condition surveys should be prepared. Because of a perceived lack of experience within the teams a decision was made to put this work out to experienced external consultants. This had not been entirely successful. Mr Bond said there was a frequent tendency to appoint those with whom one has familiarity in the sometimes unreasonable expectation that they will deliver, when the practicalities of the situation should dictate a reliance on "horses for courses". In this case, the benefits of in-house knowledge were overlooked.

A decision had been made to dismantle the in-house direct labour force (in contrast to the opposing view taken by Cadw in the care of its monuments) and rely totally on the use of outside contractors. Mr Bond was convinced that this approorch offered the best incentive for the development and proliferation of specialist conservation skills in the marketplace. He strongly cautioned, however, about the need for vigilance to counter the risk of fraud and corruption presented by term contract arrangements, and strongly encouraged the advantageous incorporation of contractors into the project team early in the design process.

Richard Whittaker, Chief Quantity Surveyor and Head of Contracts at English Heritage spoke on the theme 'Which Contract?". Although contracts can be made verbally, it is most common for them to be put in writing, preferably in a tried and tested format using the appropriate form of contract that accords with a procurement strategy and also take account of the method by which the design team will transfer information to the contractor.

Mr Whittaker described how fixed priced tenders are appropriate where there is a maximum degree of certainty over the works. Where uncertainty increases there is a greater need to adopt processes that allow for flexibility in the works required, but also controlling costs in the process. He cited the use of bills of quantities, and where the uncertainty is greater the use of approximate bills of quantities. The more certainty in the works meant that less effort would be required in administering the contract. Mr Whittaker considered that the tender process should be transparent. He endorsed the NJCC Code for Selected Tendering (pub. 1989). Where conservation projects are concerned, he favoured going a stage further and selecting not only companies to do the work, but the employees of the companies. In respect of controlling the works a number of issues again highlighted the need to use a standard form of contract, e.g. when varying the works, dealing with disputes and delays, and of course, payment.

Chris Watson, Regional Director, GTMS Ltd. spoke on "Controlling the Works". He enjoys the accolade of being the project manager in charge of the Windsor Castle restoration contract, and he used this as a case study. Mr Watson was working on the Royal Opera House when the fire occurred at Windsor Castle. Conveniently, the financial crisis at the Opera House made him available for what was for him ,,arguably the most visible and prominent project in the world". He described the problems in terms of two primary sources: the fire, and the 1.5 million gallons of water used to put it out. The latter was the main concern, in ensuring that the structure was sufficiently dry for restoration of the 105 rooms affected. He went on to describe how he worked closely with the Royal Household in appointing the team, and the importance of breaking down the project into components. The budgets followed this and the paramount necessity for the QS to work very closely with the design team was greatly emphasised. These components were let as separate tender packages. Mr Watson emphasised the importance of generating as much data as possible in defining the problems as the effort made in defining solutions.

Mr Constantinides is anxious about clients who go for the lowest possible fee bid, because tender documentation suffers and prices inevitably reflect those inadequacies and risks to the builder, which in turn increases overall conservation costs. The builder can only be as good as the professional's documentation. Throwing in asides that "conservation is a small world, of small people trying to be big fish in small ponds"... that "builders are on the same social level as domestic servants"... and that "there is only one building contract but there are many ways of using it", he agreed with Richard Whittaker that a special contract is not needed for conservation work, but it does have to be carefully thought out.

He believes that only the builder's estimator really knows the true cost of conservation work. Selected builders should be appointed on informal commissions to help the design team at an early stage. There are too many instances of tenders being 20-40% over budget to the consternation of all parties. Continuing this theme of applying the best information at the correct time and place, Mr Constantinides was seriously concerned about information passing laterally, especially between professionals. He praised the IHBC for helping with the dissemination of con~ servation knowledge, but worried if National Trust and English Heritage regionalisation resulted in knowledge and experience becoming dissipated.

He gave further succinct precontract suggestions, for example, that mortar analyses could be done and stock preordered and, that rather than attempting to describe intangibles, samples of the standards expected should be made available. In his opinion, large tender lists and short tender periods are counter-productive, and as British Standards are by definition useless in conservation work, clients should give professionals certain degrees of release from liability. Reflecting on the success of Windsor Castle he concluded that breaking jobs down into packages where the client pays sub-contractors separately also breaks down an insidious tradition where main contractors tend to hang on to payments and pass on risks to the lowest denominator. He agreed with Mr Watson that valuations/ payments should be agreed on work done and not re-visited. Conservation should save the building and save money!

The Day School was immediately followed by the IHBC's AGM, reported upon elsewhere. The evening's activities commenced with a reception in the Marble Foyer hosted by Dimbylow Crump Conservation Contractors Ltd. Delegates then moved into the City Hall's principal room, the Assembly Hall where they were first entertained by the Barry Male Voice Choir. The IHBC Annual Dinner was followed by an address from Derek Latham, Principal of Derek Latham & Company, Architects and Historic Buildings Advisors, the text of which was printed in the last issue of Context (No 63).

Day 3: Saturday
The first part of Saturday morning was devoted to presentations on recording the fabric. Stephen Hughes, of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales [RCAHMW] began his presentation by reinforcing the views of both both Kate Clarke and David Watt, focussing on RCAHMW projects currently underway. These include non-conformist chapels, hospitals, and large industrial complexes. About 25% of its work follows on from listed building consents. The criteria used by the RCAHMW for evaluation are: perceived importance, degree of threat, and how it relates to the infor~ mation stored in the National Monuments Record for Wales in Aberystwyth. RCAHMW has a web page and more information will become available on the internet in the future.

RCAHMW is trying to establish where it can use new types of survey, of more practical use to the wider community of surveyors in Wales. The programme for this year includes the largest medieval castle still in private ownership at Usk, Monmouthshire, where conservation is in progress. RCAHMW has also begun to specialise in vernacular architecture and so far has located over 500 late medieval and post medieval hall houses in the Welsh Borders. A selective dendrochronology programme has been on-going since 1995, generating 70 results so far, with dates ranging from 1400 to 1550. This year and next it will be operating the Cottage Recording Programme, starting in Carmarthenshire (part funded by HLF). RCAHMW has worked extensively on recording colliery sites, including the Taff Merthyr colliery in 1995/96; it took 6 months to process all the recording work at what was one of the last traditional working pits in South Wales. Mr Hughes concluded by outlining the chapels project, where intensive recording is currently being undertaken at the most important chapels, the main thrust of which has been the compilation of a database in cooperation with CAPEL (the Welsh Chapels Heritage Society), the National Library of Wales and the Board of Celtic Studies.

He dealt principally with two issues: how Impact Assessments can improve the quality of decisions, and (in light of imperfect knowledge), what is the justification for requesting such assessments in the context of LBC applications? The central point made by Paul was that planning legislation already allows a local authority to require an applicant to provide full information sufficient to judge the application. The onus should be on the applicant to submit "up-front" the information required under the "polluter pays" principle. This would lead applicants through a chain of thought, whereby they would understand and value their own building.

Impact assessments, he believed, would need to operate on three different levels. With a simple application an appraisal should be sufficient. A more complex application would require an assessment, and a full evaluation would be required for a major conservation project. If applicants supplied this, Conservation Officers would be allowed more time for pro-active work than at present. Best Value provides the opportunity for Conservation Officers to be more efficient and effective and better affect how applications are determined. if applications are not registered until they are complete, they are more likely to be determined within 8 weeks and fewer conditions will need to be imposed. Paul believes that over the last 10 years there has been a culture change, whereby in the context of PPG16 and WO Circular 60196, archaeologists have been asking developers for Information on what is beneath an application site. If applicants and developers wish to undertake proposals which affect listed buildings, they should be aware of the information that is required of them. Once this is established, this will soon become what is expected of them, and this will lead to a consistency of approach.

Paul's presentation led to a very lively debate from the floor. Some delegates took exception to the principle of "polluter pays", and questioned the ability of the average listed building owner to afford an appraisal to justify proposals, in addition to the often high cost of the works themselves. John Preston called for the IHBC to produce a model listed building application form and a set of guidance notes that can be applied to all local authorities, whether or not they employ IHBC members or operate a satisfactory control system.

Valleys chapels
Brian Davies, Curator of Pontypridd Historical Centre (housed in Tabernacle Chapel), used the example of his home village Mountain Ash to give a vivid description of the rapid increase in chapel building and congregation sizes during the middle to latter half of the 19th century. This increase was due partly to the migration of people from rural Wales and England to the ironmaking and coal-mining industries of the Valleys, and partly to the religious fervour engendered by nonconformist revivals. The roll-call of denominations of Congregationalists, Baptists, Independents, Presbyterians, and many others serves as testament to this extraordinary development. Richard Dean of Richard Dean & Geoffrey Cheason -Architects and Historic Buildings Consultants, described that legacy of (now) largely redundant chapels, edifices of significant historical and/ or architectural interest. With numerous significant chapels in any one place the options for alternative use such as a museum, performance space, or community centre soon run out, and given the socio-economic mix of the Valleys, the possibility of "bijou" housing is also largely ruled out.

Using examples of conservation and alternative uses of chapels in Prague, England and Wales, Richard described problems in detail. Many chapels were hurriedly constructed with a view more to the impressiveness of entrance facades and interior "stage sets" than to the qualities of structural firmness. Trerhondda chapel (Grade II) in Ferndale, in the Rhondda Fach, (built 1867 - wrecked interior), was one example. Richard described the parlous state of the roof which had been poorly constructed and had to be completely replaced, and of the main walls where the stone facings had delaminated from the core stonework since few stones tied through to the inner skin. He described the use of "Cintec" tying for masonry walls and the insertion of a steel framework with new first floor to help stabilise the building. The build~ ing has a completely new interior and is now a successful Community Arts Resource Centre. a project financed largely through Welsh Office SDS funds with substantial assistance from the Historic Building Council for Wales. Richard also described Zoar~Ynysgau chapel (Grade II) of 1842 in Merthyr Tydfil which has been completely restored with an exceptional eye to detail, with funding by the HLF and HBCW. He and his architect partner Geoffrey Cheason undertook the gold leaf work and trompe d'oeil windows themselves.

Visits were made in the afternoon to Tabernacle Chapel, Pontypridd; to Seion chapel (before restoration) and ZoarYnysgau chapel (after restoration) in Merthyr Tydfil; and to the de-listed Hen dy Cwrdd chapel in Cefn-coed-y-cymmer (perhaps a restoration too far).

Sker House and Tondu Ironworks, Bridgend
Michael Davies of Davies Sutton Architecture gave a vivid description of the work being done at this romantic Tudor house located on a wild part of the coast between Porthcawl and Port Talbot. Thought by many to be destined to become one of the Lost Houses of Wales, Sker has been precipitously saved by the Buildings at Risk Trust which persevered for 12 years and at last acquired it following compulsory purchase by Bridgend County Borough Council. Site work by Dimbylow Crump had commenced in April and the extent of the conservation work is substantial. Following an account of Sker's history, Michael outlined the costs and the complex HLF, HBCW and AHF funding package involved. He described the problems of surveying the building, the solutions for repairing the roof and their commitment to retaining the important turrets which give so much to the visual interest of the building. Conservation in action was brought to the fore in this project: delegates heard of the difficulties that arise where there is no known enduser, and of practical decisions such as the choice between the use of limewash (evidence exists for it) or one of the more durable but breathable modern paints. Details of the progress of the project are available on the Intemet (www.davies-sutton.co.uk).

Keir Beard, Project Manager at Groundwork Bridgend described the restoration project currently underway at Tondu Ironworks, for which Dimbylow Crump are also main contractors. Primarily dating from the 1850s, this is an important surviving monument of Wales' iron-making industry and is notable for a rare surviving range of calcining kilns, the extensive number of surviving beehive-shaped coke ovens, its tall lift shaft, and its blowing engine house. Mr Beard described Groundwork Bridgend's courageous decision to purchase the freehold of the scheduled monument and adjacent land with a view to making it the focal point of a heritage and leisure attraction located directly on the Chepstow to Fishguard national cycle route (which Groundwork is also actively engaged in constructing). Funding is also unusual, 50% of the estimated £1.2m cost coming from the Millennium Commission's national grant to 20 Groundwork Trusts for environmental projects around Britain; the balance is being met primarily by ERDF, Cadw, and Landfill Tax. The project is "archaeology-led" since Oxford Archaeological Trust both provided the initial assessment and act as key members of the project team. Mr Beard gave a detailed account of the various elements of the project and concluded by emphasising the role of the local community which during the past century has developed a close relationship with an increasingly derelict site. Local residents' support for and indeed "ownership" of the project, fostered through newsletters and public meetings, is considered crucial for the long term survival of the monument.

Cardiff Castle
Matthew Williams gave an overview of the Castle's history, whose many layers are still very visible today. Roman, Norman, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th and early 20th century developments were graphically described, including a colourful account of the Castle's various owners and their influence upon it. John Edwards emphasised that all elements of care, starting from defining a philosophy to implementing work, is a management process. John described how all decisions made are structured and take account of pre-defined criteria. Such criteria include consideration of aesthetics, interpretation, education, technical necessity, and feasibility. This was the background to a conservation philosophy which is enshrined in a conservation policy for the site.

The importance of ensuring the right composition of expertise in the management of the site followed up by documented standards of care was also emphasised. The application to the HLF for funding towards a £6.6m project, and its procurement and management elements generated a lot of interest. The application was approved in principle, subject to the production of a conservation and management plan. John described the drafting of the brief for this, the selection of consultants and the two-stage selection process which separated the credentials of the bidder, their methodology, and the priced tender. Ferguson Mann Architects were appointed as lead consultants on the basis of these 3 criteria. Marianne Suhr, Project Co-ordinator at Ferguson Mann added that the lead consultant should be selected first and then a team assembled around it thereafter.

The visit to the Castle in the afternoon concentrated on the Burges interiors, which are of international significance. Matthew Williams described the history and iconography whilst John Edwards described the challenge of caring for such interiors.

In the late afternoon, weary delegates returned from various parts of Glamorgan, many got showered and changed in record time, and then launched themselves back on to coaches for the evening dinner and twmpath held in the grade I listed Stables at Tredegar House, near Newport, setting for the successful launch of the new IHBC Wales branch back in July 1998. Acanthus Associated Architectural Practices Ltd. sponsored the venue and provided the opening drinks, the food was excellent, but the highlight was surely the music, entertainment and demonstrations provided by Dawnswyr Nantgarw.

Day 4: Sunday
Sunday morning's programme concentrated on sources of funding and eligibility criteria. Each speaker gave a brief resume of funding available through their auspices and then joined in a panel to face a lively question and answer session orchestrated by wellknown HTV journalist Jonathan Hill.

Trefor Thorpe, Senior Conservation Architect with Cadw, reflected on the,'very interesting time that Wales was currently going through" with various opportunities and threats to the built heritage following devolution. Cadw's advantage of having an internal position within the National Assembly meant that it would be able to influence other departments, address overlaps, and challenge policies at source to the betterment of the whole stock of historic buildings. Cadw and the HBCW will continue to support buildings at risk but, with the emphasis on Wales and Welshness, it may be that chapels and workers' cottages as well as fur~ ther pragmatic approaches to owner's maintenance needs will have a high priority.

Jennifer Stewart, for the HLF, hoped that the new Cardiff office would make local contacts easier. A Welsh committee has been set up to determine schemes up to £1 m, but also to encourage larger or umbrella projects of which there is currently a dearth. The General Strategic Plan 1999-2003 is important in setting out the overarching priorities and framework for UK grants. The main priority areas for the future are heritage conservation (75% of grant aid), education and access, beacon projects (over £5m) and local heritage. Of the £305m to be spent this year across UK, £7m will come to Wales on a per capita basis (for regional equity) on a present ratio of 91% capital projects: 9% revenue. Expenditure to date in Wales has been £41m on 200 projects. Recent initiatives encompass sustainable development, economic regeneration, education and coalfields.

Hilary Weir stated that the Architectural Heritage Fund's core function is to provide loans for working capital to assist cash flow to BPTs. The AHF is a short-term funder (2-3 years) whose assistance is "up front" and flexible. The AFIF is aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get BPT projects on to site and would welcome any explanations from IHBC members. She believes that it is due to other funders skewing the eligibility criteria so that what is primarily a building conservation project has become valid for additional purposes.

Hilary Weir explained that a Building Preservation Trust is a charity whose foremost (if not sole) purpose is the preservation of historic buildings (conservation not being a charitable object). AHF provides a standard kit for BPT setup free or £5 on disk. BPTs have normally been set-up as revolving funds for a number of buildings but single project trusts should be considered as a vehicle for capital works more often. Loans can be made to any organisation with charitable status and an eligible project, but grants are generally only available to BPTs.

Nigel Adams, Head of Development Planning at the Wales Tourist Board, discussed the tourism context of conservation and the WTB's integrated development programme. WTB aims to encourage the provision and improvement of amenities and facilities, to promote high standards of product and service, to sustain and promote the culture of Wales and its language, and to safeguard the natural and built environment. Tourism in Wales attracts 11m overnight visitors and 65m leisure day trips spending almost £2bn; this supports 100,000 jobs and accounts for 7% of GDP. WTB has a current grant budget of £14.5m. Its Tourism 2000 Strategy targeted action in improving the product, image and marketing of seven historic towns and six resorts, including Caernarfon, Beaumaris and Llandudno. Other grants were for feasibility studies for new uses for historic buildings or where the enhancement of appeal via sensitive conversion would be achieved, e.g. John Nash's Llanerchaeron (1792) and Owain Glyndwr's Parliament building (c1404).

WTB has also supported town schemes in Brecon, Tenby and Llandudno, and shopfront improvements in Brecon and Machynlleth. Visitor attractions have been supported at Llancaiach Fawr, Brecon Cathedral Heritage Centre, and the Judge's House at Presteigne. Mr Adams commented that tourism can provide economic justification for conversion and enhancement of our built heritage and it can provide a rationale for investment in historic buildings. It can provide new uses for buildings but there must be a market demand; many redundant historic buildings have been proposed as heritage centres but only so many are feasible. He felt that in future we have to be far more inventive in suggesting new uses for historic buildings.

Sheila Maxwell, Head of Programmes at the Welsh European Programme Executive discussed current European structural funding. She discussed the programmes applicable to Wales, which are supported by specific funds such as the European Regional Development Fund and social funds that are primarily to do with economic development and employment generation, not the conservation of buildings per se. Applications for historic buildings that have been successful have skewed their objectives towards tourism and job creation. £4050m has been granted involving historic structures and landscapes. The 50% grants mean that partnership funding is important. Funded projects in Wales have included Llanerchaeron, Aberglasney and the Newport Transporter Bridge.

Richard Keen, on behalf of the National Trust, described recent changes for the NT in Wales which may mean that its role in the future may have more to do with continuous assessment and asking "who has been doing what and why in Wales?". Coupled with this are the NT's changing direction and the questioning of fundamentals such as 'whose beauty is it anyway and whose historic interest?". The NT's most powerful image is that of the great historic house but that is only part of the whole picture which extends to interest in workhouses, cinemas, smaller domestic premises, etc. The declaration of inalienability of a property in perpetuity commits the NT to substantial long term maintenance costs and these are of paramount importance to the NT as it acquires more and more buildings and artefacts. Using the example of a row of buildings at Cwmdu, Mr Keen illustrated the dual importance of preservation of the fabric and maintenance of business livelihoods. Projects like this demonstrate the range of funding from WTB, NHMF, Cadw and Europe as well as appeals and legacies. Total project costs however are always difficult to assess and the word "contingencies" constantly comes to mind. The NHMF also insisted the NT acquired the chapel as the increase in value due to conservation betterment in the row generally might have been thwarted by an inappropriate private chapel conversion. He concluded by noting that, as far as the NT is concerned, the morning's theme of "Funding the Works" should probably read 'Working the Funds"!

Ian Constantinides returned to the dais to present a contractor's view of funding. His light-hearted quip "just get the money together ... give me tons of dosh .... and I'll do it for you!" was set against the numerous requests for budget estimates he gets which he later finds out are for HLF or other bids, which involve his firm and maybe 5-6 others in possibly abortive work if either the bid is unsuccessful or is put out to tender later. This increases the cost of construction generally and is a waste. He recommended getting the
person who really knows about costing the works on the team at the very start of the process. He went on to describe a recent walk across Wales using Peter Smith's book Houses of the Welsh Countryside, and noted that of the 6 houses he particularly wanted to visit only one bore any resemblance to Peter Smith's description. The role of tourism in destroying heritage is considerable and especially so in gentrified vernacular kitsch with a tourist star. He is particularly worried about the flood of money from different sources, how it is spent, and that it may be spent by people who are least qualified to do so.

The discussion period began with the subject of the economics of job creation versus the issues of conservation. The wide range of sources of funding was illustrated by the makeup of the panel itself. John Clare, historic buildings consultant, in referring to the tactics of skewing applications, used the example of the TSR2 that tried to be all things to all men and singularly failed to meet its prime objective. He argued for early frank consultations between funders and applicants.

Jennifer Stewart stated that postproject appraisal is one of the HLF's criteria to achieve heritage objectives and best value. She went on to suggest that operationally funders, rather than applicants, might consult to agree co~ funding issues and compatibility of timetables. One of her main tasks is to develop a strategy for Wales rather than to react to individual applications. She said there was a requirement to compile an "inventory of need" for Welsh heritage to find a way of directing and promoting specific projects.

Hilary Weir reflected that if conservation is going to get the support it deserves it needs better promotion. She noted that the recipient of the largest amount of lottery funding was local government, and that with target~ driven application forms it is difficult to quantify or measure the intangibles of historic worth or beauty.

A delegate then spoke of the development of a "funding industry", a far cry from the days of simple local authority or central government funding of local groups, through partnership funding; today, complicated forms and tortuous draw-down procedures have effectively reduced the field of applicants to public authorities or other large organisations who can afford specialist staff to chase funds. Even so, the time taken may mean losing valuable heritage assets. The current grant system does not respond to real need and in reality could be viewed as one government agency passing public money to another. The very complexity of the application process was addressed by another delegate in suggesting that, if it is agreed there is a particular heritage deficit, rather than go around each and every funder, individual funding bodies should 100% fund a project, thereby saving valuable time and money. Will any funding body have the nerve to take that sort of leadership?

Trefor Thorpe suggested that the funders should talk to each other to arrange group funding and help voluntary groups especially. lan Constantinides suggested that all the funders should just give the money to Cadw to disburse. Richard Dean noted that more and more of his time was taken up with making applications and facilitating projects, whereas he would much prefer others to direct priorities and channel funding enabling him to work more on conservation itself. He wondered whether "he who shouts loudesC necessarily bodes well for the heritage.

Judi Loach wondered whether 'what the tourist expects" leads to blandness, whether "cobbling together funding packages" tends towards compromise, as can "jobs-led" solutions. She also raised the need to preserve historic lidos and swimming pools. Trefor Thorpe stressed that projects should be sustainable so that the initial capital input is not wasted. Bob Kindred argued for conservation to be pushed further up the political agenda and to counter the currently fragmented approach to funding. Hilary Weir added that historic buildings should be returned into the commercial marketplace, where appropriate, and not regenerated into pseudo-historical centres having a limited life. She also felt that we should go for high profile issues and means of communication wherever possible since most people, according to a recent poll, value finding out about science and local history very highly. The AHF is to be a collaborator on the "BBC Knowledge" Internet channel. The final contribution of the day came from a delegate who pleaded for simpler application forms, more fun, less frustration, and more actual conservation to be done as a result. Hear hear!