John Preston discusses some conservation issues.
Cambridge has some good Modern Movement houses of the 1930s, notably a group in Conduit Head Road which includes three 'white' houses (white House of 1930, and Willow House originally Thurso - of 1932, both by George Checkley, and Hugh Hughes's Salix of 1934), and M J Blanco White S weatherboarded Shawms (1938). Willow House and Shawms are both listed grade II*, the others are grade 11. Other listed Modern Movement houses in~ clude D Cosens' 9 Wilberforce Road of 1937, and Marshall. Sisson's 31 Madingley Road of 1932 and 26 Millington Road of 1934 (all grade 11). These houses have all been listed since 1992. In 1976, the Council had prepared a list of 45 "architecturally important unlisted buildings" (both turn of the century and interwar) which was submitted to the DoE for spot-listing; the Doll rejected the submission on the grounds that the Statutory List for Cambridge had been produced only recently "and was complete".
by George Checkley
The Conduit Head Road buildings were set in a rural landscape, with a 'wilderness' to the west of the three white houses in large gardens. This setting, and in particular that of the Checkley houses, has been threatened by a series of development proposals. Conduit Head Road was designated a conserva~ tion area in 1984. The site history and outcomes (including a series of appeal decisions) reflect changing attitudes to Modern Movement buildings, and the sometimes tenuous threads by which they (and their settings) may survive, as well as some important current issues.
White House saved, but its setting lost
In 1972, the Council granted permission for a block of flats, replacing Checkley's 'White House' of 1930 (Cambridge's first Modern Movement building). The White House's survival is thanks to Nicholas Hellawell, the City Council's then Conservation Officer, who persuaded the developers to retain the house and build in the garden; however the new building cuts White House off from Conduit Head Road and from any meaningful relationship with its contemporary neighbours. He did not manage to get them to provide a building in keeping with the house - a failure magnified by a 1988 appeal decision allowing a pitched roof with two extra flats. He also tried without success to get a new 15 house development (Bradrushe Fields) on the east side of Conduit Head Road to respond to the character of Conduit Head Road's landscape and buildings.
The setting of Checkley's other house, Willow House, had been threatened in 1981, by outline applications for two houses in the garden to the west, and a single house on the tennis court to the south east. The Council granted permission for the houses to the west; this permission was renewed in 1984 and 1987. The application for the house to the east was refused, but allowed on appeal And renewed in 1985 and 1988. The designation of the conservation area did not affect the planning decisions until the next renewal applications. The application for the houses to the west was refused, on the grounds of impact on the conservation area and the 'wilderness' site of nature conservation interest in the western part of the garden. In preparing its case for the subsequent appeal, the Council reconsidered the status of Willow House in the light of the recently-introduced '30 year rule', and served a Building Preservation Notice in 1992. The appeal inspector took strong account of the character of the building and its protected status (although only temporary and subject to confirmation) under the BPN; when he visited the site he asked why the nearby Salix and White House were not also listed. The appeal (Q0505/A/91/ 184260) was dismissed, as was the appellants' claim for costs. Not long afterwards, Willow House was listed W, because of the quality of its interior, and Salix and White House were listed grade II.
Setting saved
In the meantime, the outline permission for the single house on the tennis court had been renewed again, and in 1994 a new application for a single dwelling to the west (avoiding impact on the site of nature conservation interest) was submitted. This was refused and dismissed on appeal in 1995. This appeal decision (T/APP/Q0505/A/94/24257//P7) placed the emphasis firmly on protecting the setting of Willow House:
"...Willow House, which is listed grade II", was designed to have a spacious setting to set off its uncompromising modern design. Its principal rooms and windows face south .... but it seems to me that the continuum of garden space belonging to it needs to include the unobstructed extension to the west as part of its setting. As it is, the setting will be compromised to some extent by the erection of the approved house to the cast, but this makes the western area of the garden even more important to the setting of Willow House .... The erection of the proposed single storey house would, in my view, seriously impair the setting of Willow House. Although the present scheme is reduced in number from the previous proposal which was dismissed on appeal 1 it would still by implication, if not by any boundary marking, occupy the garden space forming part of the appeal site, and would effectively undermine the relationship of Willow House to the wilderness; the listed house would thus be cramped in its setting.."
Problems with an outline approval
The Council had fought off the pressure to develop on the garden to the west of Willow House, which is a vital part of its setting and the conservation area, but we were still faced with the prospect of a new building on the very small but prominent tennis court site immediately to the east. The sketch details provided with the renewals had not been inspiring in their design approach, and the reserved matters submitted (and approved) in 1994 highlighted the difficulty of accommodating any new bu ilding satisfactorily on the site: a classic case of the danger of an outline 'red line' approval on a sensitive site!
from the west
The detailed scheme had been prepared on behalf of the vendor of the plot. The purchaser prepared sketches of her own, then engaged her own architect. This gave a new opportunity to try to get a building of genuine quality and presence to meet the chal- lenges of the site and its context. With our encouragement, Ralph Carpenter of Modece Architects produced a design of great simplicity and clarity, with a prin- cipal living volume, and lower bedroom (projecting forward down the garden) and garage wings alongside to the west. The main feature of the building was a spectacular and carefully considered picture window facing south. The client wanted a house of 1930s Modem Movement character; some consultees argued in favour of a truly contemporary approach, but this site was so small and so close to Willow House that any contrast of architectural idiom would have made the new building even more intrusive. 1 felt that that the approved scheme was as good as we could have hoped to achieve, given that the site was too small for any truly satisfactory development.
Much to my regret, the client and her architect parted company, and 1 found myself dealing with a designer/builder producing a series of amended plans. instead of the detailed development of a strong design concept, we were faced with a progressive dilution of key elements - for example the subdivisions of the picture window (the boldest feature of the design). Perhaps most damaging to the clarity and quality of the building was the client's decision to change her bedroom layout. This led to the bedroom wing wrapping round the front of the living area which upset the approved scheme's clear expression of separate volumes, and 'framing' of the picture window by white wall. With the architect no longer on the scene to argue for his concept (or adapt it to meet the new requirements without losing quality), there was little hope of persuading the client to keep strictly to the approved design, or find ways of adapting it within the key parameters of the original design approach. We requested a new application, but saw no realistic way of resisting what could be considered as apparently minor changes (imagine fighting the appeal!). The cumulative effect was a significant loss of quality on a site where it is vital.
One mitigating factor was the agreement by the vendor and the purchaser not to provide any physical separation between the properties. The Willow House garden flows round, with only low planting dividing the private areas; the resulting flow of space makes a great difference on a very cramped site, and helps to maintain a sense of the original curtilage with the new building appearing as ancillary within it. However the owner of De StijI died recently, and a new occupant may want to define the curtilage more positively so eroding another of the special measures taken to try to assimilate the new building.
Salix- refurbishment and alteration
The third of the original 'white' houses, Hugh Hughes' Salix of 1934, has been refurbished and altered with listed building consent. The refurbishment was featured in the Sunday Telegraph's Property section (7/4/1996). The article highlighted the removal of some internal walls, to provide an open-plan cooking and eating area in place of the previously poky kitchen, which had been designed for use by live-in staff and not the owners themselves. Michael Walton, the architect was quoted "The aim of listing is not to fossilise buildings. In this case the Conservation Officer accepted that needs had changed and was happy that we were extending the life of the house".
Willow House -repairs and other issues
Willow House itself has undergone major repairs. An unsuccessful application was made for English Heritage grant aid towards repairs to the roofs, render and windows, and treatment of rising damp. English Heritage took the view that the market value of the building in a repaired condition would considerably
exceed the cost of repairs required, and that therefore there was no justification for offering a grant; however the owner did not want to sell the property. The Council has since helped with the cost of roof repairs and other works. When the owner's new architect, John Winter, looked at the windows, he found that the original small lead sills had been replaced, and that the replacements had broken because of thermal movement. The Crittall windows themselves were largely beyond economic repair, in the specialists 'opinion. Listed building consent was granted for the replacement of the windows with new doubleglazed Crittall windows closely match~ ing the original frame sections, apart from one original in a protected location below the balcony, which has been retained. Willow House is let, and one of the problems has been trying to get tenants to understand the special character of the building. An inappropriate door has been inserted (now removed) but intrusive external cabling remains a problem.