2010 Yearbook

42 Y e a r b o o k 2 0 1 0 Looking for a solution Cranmer’s Tower is listed Grade I, so decisions had to be made by consensus of all parties concerned for the future wellbeing of the structure. The palace architect who oversaw the works, the contractor and the consultant structural engineer met with the local authority conservation officer and English Heritage’s engineer and historic areas advisor on site. Lively debate ensued concerning the merits of different approaches to repair, bearing in mind the need to do what was right for the building, the time constraints available, the cost of the works and the likely delays caused by the need for any additional listed building consent required. The significance of the parapet, constructed during Blore’s time, was considerable, and as alterations would affect the historical evidence, there was good reason to leave as much of this as intact as possible. However, reconstructing only those parts that were worst affected could lead to problems occurring in the future at the interface, as new work constructed in lime mortar was to be tied into the existing cementitious masonry. Furthermore, it seemed clear that the problems currently affecting the parapet would also appear in the remaining sections, and all would need to be replaced eventually. As a large part of the cost of the project involved the access scaffold, it seemed prudent to maximise the works while it was in place. The choice of brick for the reconstruction work posed further questions. If the decision was made to dismantle the parapet in its entirety, should the opportunity be taken to make the new work match the original Tudor work or the Victorian work? The latter had, after all, been seen for over 150 years by passers-by. If, on the other hand, the remaining 30 per cent of the parapets was retained, the choice of brick became even more complex. Options included using: • reclaimed bricks to supplement the salvaged stock bricks from the dismantled work to rebuild the remainder • new stock bricks to match Blore’s brickwork • new handmade bricks to match the Tudor brick sizes of the main elevations • new handmade red bricks to match the colour and texture of the original, but using a brick size that would allow gauging and bonding to the Victorian work. In addition to the philosophical issues, practicalities to be considered included: • were the existing bricks salvageable • could sufficient numbers of bricks in the Tudor size range be procured in time • would it be acceptable to use bricks matching the Tudor work in colour and texture, but not in size, as these would be to modern brick gauges? Decisions had to be made by the consultant team in good time so as not to cause delays to the project and ultimately additional cost, and, as so often happens, a compromise was reached. Unfortunately, it was found that the existing bricks were not salvageable in significant numbers due to the bonding arrangement and use of hard cement mortar during construction, and it was impossible to obtain any more bricks in the time available. An allowance had been made for new bricks for works to the main façade, but these stocks had been used up, and the manufacturer’s lead time for production was too long. The only option would be to investigate an alternative brick source. A suitable handmade match was found for the colour and texture of the original bricks, available in sufficient quantities in sizes to match the Victorian construction, so the proposal was made to dismantle and rebuild the entire parapet, leaving just the base of the chimneys intact on two elevations. The result would be subtly different from the original brickwork below, but this in itself reflected the history of the building. The representatives of English Heritage and the local authority agreed to support this as a practical compromise. A meeting of minds The age old debate concerning ‘conservation’ versus ‘restoration’ have obvious implications for decisions made on projects like Cranmer’s Tower. Restoration is generally seen as an inappropriate response to a problem, while conservation is seen as the panacea. In practice, solutions often lie somewhere between the two. While it is always essential to strive for a conservation approach – indeed it is what our institution, the IHBC, is all about – it is also important not to lose sight of what is practical and necessary for the good of the building we are trying to save or repair. Wrestling with all these problems faced during the progress of the work on site, and coming to an informed decision relatively quickly, to allow the works to continue unabated, can sometimes be hampered by inflexible legislation, lack of experience and the time it takes to get a decision or permission to carry out the work. More often than not this is further hampered by the lack of resources given to the statutory bodies overseeing the work which can often mean weeks before a further site visit can be arranged. Thankfully, The Cranmer’s Tower project completed without too many significant problems in this respect. Nevertheless, minor delays were encountered which ultimately led to a prolonged contract. John Hoath BSc MSc IHBC studied the conservation of historic buildings at the University of Bath (MSc) and is a member of the IHBC. He has worked for many years as project manager, consultant and practitioner on heritage projects, and recently set up Athena Conservation to carry out consultancy and conservation services on all aspects of conservation work in London, the Home Counties and the eastern region. For more information see www.athenacdm.co.uk . The parapet wall during investigative work. Reconstructed using cementitious mortar in the Victorian period, much of it was now unstable.