Save our Clandon
.
National Trust's Plans for Clandon Park
The National Trust’s planning application for work on Clandon Park House
Clandon Park cannot remain a charred ruin
After the fire of 2015, the National Trust said, ‘With the help of artists and craftspeople of today, there is certainly enough of the wonderful historic sculpture to reconstruct these beautiful, ornate ceilings so that we’ll be able to warmly welcome visitors back to Clandon Park.’
The right thing to do remains to return the magnificent state rooms to their former glory. Britain’s most skilled craftsmen and women are ready to take on this prestigious and ambitious project and to employ apprentices so that their expertise can be handed on to the next generation.
Now the people in charge of National Trust has lost confidence in itself as the great cultural institution which looks after the best of our architectural heritage. They have submitted a planning application to keep the interior of this important baroque house as a ruin with broken plasterwork and fire-blackened bricks. Unsympathetic modern walkways will slice through the spaces created by Giacomo Leoni while a blocky kiosk and lift shaft will tower over the chimneys.
After the fire of 2015, the National Trust said, ‘With the help of artists and craftspeople of today, there is certainly enough of the wonderful historic sculpture to reconstruct these beautiful, ornate ceilings so that we’ll be able to warmly welcome visitors back to Clandon Park.’
The right thing to do remains to return the magnificent state rooms to their former glory. Britain’s most skilled craftsmen and women are ready to take on this prestigious and ambitious project and to employ apprentices so that their expertise can be handed on to the next generation.
Now the people in charge of National Trust has lost confidence in itself as the great cultural institution which looks after the best of our architectural heritage. They have submitted a planning application to keep the interior of this important baroque house as a ruin with broken plasterwork and fire-blackened bricks. Unsympathetic modern walkways will slice through the spaces created by Giacomo Leoni while a blocky kiosk and lift shaft will tower over the chimneys.
This damaging scheme makes no sense and it must be stopped.
The National Trust claims that the bare brick walls are ‘fascinating, but the house was conceived around its magnificent stucco interiors. Without them, the building has lost its purpose.
The National Trust claims that a reconstruction of the Marble Hall and other state rooms would amount to ‘plastic pastiche’. This shows crass ignorance of the superb work being done by conservation practitioners at the top of their game. A team of freehand plaster modellers did a magnificent job of recreating the ceilings at Uppark after the fire of 1987, some with virtually no original material.
In refusing to reconstruct the interiors and introduce new materials, the National Trust is clinging to an outdated approach which was formulated for very different circumstances. All over Europe and Asia damaged buildings are triumphantly coming back to life. Notre Dame cathedral in Paris is only the latest example. The cathedral is opening its doors again after five years of restoration following a devastating fire.
General points:
The fire of 2015 caused substantial harm to the building, and the decision not to restore the interior of the building does nothing to reverse this harm and even makes it worse. The harm done by the proposed development is not necessary to achieve public benefits such as maintaining the building as a visitor attraction. There is no benefit to the proposal which outweighs the harm done to the house. If the important interiors were faithfully restored in an authentic style using authentic materials and the original roof reinstated, this would bring the house back into use and secure its future as a visitor attraction.
The fire of 2015 caused substantial harm to the building, and the decision not to restore the interior of the building does nothing to reverse this harm and even makes it worse. The harm done by the proposed development is not necessary to achieve public benefits such as maintaining the building as a visitor attraction. There is no benefit to the proposal which outweighs the harm done to the house. If the important interiors were faithfully restored in an authentic style using authentic materials and the original roof reinstated, this would bring the house back into use and secure its future as a visitor attraction.
The proposal is to keep the building as a managed ruin. As such, its long-term viability is in doubt. The prospect of repeat visits to observe smoke blackened walls and plaster is low and unlikely to result in large numbers over an extended period. There isn’t room for the kind of spectacular garden that draws crowds to the ruins of Witley Court in Worcestershire or Powerscourt near Dublin, and the novelty of a fire damaged interior will quickly wear off.
The proposal is to draw visitors with flexible public floor-space for collections, displays, exhibitions, performance, social events such as parties and dining, workshops and meetings, as well as non-historic views from the rooftop of the building. This plan put commercial activity before the conservation of the historic building and is not consistent with the National Trust’s charitable purpose to promote the permanent preservation for the benefit of the Nation buildings of beauty and historic interest.
The new walkways, staircases, lift and treatment of door openings are intrusive elements of unsuitable modern design which erode historic character, legibility of plan form and diminish The building’s architectural and artistic interest was of more than national importance, and this importance is diminished by these additions.
The National Trust has rejected the possibility of restoring the interiors of the building, claiming that reinstating the original interiors is so difficult as to be impossible and not worth attempting. This is not so. There are many plaster fragments which can provide models for accurate new plasterwork in an authentic style. The interiors of the house, including plasterwork, have also been meticulously recorded in photographs, which means that any guesswork involved in a reconstruction will be negligible. Expert plasterers and stucco artists have said that they can create high-quality reconstructions and use the project as an opportunity to train apprentices. There are any outstanding examples of authentic restoration elsewhere in Britain and many parts of Europe and Asia. In the aftermath of the fire the National Trust’s stated position was that restoration of the state rooms was both possible and desirable. Since then they have presented no evidence to the contrary.
Some specific points:
The artworks and artefacts which are to be displayed inside the building require a carefully controlled environment, and the cavernous burnt-out space is not suitable for this. New partitions and intrusive display cases will inevitably be necessary for displays within the building. This will damage the character of the interior.
The artworks and artefacts which are to be displayed inside the building require a carefully controlled environment, and the cavernous burnt-out space is not suitable for this. New partitions and intrusive display cases will inevitably be necessary for displays within the building. This will damage the character of the interior.
The proposed roof terrace, metal railings, roof access pavilions and lift overrun will do irreparable harm to the building’s skyline and silhouette, causing significant harm to the building’s special architectural interest. These additions will also intrude on views of the listed building from all sides both from nearby and at a distance. The clutter of new structures on the roof will disrupt the roofline and this will change the views of the house from locations in the grounds such as the Grotto to the south, Maori Meeting House and Ionic Temple for the worse.
The building will be heated by a bank of air source heat pumps placed in the garden on the north side. These will produce considerable noise, which will ruin the tranquility of their setting on the main public approach to the building. The extractor fans in the basement will add to the noise. (The ‘Noise Assessment’ in the application identifies a ‘Major Impact / Significant Observed Adverse Effect’.) The enclosure in which the heat pumps are to be placed will also be intrusive and detract from the appearance of that side of the building.
The noise from the pumps and fans will also ruin the tranquility of the grade II Registered Park and Garden and West Clandon Conservation Area.
The noise from the pumps and fans will also ruin the tranquility of the grade II Registered Park and Garden and West Clandon Conservation Area.
How to object
You have until 20th December
to submit your objection. Note that there are two planning applications for the same works, so plase be sure to submit two objections. You can submit the same objections to both applications. In order to make an objection, you have to register on the planning pages of Council website (https://publicaccess.guildford.gov.uk/online-applications/registrationWizard.do?action=start)
and log in. Then go to ‘Comment on a Planning Proposal’, write and submit, quoting reference 24/P/01681 for Planning Permission and 24/P/01682 for Listed Building Consent.
You will find the applications here
https://publicaccess.guildford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_GUILD_DCAPR_208882&activeTab=summary
and here
https://publicaccess.guildford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_GUILD_DCAPR_208883&activeTab=summary
It is important to object to both applications, and you can submit the same objections to both. Be sure to say what you have to say in your own words
and not to cut and paste. Planning authorities are sensitive to mass-produced objections and will ignore them. However, do feel free to quote from the planning application. Note will be taken of the number of objections made, as well as to their content, so please encourage friends and family who have concerns about the proposals to write in, and send your objections individually, not as a couple.
Background
Clandon Park House, acquired by the National Trust in 1956, is one of Britain’s most important historic buildings, listed Grade 1. Its plain exterior gave little indication of its remarkable interiors and it is these, particularly the ground floor rooms, which gave it its importance. The decorative plasterwork was among the finest in Britain of the early Georgian period. In the Marble Hall, the plaster decoration is complemented by a pair of outstanding chimneypieces with figured overmantels, carved in relief, creating an ensemble of European importance. In 2015 a fire gutted most of the interiors. The Hall chimneypieces, remarkably, survived but most of the plasterwork was destroyed, with the exception of the Speaker’s Parlour which remained largely intact. After eight years of indecision, the National Trust now proposes to conserve the outer walls of the house, which were relatively unaffected by the fire, and to consolidate the interiors in in their fire-damaged state, installing timber walkways for visitor access to the upper floors and a new roof with a viewing platform. Very little restoration is proposed. In particular, it is not proposed to restore any of the lost plasterwork, with the exception of the few fire-damaged sections of the Speaker’s Parlour. The ceilings which collapsed as a result of the fire are not to be reinstated.
Clandon Park House, acquired by the National Trust in 1956, is one of Britain’s most important historic buildings, listed Grade 1. Its plain exterior gave little indication of its remarkable interiors and it is these, particularly the ground floor rooms, which gave it its importance. The decorative plasterwork was among the finest in Britain of the early Georgian period. In the Marble Hall, the plaster decoration is complemented by a pair of outstanding chimneypieces with figured overmantels, carved in relief, creating an ensemble of European importance. In 2015 a fire gutted most of the interiors. The Hall chimneypieces, remarkably, survived but most of the plasterwork was destroyed, with the exception of the Speaker’s Parlour which remained largely intact. After eight years of indecision, the National Trust now proposes to conserve the outer walls of the house, which were relatively unaffected by the fire, and to consolidate the interiors in in their fire-damaged state, installing timber walkways for visitor access to the upper floors and a new roof with a viewing platform. Very little restoration is proposed. In particular, it is not proposed to restore any of the lost plasterwork, with the exception of the few fire-damaged sections of the Speaker’s Parlour. The ceilings which collapsed as a result of the fire are not to be reinstated.
Content of the applications
Although two applications have been submitted to the planning authority, Guildford Borough Council, they are essentially the same, and the same objections should be raised to both. The first is for Planning Consent for the external alterations to the house, including the new roof, and the second is for Listed Building Consent for the same alterations.
You will find the applications here
https://publicaccess.guildford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_GUILD_DCAPR_208882&activeTab=summary
and here
https://publicaccess.guildford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_GUILD_DCAPR_208883&activeTab=summary
Although the applications relate ostensibly to the exterior only, the National Trust’s plans for the interior are dependent on the building services and visitor arrangements which it proposes to create on the new roof. The future of its scheme for the building thus stands or falls by the Council’s acceptance of the proposed alterations and it is vital that anyone who wishes to object to the scheme takes the opportunity to do so here, otherwise it will almost certainly go ahead. Knowing this to be the case, the National Trust has devoted considerable resources to the application. It is accompanied by over 140 documents. The large quantity of this material makes it very difficult for non-specialists to digest. There are, however, documents which give the essence of the proposals, the Planning Statement and the Heritage Impact Assessment. These are quite easy to follow and anyone who wishes to make an objection is urged to read them.
Read the Planning Statement here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Rd3-qfqLGP5440I_EjF9AXq30iwE64V2?usp=drive_link Read the Heritage Impact Assessment here
Although two applications have been submitted to the planning authority, Guildford Borough Council, they are essentially the same, and the same objections should be raised to both. The first is for Planning Consent for the external alterations to the house, including the new roof, and the second is for Listed Building Consent for the same alterations.
You will find the applications here
https://publicaccess.guildford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_GUILD_DCAPR_208882&activeTab=summary
and here
https://publicaccess.guildford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_GUILD_DCAPR_208883&activeTab=summary
Although the applications relate ostensibly to the exterior only, the National Trust’s plans for the interior are dependent on the building services and visitor arrangements which it proposes to create on the new roof. The future of its scheme for the building thus stands or falls by the Council’s acceptance of the proposed alterations and it is vital that anyone who wishes to object to the scheme takes the opportunity to do so here, otherwise it will almost certainly go ahead. Knowing this to be the case, the National Trust has devoted considerable resources to the application. It is accompanied by over 140 documents. The large quantity of this material makes it very difficult for non-specialists to digest. There are, however, documents which give the essence of the proposals, the Planning Statement and the Heritage Impact Assessment. These are quite easy to follow and anyone who wishes to make an objection is urged to read them.
Read the Planning Statement here https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Rd3-qfqLGP5440I_EjF9AXq30iwE64V2?usp=drive_link Read the Heritage Impact Assessment here
Both documents seek to maximise the value of what has survived the fire and minimise the importance of what has been lost, so as to make it appear that the losses matter less than they do and restoration is not needed. Grossly exaggerated claims are made for the value of the ruined interiors which are described as being of ‘great aesthetic power’ with a ‘sublime quality’, creating ‘new, dynamic views’ within the structure.
The Heritage Impact Assessment claims that restoration is ‘not a practical possibility in most spaces’ without offering any evidence to support this assertion. One of the reasons is that the ceilings are missing or badly damaged and it is not proposed to reinstate them, as noted above. They could, in fact, be reinstated and the ceilings restored, using the numerous fragments of plasterwork which have survived and were collected together after the fire. If these are not in a condition to be re-used, they can be used as models for an authentic recreation. The Heritage Impact Statement goes so far as to say that ‘there is rarely anything to ‘restore’ in the way of decorative plaster, putting the word ‘restore’ carefully in inverted commas. This assertion misuses the word ‘restore’ which the OED defines as ‘to bring back to the original state’. In its pre-application statements the Trust has claimed that restoration is not possible, firstly because there is no accurate record of what has been lost and secondly because there is no one capable of doing the work to the required standard. Both claims are false. Before the fire, the main interiors of the house were well recorded in photography, some of them more than once, and this record, in combination with the surviving fragments, would provided a more than adequate basis for a restoration programme. A great deal of expertise has been developed in the restoration of historic plasterwork in recent years, partly as a result of knowledge gained from the National Trust’s own restoration of Uppark in Sussex after a fire in 1989, and this could be brought to bear in the present case.
Up to the time of the fire, Clandon had survived largely intact as an early Georgian great house with only minor later alterations. As now conceived it will be filled with visual intrusions in the form of the timber walkways mentioned above which will be needed to give access to the upper floors. A further intrusion will be made with modern display cases which will be used for objects which survived the fire, as illustrated on page 26 of the Planning Statement. On the roof it is proposed to create a modern leisure facility of a kind which is entirely inappropriate to a historic structure of this importance, with a viewing platform and space for a refreshment kiosk.
The question of how the surviving contents of the house will be shown is not discussed in either the Planning Statement or the Heritage Impact Assessment, although it is highly relevant to the proposals. According to the PS, about 600 objects survived the fire. These included some of the house’s greatest treasures. The hangings of the State Bed were fortunately away for conservation when the fire broke out, for example, although the bed itself was damaged. It is implied that some of the surviving objects will be put on display under the new scheme. Many will be environmentally sensitive. Stable environments in the cavernous spaces of the new building will be impossible to create, except by building display cases and controlling the environment inside them. This will be very expensive and difficult to achieve. If the historic rooms of the house were rebuilt, it would be far easier.
Much stress is laid in the application documents in the value of bare interiors as evidence of Georgian building techniques. The fire-damaged structure is indeed of interest, but what it has to tell us could as well be communicated in a series of photographic displays with text. There is no need to leave the building bare in order to show visitors what a bare building looks like. To put such an important building to such humble use shows a tragic poverty of ambition on the part of the National Trust.
A series of supporting statements by bodies who have been consulted appears on pp. 27-30 of the Planning Statement. This is designed to give the impression that the National Trust’s proposals have met with universal approval and the elected members of the Guildford planning committee have no choice but to approve them. The proposals are, in fact, highly controversial, even within the National Trust itself.
The question of cost is not discussed in either of the planning applications. This is normal planning procedure, but objectors should bear in mind that the National Trust received around £66 million from its insurers. They say that they have spent between £20 million and £25 million of this on the salvage operation and on conserving and restoring the brick exterior and that the proposal will involve spending not only the remaining £40 million-odd, but also additional funds from the charity’s reserves. Recreating the original interiors of the state rooms need not cost much more. The reinstatement of the Marble Hall ceiling, the most difficult part of the project, has been estimated at £2.4 million including all overheads. All the rooms would not need to be tackled at once and money can be raised from various sources, something that has not yet been attempted. Once the available money has been spent on unsympathetic modern additions, it will have gone forever. The money should be spent on restoring the most significant part of the house, its fine interiors, while creating training opportunities for the conservation practitioners of the future.
The Planning Statement claims that what it calls ‘the re-making of the mansion house’ will result in ‘a thought-provoking and inspiring place’. This is wishful thinking. The gutted interiors will depress rather than inspire. People will soon weary of the sight of blackened brickwork and plaster fragments and the house will come to be seen for what it actually will be, a disgrace to the Borough of Guildford and a monument to the National Trust’s incompetence and lack of will in refusing to restore the building when it had the means to do so.
The Heritage Impact Assessment claims that restoration is ‘not a practical possibility in most spaces’ without offering any evidence to support this assertion. One of the reasons is that the ceilings are missing or badly damaged and it is not proposed to reinstate them, as noted above. They could, in fact, be reinstated and the ceilings restored, using the numerous fragments of plasterwork which have survived and were collected together after the fire. If these are not in a condition to be re-used, they can be used as models for an authentic recreation. The Heritage Impact Statement goes so far as to say that ‘there is rarely anything to ‘restore’ in the way of decorative plaster, putting the word ‘restore’ carefully in inverted commas. This assertion misuses the word ‘restore’ which the OED defines as ‘to bring back to the original state’. In its pre-application statements the Trust has claimed that restoration is not possible, firstly because there is no accurate record of what has been lost and secondly because there is no one capable of doing the work to the required standard. Both claims are false. Before the fire, the main interiors of the house were well recorded in photography, some of them more than once, and this record, in combination with the surviving fragments, would provided a more than adequate basis for a restoration programme. A great deal of expertise has been developed in the restoration of historic plasterwork in recent years, partly as a result of knowledge gained from the National Trust’s own restoration of Uppark in Sussex after a fire in 1989, and this could be brought to bear in the present case.
Up to the time of the fire, Clandon had survived largely intact as an early Georgian great house with only minor later alterations. As now conceived it will be filled with visual intrusions in the form of the timber walkways mentioned above which will be needed to give access to the upper floors. A further intrusion will be made with modern display cases which will be used for objects which survived the fire, as illustrated on page 26 of the Planning Statement. On the roof it is proposed to create a modern leisure facility of a kind which is entirely inappropriate to a historic structure of this importance, with a viewing platform and space for a refreshment kiosk.
The question of how the surviving contents of the house will be shown is not discussed in either the Planning Statement or the Heritage Impact Assessment, although it is highly relevant to the proposals. According to the PS, about 600 objects survived the fire. These included some of the house’s greatest treasures. The hangings of the State Bed were fortunately away for conservation when the fire broke out, for example, although the bed itself was damaged. It is implied that some of the surviving objects will be put on display under the new scheme. Many will be environmentally sensitive. Stable environments in the cavernous spaces of the new building will be impossible to create, except by building display cases and controlling the environment inside them. This will be very expensive and difficult to achieve. If the historic rooms of the house were rebuilt, it would be far easier.
Much stress is laid in the application documents in the value of bare interiors as evidence of Georgian building techniques. The fire-damaged structure is indeed of interest, but what it has to tell us could as well be communicated in a series of photographic displays with text. There is no need to leave the building bare in order to show visitors what a bare building looks like. To put such an important building to such humble use shows a tragic poverty of ambition on the part of the National Trust.
A series of supporting statements by bodies who have been consulted appears on pp. 27-30 of the Planning Statement. This is designed to give the impression that the National Trust’s proposals have met with universal approval and the elected members of the Guildford planning committee have no choice but to approve them. The proposals are, in fact, highly controversial, even within the National Trust itself.
The question of cost is not discussed in either of the planning applications. This is normal planning procedure, but objectors should bear in mind that the National Trust received around £66 million from its insurers. They say that they have spent between £20 million and £25 million of this on the salvage operation and on conserving and restoring the brick exterior and that the proposal will involve spending not only the remaining £40 million-odd, but also additional funds from the charity’s reserves. Recreating the original interiors of the state rooms need not cost much more. The reinstatement of the Marble Hall ceiling, the most difficult part of the project, has been estimated at £2.4 million including all overheads. All the rooms would not need to be tackled at once and money can be raised from various sources, something that has not yet been attempted. Once the available money has been spent on unsympathetic modern additions, it will have gone forever. The money should be spent on restoring the most significant part of the house, its fine interiors, while creating training opportunities for the conservation practitioners of the future.
The Planning Statement claims that what it calls ‘the re-making of the mansion house’ will result in ‘a thought-provoking and inspiring place’. This is wishful thinking. The gutted interiors will depress rather than inspire. People will soon weary of the sight of blackened brickwork and plaster fragments and the house will come to be seen for what it actually will be, a disgrace to the Borough of Guildford and a monument to the National Trust’s incompetence and lack of will in refusing to restore the building when it had the means to do so.
Donate
We are raising money though a crowdfunder to be able to oppose the National Trust's damaging plans for Clandon Park.
Please help us if you can.
