One from the archive.... Restoration Controversies

Restoring England’s Heritage – Transmitted on BBC 1 5/12/13

I know, I know another television driven blog piece, but again it was one I saw and thought raised a number of issues interesting issues regarding public history and the preservation of heritage.

Presented by Gyles Brandreth, this one off episode was a follow up piece marking the 10 year anniversary of the BBC’s Restoration series (2004) which saw the British public vote as to which heritage sites from across the country they wanted to see saved from ruin and receive grants from HLF. I vaguely remember the series but can’t claim to have watched it. But what a novel idea? Using a television series on BBC 2 to highlight the plight of British heritage on a regional basis and encourage the public to rally to its protection. I can’t help but feel that the concept had great potential and it would certainly be something that would have caught my attention as a television viewer. However, having done a bit of further research around the piece it would appear that very little was actually achieved as a result of the series, those that were awarded funding struggling to overcome bureaucratic obstacles and other things that prevented restoration efforts. 

That said, in revisiting the legacy of the series this short episode once again drew attention to the question of preservation and raised some interesting questions about its place in modern society. Evidently, this episode was one of a number made but in keeping with the regional focus of the original series, each focused on a specific region and was only aired in that particular area. The one I watched therefore focused on London. At the opening Gyles made the strong assertion that amongst London’s construction boom a great deal of heritage is being left to crumble away. Given that we Brits are a nation of history lovers,who often seek out period features in our homes, I was quite taken aback by this remark at first, but then when you think about it, this hankering for nostalgia has left us with so many properties now in need of preservation, that some are going to fall by the wayside; especially when you consider the economic climate and budget restraints facing local authorities. Right from the beginning a number of the debates surrounding preservation therefore became clear.  

Sandy Coombe
http://www.turnerintwickenham.org.uk/the-restoration-project/

These debates were then put into context through the discussion of several examples which illustrate restoration, redevelopment and non-action. The case for restoration was put forward by the example of Sandy Coombe, Turner’s country retreat, which has been fighting a long battle for preservation. The most recent turn of events has seen HLF grant the Trustees of Turner’s House a small development fund in order to start a campaign for the £2 million need for complete restoration. In this case a voluntary group has been essential to its survival, for without their campaigning it could easily have been bought by a property developer and all connection to Turner lost. That said however, can we afford to cling to every property that has ties to famous British individuals? A line has to be drawn somewhere and perhaps that is why causes such as this never reach the national level but remain local causes. If the nation was littered with blue plaques and houses preserved in memory of former owners, would those we have continue to have any value or meaning?

Battersea Power Station
http://www.industri.uk.com/battersea/filming.html

The more controversial example of Battersea Power Station was used to argue the debate between preservation and redevelopment. The plans for the redevelopment of this site were much contested and remain to be, for the power station chimneys are an infamous part of London’s skyline and conservationists don’t want to see those lost. Developers concluded that the originals couldn’t be preserved and would have to be replaced with replicas and this continues to be a contentious issue. Developers have had to work closely with English Heritage who were responsible from approving development plans and who continue to work closely with developers throughout construction but questions around the nature of redevelopment and whether this is the right course of action still exist. As a whole the power station may be staying and brought into the twenty-first century but at what cost? Are preservation and redevelopment compatible to any degree? Will Battersea provide evidence for this? I wonder.

Broomfield House

www.broomfieldhouse.org/files/BroomfieldHouse_Scaffolding2

The final example shown is that of Broomfield House in Palmers Green. The original assessors from 10 years ago revisited the site in the hope that some sort of redevelopment had taken place and having heard of its importance, as a viewer you will that to be the case - but sadly it isn’t and we’re greeted by, for want of a better word, a ruin. It has been left untouched for the last 10 years and continues to decay, despite the continued efforts of the Broomfield House Trust to secure HLF funding. It’s a rather subdued note to end on, but is this to be the fate of other heritage sites? If someone had taken a wrecking ball and placed a plaque in its memory it might not have been so saddening, but there is something about seeing this once glorious building in such a dilapidated state upon the landscape, that gives off quite a poignant message.

Sadly we can’t save every piece of heritage, but who makes the choice as to what we do save? Restoration attempted to put these decisions in the hands of the public, but from what I gather little changed and I just wonder who will be making these decisions in the future, or in fact, whether there will be these decisions to make. At present it appears to be local enthusiasts campaigning for funding for sites with local meaning, but what if that ends. Who will champion the cause then? And will heritage always have a place in the hearts of the British public?