Fringe Box

Socialize

Twitter

Letter: Half and Half is the Solution for Clandon House

Published on: 23 Jan, 2025
Updated on: 23 Jan, 2025

By David Roberts

In response to: We Should Restore Clandon House

Restoration is expensive and can end up as a Disneyfied pastiche. I am not totally convinced about St George’s Chapel, Windsor.

Conservation, on the other hand, is often just a cheapskate cop-out. Apart from a few specialists, who wants to visit a burnt-out ruin?

There’s never going to be a single answer to this dilemma, so why not use Clandon to expose, explain and highlight it for the public? Restore half and conserve half of however much of the house is affordable, so they can see the contrast. The theatricality and symmetrical structure of the house is crying out for a half-half display.

In this way, Clandon could be nationally unique: the country’s most exciting embodiment of an issue facing all art. It would really get people thinking.

Share This Post

Responses to Letter: Half and Half is the Solution for Clandon House

  1. George Potter Reply

    January 27, 2025 at 10:30 am

    Funnily enough, that is exactly what the National Trust is proposing and is seeking planning permission for. Restoring what was merely damaged, displaying what was rescued, and conserving the remaining ruins.

    George Potter is a Lib Dem borough councillor for Burpham.

  2. Niels Laub Reply

    January 27, 2025 at 1:47 pm

    As usual Cllr Potter is being a little economical with the truth. Following the devastating fire at Clandon Park in 2015, the National Trust’s initial decision was that the ground floor interiors at Clandon, which constituted the house’s chief significance, would be restored, with a degree of flexibility in the treatment of other, lesser spaces on the upper floors.

    This decision was later overturned in 2022 when the philosophy of restoration was dropped in favour of a hard-line application of “conserve as found” principles to conserve the house as a ruin which is reflected in the current planning application 24/P/01681 & 82.

    • George Potter Reply

      January 28, 2025 at 6:32 pm

      It is a shame that Mr Laub is choosing to misrepresent the National Trust’s plans (though he is far from alone in this), especially given that they can easily be viewed on the National Trust’s website in a slightly more readable form than the planning application:

      https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/surrey/clandon-park/clandon-park-at-a-glance

      If one bothers to read the planning documents in full, rather than reacting in outrage over the philosophical approaches, one will see that the National Trust’s plans include:

      – repairing and restoring the historic windows and external doors
      – restoring the Speakers’ Parlour ceiling and panelling which survived the fire
      – conserving, returning and redisplaying Clandon’s surviving collections

      So, as I have said above, where rooms have survived the fire mostly intact they are being restored. Where they have not survived they are being conserved. The various contents of the house which survived the fire (the bulk of the collection) are similarly being conserved and will be displayed inside the house.

      George Potter is a Lib Dem borough councillor for Burpham

  3. Martin Elliott Reply

    January 27, 2025 at 9:20 pm

    Perhaps a more honest categorisation could be used.

    Conservation – Stabalisation of existing material
    Restoration – Stabaliisation of existing material, repair with same or modern materials.
    Replica – Use original material present and add material as necessary to simulate the complete original item.

    I imagine most of any work at Clandon would be well beyond Restoration to be Replica of the original of little historical value.

  4. Niels Laub Reply

    January 28, 2025 at 2:14 pm

    Please can I refer Mr Elliott to what Historic England has to say about restoration and “pastiche” in their report “Conservation Principles, Management and Guidance” which is the document which should be referred to according to the Development Management Policies in our adopted Local Plan. The last paragraph is of particular relevance.

    “Restoration

    “Restoration to a significant place should normally be acceptable if:
    a. the heritage values of the elements that would be restored decisively outweigh the values of those that would be lost.
    b. the work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of the place and is executed in accordance with that evidence.
    c. the form in which the place currently exists is not the result of an historically significant event.
    d. the work proposed respects previous forms of the place.
    e. the maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be sustainable.”

    The concept of authenticity (paragraph 91) demands that proposals for restoration always require particularly careful justification.

    Reinstating damaged elements of work directly created by the hand of an artist normally runs counter to the idea of authenticity and integrity. However, the reinstatement of damaged architectural or landscape features in accordance with an historic design evidenced by the fabric of a place may not do so, if the design itself was the artistic creation, intended to be constructed by others, and the necessary materials and skills.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *