Letter: How Does One Influence the Decisions on Clandon House Resoration?

Published on: 25 Jan, 2025
Updated on: 25 Jan, 2025

From Gavin Morgan

founder of the Guildford Heritage Forum

In response to: We Should Restore Clandon House

Clearly there are differences of opinion over what should be done with Clandon House.

The Marble Hall was undoubtedly a magnificent feature, arguably of national importance. Restoring it would be an incredible exercise in helping to fuel specialist crafts and allowing experts to learn more about how these houses were built.

It could be used to train new people and inspire us all. As a space, it could be a prestigious and unique venue for concerts and conferences.

The arguments in favour of restoring the hall at least seem overwhelming particularly if there is insurance money to pay for it (as some say there is).

But how does one influence the National Trust which is essentially a private organisation. And what grounds are there for Guildford Borough Council turning down the application? Planning committees make their decisions largely on planning policy.

If campaigners can answer these questions they might get the support they are looking for. Perhaps the only good news is that the hall could be restored in the future but I agree with those who feel this is a wasted opportunity and a decision most visitors will wish could have been different.

Responses to Letter: How Does One Influence the Decisions on Clandon House Resoration?

Niels Laub Reply

January 26, 2025 at 5:18 pm

According to the Development Management Policies in the adopted Local Plan, when considering work to listed buildings or the possible restoration of heritage assets, the applicant, and indeed the planners, are referred to Policy D18 which in turn refers to “Conservation Principles, Policy and Guidance” published by Historic England (2008).

This document puts a strong case for restoring heritage assets like Clandon Park where, like York Minster, Windsor Castle, Hampton Court and Uppark, which all suffered catastrophic fires:
• the heritage values of the elements that would be restored decisively outweigh the values of those that would be lost
• the work proposed is justified by compelling evidence of the evolution of the place and is executed in accordance with that evidence
• the form in which the place currently exists is not the result of an historically significant event
• the work proposed respects previous forms of the place
• the maintenance implications of the proposed restoration are considered to be sustainable.

People often complain that such restoration work will only be a pastiche of the original. But the “Conservation Principles, Policy and Guidance” document states that “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 are available”.

I hope that the members of the GBC Planning Committee take this into account when considering this application.