Letter: The NT Plan for Clandon Is Surely A Good Compromise

Published on: 10 Dec, 2017
Updated on: 10 Dec, 2017

From Carolyn Mayne

In response to: Clandon Park – Earl Unhappy With Winning Restoration Design Concept

The Earl of Onslow passed responsibility for Clandon House to The National Trust in 1956, when the family could not afford to carry out essential roof repairs. This was some years before the current earl was born.

The costs of repairs/renovation will be funded by the insurance claim – the insurance company will presumably not pay out unless the National Trust carries out such work. The NT has an obligation to run its properties in a commercial manner, by attracting paying visitors to the house, garden, shop and restaurant. How many visitors will come to look at a ruin? Perhaps they would if it were in extensive grounds and gardens, but the Onslows kept all but a small area of their estates so the NT has very limited land for this sort of attraction.

I understand that the shell of the building is to remain. Much furniture and other contents were lost in the fire, so it can never be the same as it was. Restoring part of the house to its former glory, accommodating the furniture and pictures saved from the fire, is surely a good compromise. The rest of the building can be used for education, changing exhibitions, and other visitor amenities.

I would welcome a restaurant with wonderful views – the old restaurant in the basement was very noisy and closed-in.

I am sure we all regret the terrible fire, but surely this is an opportunity for a dynamic imaginative solution.

Responses to Letter: The NT Plan for Clandon Is Surely A Good Compromise

John Perkins Reply

December 10, 2017 at 6:30 pm

This correspondent and an earlier one supporting the scheme miss the point – nobody actually wants a ruin. Rather it’s simply that it’s not easy to see much soul in the new NT scheme. It looks like just another concrete and glass case from which to view the old bricks while sipping tea.
Martin Elliott Reply

December 12, 2017 at 5:15 pm

“The costs of repairs/renovation will be funded by the insurance claim”. Interesting, especially with recent serious incidents. Insurance usually requires adequate fire precautions to be in place.

Fires are often a series of events any one of which can prevent/stop fire spread. The report by Surrey Fire and Rescue ( https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/surrey-fire-and-rescue/surrey-fire-and-rescue-services-fire-investigation-report-clandon-park ) clearly identified three things:
1) Repeated tripping of electrical equipment
2) Overheating fuse box
3) Lack of firestop in electrical ducting.

Some of these were identified in a fire audit report but had not been rectified. These parallel other earlier serious fires in National Trust properties. NT has claimed all outstanding fire audit deficiencies at their properties have been rectified. Sounds like an admission that such deficient fire protection was endemic and cultural. Given that both loss adjustors and those who had loaned artefacts (for safe keeping) will be very interesting.

As a public NGO (non-governmental organisation) NT is thought to be run to best quality standards, but it seems perhaps they don’t pay as much attention to the boring details as they should.

A spokesperson for NT responded: “The National Trust’s insurers confirmed that the trust was covered for the fire and is working with us to rebuild Clandon Park. The Surrey Fire and Rescue Service’s subsequent investigation report identified the cause and spread of the fire and no action was taken by the service further to that report.”