Safeguarding the United Kingdom’s historic buildings and monuments:

should we continue to favour conservation over restoration?

1

J a m e s A l a n R o b e r t G r a y

B S c ( H o n s ) A r c h i t e c t u r e

S c h o o l o f A r c h i t e c t u r e

U n i v e r s i t y o f t h e W e s t o f E n g l a n d

J a n u a r y , 2 0 1 5

5 1 4 2 W o r d s

Figure 1: Photograph of Clifton Rocks Railway prior to its

termination (Source: Unknown, cir 1900’s)

This study was completed as part of the BSc (Hons) Architecture at the University

of the West of England. The work is my own. Where the work of others is used or

drawn on, it is attributed to the relevant source.

James Alan Robert Gray

This dissertation is protected by copyright. Do not copy any part of it for

any purpose other than personal academic study without the permission

of the author.

A B S T R A C T

Safeguarding the United Kingdom’s historic buildings and monuments: should we continue to favour

conservation over restoration?

James Gray

School of Architecture

Dissertation prepared for the degree of:

BSc (Hons) Architecture

University of the West of England

Engrained within our buildings are rich historical and cultural values, providing a glimpse into the past as society moves

forward into the future; the importance of research into conservation and restoration is essential for ensuring our built

heritage is not lost. Clifton Rock’s Railway is a defunct funicular railway constructed inside the cliffs of the Avon Gorge

Clifton Rocks. Currently in a state of disrepair, Clifton Rocks Railway now presents the following question to society: should

it be conserved in its wartime form or restored to a working funicular railway? Using case study research, this dissertation

uses the railway as test bed, to understand the wider effects and issues that relate to conservation and restoration. This

research concludes that the myriad of intangible factors that influence the decision to employ either a conservation or a

restoration approach makes it too difficult to answer definitively. What has gained prevalence is the Concept of ‘adaptive

reuse’, which is rooted in conservation thinking.

January, 2016

I wish to thank the following:

David Hardwick – For passing on the conservation bug

Jonathan Bassindale – For picking up the reins, and getting to the point

Bruce Tyldesley – For sharing his in depth knowledge of Clifton Rocks Railway

The members of the Clifton Rocks Railway Trust

C O N T E N T S

Figure 2: Photograph of entrance stairs down to

Clifton Rocks Railway (Source: ©Tony Carter, 2013)

1. INTRODUCTION 6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 8

Definitions 8

Origins 9

Theory 10

Regulation 11

What & why 13

Funding 14

Heritage railway 14

Summary 16

3. METHODOLOGY 18

4. CASE STUDIES 20

Lynton & Lynmouth Cliff Railway 20

Angels Flight 22

5. DISCUSSION 24

6. CONCLUSION 28

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 30

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Every year an average of 875,000 people (Historic England, 2014) flock to see the UNESCO World Heritage site of

Stonehenge. The majority stand in awe at the monolithic structures that appear to have stood untouched for over

two millennia. The term ‘appear’ is appropriate, as in fact the stone monoliths have been the subject of significant

human intervention in the last 100 years (See fig. 3-4) (Historic England, 2014). When learning about the stones man-

made interventions, there is an instant feeling of deception; how could that ever have been allowed? The current

arrangement of Stonehenge is the product of how society at the time perceived the way it should be viewed by

future generations; involving elements of both restoration and conservation. The two opposing theories of modern

conservation and restoration are often rigorously debated as preferable stratagems and remain a highly contentious

subject area.

Whilst strolling down to the Avon Gorge Hotel from Brunel’s iconic suspension bridge, one can easily pass by the

ornate Victorian iron railings and masked stairs that lead you down to a forgotten yet intriguing part of Clifton’s

history; Clifton Rocks Railway (CRR)(See fig. 5-7). Built in 1893, CRR is a defunct funicular railway constructed

inside the cliffs of the Avon Gorge. Originally built to carry passengers from Hotwell Road up to Clifton, the

railways use quickly declined and it was decommissioned in 1934 (CRR, 2015). CRR then went on to find use as

an air raid shelter during the Second World War, and as clandestine transmission site for the BBC (CRR, 2015).

Although a comparatively recent structure in relation to Stonehenge, it comprises two distinct layers of history, seen

Figure 4: Photograph showing moving of stones Clifton

entrance to CRR (Source: unknown, cir 1900’s)6

Figure 3: Photograph showing one of the lintels being replaced during

restoration at Stonehenge (Source: ©Historic England Archive, 1914)

7

in its original use as a funicular railway and latterly as a broadcasting station and air raid shelter. In a current state

of disrepair, Clifton Rocks Railway now presents a question to society: should it be conserved in its wartime form or

restored to a working funicular railway?

Using Clifton Rocks Railway as test bed, to understand the wider effects and issues that relate to conservation and

restoration, this dissertation will aim to investigate the question of:

Safeguarding the United Kingdom’s historic buildings and monuments: should we continue to favour conservation over

restoration?

Figure 5: Photograph showing entrance to Clifton Rocks Railway

(Source: ©James Gray, 2014)

Figure 6: Photograph showing gorge entrance to Clifton

Rocks Railway (Source: unknown, cir 1900’s)

Figure 7: Photograph showing works to Clifton Rocks

Railway (Source: Hows, n.d)

L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W

D E F I N I T I O N S

Attempts to define conservation and restoration comprehensively are generally illusive due to fields perpetually

evolving parameters; terminology can also often vary internationally. With terminologies often used interchangeably,

defining relevant terms for the purpose of this research surrounding both conservation and restoration provides

clarity to further discussion.

Conservation may be defined as the process of protecting a building and its surroundings from any changes that might

involve a loss of historic fabric, historic importance or character (Jokilehto, 1999). The broad nature of the definition

provides little clarity to separate the terms of conservation and restoration; however BS 7913 (1998) paragraph 7.1.2

does so in stating that it constitutes ‘a conservative approach of minimal intervention and disturbance to the fabric of

an historic building in which there is a presumption against restoration is fundamental to good conservation’. The

term ‘restoration’ remains used to represent elements of work on older buildings and structures, however in essence

it represents work that returns a building to a perfect state (Kent, 2015).

Conservative Repair The notion of ‘conservative repair’ is critical to Modern Conservation practice. The concept

manifested itself in a growing criticism of stylistic restoration and the emphasis to preserve the genuine and

8Figure 8: Photograph of Grade I Listed, Albert

Memorial (Source: Unknown, 2012)

9

original, the different layers and transformations of history, as well as the patina of age (Pendlebury, 2009). The

term Conservative repair was epitomized by John Ruskin and William Morris, where emphasis is placed upon

the authenticity of material fabric and on its aesthetic qualities. The term refers to an abstemious approach when

carrying work on historic buildings: doing as little as possible but as much as necessary (SPAB, 2009).

Stylistic Restoration was a restoration movement that started in the late 18th century. While the initial aim was to

protect national monuments of history, science and arts (during the French Revolution), the policies later developed

toward the restoration of the lost stylistic integrity (Pendlebury, 2009). Conservative repair and stylistic restoration

represent an apt contrast through which to embody the intrinsic differences regarding how treat our built heritage.

O R I G I N S

The concept of modern conservation became firmly established in the 18th century, however historically the topic

of conservation has been ardently debated (Jokilehto, 1999). The collecting of ancient artifacts in imperial Rome

became a prominent pastime. Initially items were presented untouched, however, it soon became fashionable to

restore statuary (Pendlebury, 2009). Debate was divided between, people that wanted to complete fragmented work

to achieve a reintegration based on conjecture, and there were those who placed greater significance on the original

work (Pendlebury, 2009).

Figure 9: Photograph by renowned photographer Nadar

of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (Source: Britannica, cir 1870)

By the middle of the 19th century the two trends had developed further, working sometimes together, but more

often than not in conflict (Earl, 2003). The first directed itself towards the restoration of what was believed to be the

most desirable or ‘perfect’ form of the building; the second was concerned with preserving intact what had been

inherited from the past, by rejecting all unnecessary interventions (Earl, 2003).

The arguments on either side are discussed by J-J. Bourasse who stated that damage to a building, which resulted

in issues of safety and structure, should be repaired as quickly as possible. He then summarized the two lines of

thought that could apply to its repair as; the group, which wished to preserve the remains as they were, and the

group that wished to go ahead with a careful restoration (Jokilehto, 1999).

T H E O R Y

Restoration and Modern Conservation provided the basis of considerable discussion for the provision of care to

historical buildings; and were further developed into stylistic restoration and conservative repair (Jokilehto, 1999).

France’s foremost medieval scholar, architectural theorist and restorer Eugene-Emmanuel Viollet-le- Duc (See fig. 9);

defined stylistic restoration as, “To restore a building is not to preserve it, to repair it, or to rebuild it; it is to reinstate it in

a condition of completeness which may never existed at any given time” (Jokilehto, 1999, pg 151). Restorers are concerned

with a faithful restoration, and if necessary, reconstruction of an earlier architectural form, whilst promoting the

buildings functionality (Jokilehto, 1999).

10

Figure 10: Photograph of John Ruskin

(Source: Guild of St George, cir 1890’s)11

In the mid 19th century, John Ruskin (See fig. 10) headed the way for modern conservation and anti-restoration

(Jokilehto, 1999). The modern conservation movement criticized the fashion of Stylistic Restoration, which they

saw as the destruction of building’s historical authenticity (Ruskin, 1849). Promoting conservative repair, anti-

restorationists focus on a building’s construction throughout time, with each addition or amendment being integral

to its character (Earl, 2003). It is believed that such work in a given period belongs only to that era, and cannot be

reproduced in a different time. Sole focus should be given to the protection and conservation of the genuine material

of which the buildings cultural heritage is engrained (Earl, 2003).

Ruskin (1849) stated that restoration meant the most total destruction a building can suffer; a destruction out of

which no remnants can be gathered. Ruskin also introduced the idea of trusteeship, the concept that our buildings

do not belong to us, they belong to those that built them and those who are yet to enjoy them. Ruskin (1849, p.254)

goes to state that society should “Watch an old building with an anxious care; guard it as best you may, and at any cost,

from every influence of dilapidation”. This ideology is further developed and applied to the earth’s natural beauty and

resources.

R E G U L A T I O N

Ruskin was, with William Morris, one of the founding fathers of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

(SPAB). Morris then went on to write SPAB’s famous manifesto, written in 1877 (Pendlebury, 2009). they exist to

Figure 12: Photograph of St Albans post restoration

(Source: Joachim, 2014)

educate and advise on the treatment of historic buildings; the mantra of repairs over restoration is intrinsic to its

existence. SPAB believe that misguided work to historic buildings can prove extremely destructive; they promote

mending them with minimal loss of fabric and therefore also of romance and authenticity (SPAB, 2009). The works

at St Alban’s Cathedral became a fitting representation and embodiment of what the society fought against; seen in

figures 11-12, the controversial west elevation underwent a significant change in form and aesthetic.

Attempts to unify conservation on a global scale have had various reformations. The Athens charter of 1931 resulted

in the definition of a philosophical approach to repair and conservation, which was further developed by the Venice

charter of 1964. The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance of 1979

(amended in 1988), known as the ‘ Burra Charter’, intended to uncover an approach of adjusting the Venice Charter

to local conditions. This is the first instance that the idea of ‘cultural significance’ emerges, and that of ‘place’

replaces the idea of a building. Cultural significance is defined as a places: historic, scientific, social or spiritual value

for past, present or future generations; embedded in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings,

records, related places and its object (SPAB, 2015) A place’s values, which constitute its cultural significance, may

vary and these values can change with time (Stubbs, 2009).

The Nara Conference on Authenticity later tried to consider a place’s values and authenticity, giving deference to

the notion that diverse cultures would have distinctive values and perhaps even different notions of authenticity.

12

Figure 11: Photograph of St Albans prior to

restoration (Source: Flickr, cir 1805)

13

W H A T & W H Y

David Insall (2008, p.93) states, “man’s conflicting desire to either ‘make’ or ‘keep’”. Here he references humankind’s

need to instil his own mark on the world; as well as the desire to save and protect. These fundamental virtues of

human nature, which sit in polarity to each other, are reflected in how we treat our built heritage.

The preoccupation of early conservationists, dealt with the protection of special places for cultural reasons. The

impetus behind the conservation of old buildings is the concept of custodianship: a theory that states we are

responsible for passing on our built heritage to future generations (Earl, 2003). Earl further goes on to state that the

mark of civilized people is the desire to safeguard and add to its architectural and artistic wealth. When referring

to the restoration of Notre-Dame In 1845 Montlambert stated; “the work was an act of the highest and purest patriotism”

(Jokilehto, 1999, p.139).

The importance of our built heritage is contained within its cultural and natural heritage and what gives it, its sense

of Place. It is these values that provide the stimuli that society engages with. It is the degree and significance of these

values that determines the extent to which they are conserved both ethically and statutorily (Historic England, 2008).

Figure 13: Photograph of Talyllyn Heritage Railway

(Source: © OnlineWales Internet Ltd, 2009)14

F U N D I N G

Historic England will provide funding for the conservation and repair of listed buildings and Scheduled monuments,

showing clear advocacy for repair over restoration. With a substantial budget Historic England, hold a significant

bearing on how our heritage is preserved. Historic England will only grant fund assets on the Heritage at Risk

register; entry to this register requires either grade I or grade II* listing designation (Historic England, 2014).

The Architectural Heritage Fund provide grants for works on heritage assets that have potential beneficial reuse;

funding however is limited up to £25,000 to assist in in its management and coordination (AHF, 2015). The Lottery

Heritage Fund’s pockets run somewhat deeper with no maximum funding cap published (HLF, 2015). Neither of

the respective funds hold preference towards conservative repair or restoration but credence is given towards the

improvement of the heritage assets condition and providing useful a useful public utility.

H E R I T A G E R A I L W A Y

The railway heritage movement was established in 1951 with the creation of Talyllyn Railway Preservation Society

formed to continue the running of a private railway (See fig. 13). Today there are now 108 heritage railways operating

in the U.K and Ireland: incorporating 400 stations and 510 miles of track. The market sector accounts for 7.1 million

rides per year and produces earnings of £92 million annually (APPG, 2013).

The majority of heritage railways were formed as a means of maintaining railway lines so public services could still

15

operate; many heritage railways were formed after the conclusion of the use of steam locomotives on British Rail

(York, 2013). By the late 1980’s the majority of heritage railways were not proving viable as form of transport but

they had become successful entities in their own right as a means of experiencing rail history and becoming major

tourist attractions (APPG, 2013).

According to the All Party Parliamentary Group on heritage railways (2013), heritage railways offer significant

benefits to the U.K. These benefits include; generating local economic activity, providing income to its employees,

and also providing an accessible service to users with limited mobility.

The economic impact of heritage railways has had considerable study. The study of West Somerset Railway by Les

Lumsdon of Manchester Metropolitan University has demonstrated that they provide a powerful stimulus to local

economies through both visitor spending and railway purchasing. Their research indicates that for every £1 that is

spent on a heritage railway, the local economy enjoys an injection of £2.71; representing a value to the UK of £248

million (APPG, 2013).

16Figure 14: Photograph of Talyllyn Heritage Railway

(Source: © OnlineWales Internet Ltd, 2009)

S U M M A R Y

Cultural significance is ingrained within our built heritage, and reflects all the values that society relates to. Neither

conservative repair nor stylistic restoration remonstrate on the value of built heritage, differences lie only in how to

protect such values.

Manchester Metropolitan’s research into heritage railway demonstrates the numerous financial benefits that heritage

tourism can yield. Funding for works towards our built heritage is more likely to be won, where a heritage asset can

provide useful public utility.

The two approaches of conservative repair and stylistic restoration are embodied throughout Europe. As its founders

and prolific supporter, France still advocates restoration, whereas the U.K and Italy tend to prefer conservation

(Pendlebury, 2009). Whilst the argument of conservative repair versus stylistic restoration still exists today, it is

modern conservation that has triumphed in becoming international orthodoxy in the modern era (Earl, 2003).

17

Figure 15: Photograph of carriage on Lynton &

Lynmouth Cliff Railway

(Source: Dopiaza, 2013)

M E T H O D O L O G Y

Case study research provides the most prudent form of research to understand how conservation and restoration

affect the built environment within such a niche sector as funicular railways. Quantitative analysis would provide

little relevance in this instance of the complexities of the issues surrounding the research topic, which are perplex

and subjective in nature. Measuring the effect of conservation and restoration on issues such as cultural significance

can be best observed on real life examples where the effects are clearly apparent.

Using multiple case studies provides further understanding of funicular railway heritage; understanding how the

respective applications alter the physical fabric and the wider issues that arise from these. The case studies establish

how their conservation and restoration relates to the experience that they provide; looking in detail at how its

cultural significance is portrayed and the deficiencies of each respective application.

Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway (LLCR) is conserved water powered funicular railway that connects the Devon

towns of Lynton and Lynmouth (See fig. 15). LLCR provides an opportunity for study as it has continued to operate

continually since its inception in 1890; created as a means of transporting tourists, it is now major tourist attraction

in its own right. Angels Flight (See fig. 16-17) in Los Angeles is a previously restored and now defunct funicular

railway, which dismantled and moved to new location. This case study provides the opportunity to understand how

a moved and restored heritage asset’s values, which makeup its cultural significance have been affected, and its wider

18

Figure 17: Photograph of character arch on entrance to

Angels Flight (Source: ©Michael Joseph, 2015)19

implications.

CCR provides the test bed to compare and contrast against my case studies to understand how a conservative repair

or restoration affects a heritage assets cultural significance.

Figure 16: Photograph of Angels Flight in its

original setting (Source: Unknown, cir 1920’s)

Figure 19: Photograph of Lynton & Lynton Cliff Railway

from Lynmouth station looking up to Lynton (Source:

The Locomotive & Carriage Institution, 2009)

Figure 18: Photograph of Lynton & Lynton Cliff Railway from Lynton

station, looking across Lynmouth Bay (Source: Exmoor 4 All, 2013)

C A S E S T U D I E S

L Y N T O N & L Y N M O U T H C L I F F R A I L W A Y

The cliffs that separated the towns of Lynton and Lynmouth provided a hindrance to the furthering of the towns

respective economies. Paddle steamers from as far as Bristol and Swansea would bring tourists to Lynmouth only

to be faced with a daunting to climb to Lynton. Trade was also affected, in that the majority of goods arrived to the

locality by sail as road travel over Exmoor was challenging; goods would need to be carted by packhorses, which

struggled with the incline. A solution to the quandary was sought with the proposal of a funicular railway powered

by water balance. Construction commenced in 1887 and had been completed by Easter of 1890. The railway has

remained open since its inception, and whilst it started life as a practical means of transport, it is now a tourist

attraction in its own right. Ruskin (1849) stated that if we look after our monuments they will not need to be restored.

Having remained open since its inception LLCR has undergone continual maintenance to its many constituent parts,

and could be seen as an embodiment of conservative repair.

In 2011/12 extensive major repairs were carried out on its 2 carriages; its approach of conservative repair resulted

in maximum retention of the original fabric. The carriages timber frame needed extensive repairs; rotten sections

were cutout and new timber scarfed in (See figures. 18-19). The fiberglass roof added in 1973, which covered the

original timber roof slats, was replaced with another fiberglass roof. LLCR’s decision to use fiberglass could be seen

20

Figure 21: Photograph of repairs to carriages from Lynton

& Lynmouth Cliff Railway(Source: LLCR, 2012)

Figure 20: Photograph of repairs to carriages from Lynton &

Lynmouth Cliff Railway(Source: LLCR, 2012)

21

as contentious in using a modern material against that of old. This approach however is key to conservative repair

in that the fiberglass roof covering sits subserviently to its historic surroundings. Supported in the words of Willam

Morris who famously wrote in his SPAB manifesto (2009) that it’s, “better to mend a leaky roof by such means as are

obviously meant for support or covering, and show no pretense of other art’’.

Whilst every effort has been made to keep the existing fabric, new doors were fitted to both carriages. This is the

first instance how the carriages restoration plays to that of its cultural significance of something wholly Victorian;

with the new doors replicating the aesthetic and form of its predecessors and providing ambiguity to their age.

The railways cultural significance is highlighted in Lynmouth’s conservation area appraisal (2014), stating that it

is the 19th century tourist phase of development, which is of national importance and critical importance to the

story of Lynmouth. Replacing the doors with ones that are easily perceived as new, would provide honesty to the

conservation of the carriage, but would wholly detract from the imagery of an historic railway.

Maintaining the aesthetic of the 19th century railway goes beyond that of preserving the image of antiquity; its

cultural significance is integral to its success as a tourist attraction. Marketed as ‘The Unique Victorian Water Power

Lift’ (LLRC, 2015), the railway plays on the imagery of a glimpse into Victorian history. It is tourism that drives

the railways success, with much credence given to conveying its antiquities. From its cast iron archways over the

entrance (See fig. 14) and great western railway green, all of these facets conjure images of antiquity and play to the

railway heritage.

Figure 23: Photograph of Angels Flight in its

current setting (Source: unknown, 2013)

A N G E L S F L I G H T

In the historical prominence of Bunker Hill, in downtown los Angeles, sits Angels Flight; a now defunct funicular

railway that once transported over 100 million inhabitants of Los Angeles in its first fifty years of service (Wheelock,

1993). Its brazen orange beaux-arts archways and its Edwardian carriages sit in complete polarity to the contemporary

architecture that now overshadow it. Angels flights story however is unique in that from its closure in 1969, it was

dismantled stored away for 27 years and reconstructed two blocks away, before eventually closing again (Dawson,

2008).

Angels flight conservation approach appears unclear at initial observation; in more detail however, it reveals itself

as an example of adaptive reuse. A concept of embedded in current conservation thinking and described as the

process of wholeheartedly altering a building. Although a conservation approach; adapting a building may require

significant intervention, which conceivably blurs the lines between restoration and conservation (Brooker, 2004). By

the time of its deconstruction, the townscape surrounding Angels Flights original setting had been all but flattened

(See fig. 24). The city masterplan had reduced its surroundings to rubble, and with no patrons, the railway had no

economic viability and its fate was sealed.

Ruskin famously wrote that, ‘’it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever

22

Figure 22: Photograph of Angels Flight in its

original setting (Source: Braddah Jay, cir 1940’s)

Figure 1: Photograph of CRR in operation prior to

its termination (Source: Unknown, 2015)23

been great or good in architecture’’ 1849, p201). He ardently protested against the moving and reconstruction of

the Santa Maria dell Spina, which he intricately documented in a collection of meticulous drawings (Ruskin, 1849).

Now in its moved position since 1871 (See fig. 25), the building has a certain beauty, however arguably a different

one to that of its 13th century origins. Just as Santa Maria della Spina, Angels Flight in its moved setting still holds a

beauty as well as elements of its cultural significance. Author W.W. Robinson wrote in 1961 that, ‘’There is a feeling

of nostalgia aroused by the sight or thought of Angels Flight. Its part of the present that seems to belong to the past

’’ (Dawson, p113). Angels Flight has moved in contrary to the ideals conservative repair; providing a functional use

to the people of Los Angeles and providing values, which people still respond to.

In 1985, the Los Angeles Times wrote an article regarding Angels Flights prospective restoration prior to its reopening

in 1996 (Herbert, 1985). The articles highlights the railways redevelopments agency’s proposals of a new location

for the funicular and notably the idea of restoring its original carriages and street furniture for museum show, and

allowing users of the actual railway to ride on carbon copies of the originals. These plans were never actioned, and

in doing so would have been a departure from both conservative and repair stylistic restoration. So much, of the

railways, cultural significance is rooted in its original fabric and location; without any of these, the railway holds no

integrity or authenticity.

Figure 25: Photograph of Santa Maria della Spina

in its current setting (Source: Britannica, 2015)

Figure 24: Photograph of a desolate Angels Flight prior to its

dismantling (Source: Unknown, 1960’s )

Figure 27: Photograph of artefacts collected inside

Clifton Rocks Railway (Wikimedia, 2013)

D I S C U S S I O N

Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway’s promotion of an experience on a ‘unique water powered Victorian lift’,

demonstrates the utilization of heritage to promote a heritage asset. A trip on a ‘water powered lift’, delightful as it

may be does not embody the same appeal and intrigue as a ride on something exclusive to Victorian history.

Angels flight has embodied the concept of adaptive reuse, having been dismantled and re-erected in a different

setting. Despite being mothballed for several decades, away from the public eye, its resurrection has managed to

retain elements of its cultural significance, demonstrated through public opinion. This portrayal gives credence to

adaptive reuse and parries Ruskin’s impossibility of ‘raising the dead’; a fitting representation of conservation’s

evolution.

Historic England (2008), states the historic environment is central to England’s cultural heritage and sense of

identity, and that it should be sustained for the benefit of present and future generations; they further state (2008)

that a heritage asset should recognize the need to maximize commercial opportunity. Given the CRR’s limited access

to the general public, and its continued deterioration, in its current state it is of benefit to little few (See fig. 18); an

adaptive reuse back to a working funicular railway, could provide both a useable public space and generate funds

to maintain its fabric and existence. Peter Zumthor (Thinking Architecture, 2006) states that if any intervention

to heritage assets is to find its place, it must make us see what already exists in a new light. This seems a fitting

24

Figure 26: Photograph of gorge entrance to Clifton

Rocks Railway (Source: James Gray, 2015)

Figure 28: Photograph of wartime terrace

installation inside Clifton Rocks Railway (Source:

©James Gray, 2015)

25

notion and endorsement of adaptive reuse, given that this forgotten railway currently lies in isolation with little few

knowing of its existence.

Both LLCR and Angels flight have demonstrated the necessity of for our heritage assets to operate as usable useful

entities, trafficking its users up and down steep inclines, whilst also embellishing its heritage to promote its rides for

solely novelty purposes. Revenue with respect to both railways is integral to maintaining their existence. Funding

would be essential to adapting the railway back to a working state, which might then fund itself through sales

revenue.

Funding through the Architectural Heritage Fund and Heritage Lottery Schemes could help facilitate the adaption,

given their preference to funding schemes, which are benefit to public use. In the respect of Angels flight the concept

of adaptive reuse becomes ever more pertinent to obtaining funding; endorsing the Venice Charter’s (1964) statement

that the conservation of monuments is always facilitated by making use of them for some socially useful purpose.

Where funds are not publicly available, private funding must be sought. From Manchester Metropolitans research

(APPG, 2013), introduced in the literature review, into the economic impact of heritage railway; an adaptive reuse on

CRR would inject significant money into the local economy through both railway procurement and associated visitor

spending. The benefit could be augmented further through the concept of the ‘heritage trail’ promoted by previous

owner of tunnel, Robert Peel. He then wrote; ‘’We believe the railway could be part of a very exciting heritage trail

Figure 31: Photograph of CRR entrance

foyer(Source: Unknown, 2014)

linking Brunel’s Temple Meads station and SS Great Britain, then taking the rocks railway up to Brunel’s suspension

bridge and then the zoo.’’ (BIAS, 2004).

From the literature review, we established the importance of a heritage assets cultural significance. When

contemplating between conservation and restoration, primary consideration must be given to its impact on the place’s

cultural significance; it is these values that we as people engage with and respond to and what provides the building

with its sense of place (Historic England, 2008). The adaptation CRR to a working funicular railway would involve

significant removal of its wartime construction; prevalent in its metre deep blast walls and concrete terracing used

for seating (See fig. 28). However the movement of Angels flight highlighted a buildings ability to retain elements

of its cultural significance, despite the loss of some of its original fabric. Efforts could be made to retain elements of

its wartime function, minimizing loss of significance and highlighting its layered history; however, the perpetuating

demand for practical space makes it impossible to conserve everything; in certain instances compromises must be

met.

Concerns on the extent of restoration were raised by Girouard (1989, p.164) referring to the restoration of Georgian

terraces in Spitalfields, commenting that returning the buildings to their original condition, ‘’robs them of the very

quality for which they are prized – oldness and that ‘pleasing decay ’’. With quick visual inspection off CRR, one would

hard-pressed not to see its considerable state of disrepair, its substantial wartime modifications, its vandalism, and

the perils of water ingress have all left their mark (See fig. 32). There is no doubt that CRR in its current form holds

a charm in its state of neglect, telling of a structure that is seemingly forgotten in time. In the same context Matt

26

Figure 30: Photograph of Alexandra Palace’s

theatre (Source: ©Getty Images, 2015)

Figure 29: Photograph of turn-style inside Clifton Rocks

Railway foyer (Source: ©James Gray, 2014, 2015)

Figure 32: Photograph looking down service

tunnel inside Clifton Rocks Railway (Source:

©James Gray, 2015, 2014)

27

Somerville of Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, when referring to work being completed at Alexandra Palace, (See

fig. 21) in quote; “...if we restore the theatre to a pristine condition we will destroy the very quality of the space that makes it

so intriguing and unique’’ (FCB, 2015). A poorly conducted adaptation would no doubt deprive CRR of the latter

qualities, but an inventive solution could both yield a working railway whilst retaining this captivating charm.

Given the importance of heritage within tourism, a completely modern installation would no doubt be devoid CRR

of its perceived historic charm that is so prevalent at Lynton and Lynmouth and Angels Flight.

Ruskin and Morris would certainly have argued against its restoration, SPAB’S 1877 Manifesto emphasized the

importance of sustaining inherited fabric and its opposition to restoration. Consideration now must be given to the

subject of their debate, in that they often referred to medieval buildings, centuries old. In the Burra Charter (2013),

we saw a shift in view on the protection of our built heritage, with credence paid not just towards the age and

aesthetic of the building; buts it multitude of values that contribute to its cultural significance.

Viollet-le-Duc (Price, 1996, p317) wrote: “ the best of all ways of preserving a building is to find a use for it, and then to satisfy

so well the needs dictated by that use that there will never be any further need to make any further changes in the building”.

It is comically irony that the perceived villain of modern conservation and proponent of stylistic restoration, was

so publicly promoting the concept of adaptive reuse, when it is now represented as contemporary conservation

thinking.

Figure 33: Photograph of Dovecotte Studio: subject to

an adaptive reuse (Source: Architects Journal, 2014)

C O N C L U S I O N

Safeguarding the United Kingdom’s historic buildings and monuments: should we continue to favour conservation over

restoration?

With populations continuing to rise, physical resources becoming increasingly threatened, and land in prime

locations soaring in value, the needs of the modern world cannot be unheeded. Ruskin’s ideals of guarding our

monuments with anxious care, which might have been cognate with the medieval buildings he referred to, are now

questionable in societies continuing demand for usable space. Like much of our built heritage, few of its owners

have finances ample enough to preserve our historic buildings for the purposes of casual tourism, the costs involved

in maintaining our built heritage are substantial and so the need for them to become economically viable entities has

become paramount.

This research concludes that the myriad of intangible factors which influence the decision to employ either a

conservation or a restoration approach makes it too difficult to answer definitively; given society’s views that ebb

and flow - neither can ever offer the absolute truth. What has gained prevalence is the concept of ‘adaptive reuse’,

which is rooted in conservation thinking.

The brevity of this dissertation and the complexities within debates regarding place and heritage limit the ability

28

Figure 34: Photograph of Clifton Rocks Railway

exit onto Portway (Source: ©James Gray, 2014)29

for drawing definitive conclusions, but with further discussion the image will become clearer. The importance of

further research is essential to ensuring our built heritage is not lost. Our buildings are engrained with rich historical

and cultural values, providing a glimpse into the past as society moves into the future. To further understand how

to treat our built heritage, research would involve additional case study research on adaptive reuse and how its

application can help to provide usable space; whilst still protecting our buildings and monuments. Another area

worthy of further research is the value of our built heritage, and how to measure such values. In a world where

values appear to be measured so often financially, the value in our built heritage might be far more precious than

we perhaps realize.

However in summary; there has been a vast change in the treatment of our built heritage, from the Roman’s early

efforts at conservation, through the remonstrations of Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc, to where we stand today. The

current trend towards adaptive reuse is merely a snapshot of contemporary thinking, an evolving story that has by

no means developed into an unconditional truth.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Report on the value of heritage railways, 2013. All Party Parliamentary Group.

G Brooker and S Stone. (2004) Re-readings. Interior architecture and the design principles of remodelling existing buildings (London: RIBA Enterprises).

Jim Dawson, 2008. Los Angeles’s Angels Flight (Images of America: California). Edition. Arcadia Publishing.

Wim Denslagen, 1994. Architectural Restoration in Western Europe: Controversy and Continuity. 1st Edition. Architectura & Natura Press,Netherlands.

John Earl, 2003. Building Conservation Philosophy. 1st Edition. Donhead Publishing.

English Heritage, Conservation Principles Polices & Guidance, 2008.

Mark et al. Girouard, 1989. The saving of Spitalfields. 1st Ed. Edition. Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust.

Miles Glendinning, 2013. The Conservation Movement: A History of Architectural Preservation: Antiquity to Modernity. 1st Edition. Routledge.

Peter Howard, 2003. Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity. 1 Edition. Bloomsbury T&T Clark.

ICOMOS The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013.

ICOMOS (1964)the Venice Charter. International charter for the conservation and restoration of

Monuments and sites (Venice).

Donald Insall, 2008. Living Buildings: Architectural Conservation, Philosophy, Principles and Practice. 1st Edition. Images Publishing Dist Ac.

30

31

J Jessen and J Schneider, (2003). ‘Conversions - the new normal’, in Schttich, C. (ed.) Building in Existing Fabric - Refurbishment Extensions New Design Birkhäuser: Basel.

Jukka Jokilehto, 1999. History of Architectural Conservation (Butterworth-Heinemann Series in Conservation and Museology). 1st Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jukka Jokilehto, 1986. A History of Architectural Conservation.

Lynmouth’s conservation area appraisal (2014).

Lyntons’s conservation area appraisal (2014).

R Machado, (1976) ‘Old buildings as palimpsest. Towards a theory of remodeling’, Progressive Architecture.

Aylin Orbasli, 2007. Architectural Conservation: Principles and Practice. 1st Edition. Wiley.

John Pendlebury, 2008. Conservation in the Age of Consensus. 1st Edition. Routledge.

N, Price, 1996. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage (Readings in Conservation). 1 Edition. Getty Conservation Institute.

A Riegl. (1928 [1903]) ‘Der Moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen und seine Entstehung‘, in Gesammelte Aufsätze (Dr. Benno Filser Verlag: Augsburg-Wien).

John Ruskin, 1849. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. Unknown Edition. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Stanley-Price, 2009: Conserving the authentic: essays in honour of Jukka Jokilehto.

John H. Stubbs, 2009. Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation. 1st Edition. Wiley.

E Viollet-le-Duc. (1990 [1854]) The Foundations of Architecture. Selections from the Dictionnaire raisonné (New York: George Braziller).

E Viollet-le-Duc. (1967 [1854]), Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture Française du XIe au XVIe siècle. Vol. 8 (Paris: F. De Nobele).

Walt Wheelock, 1993. Angels Flight 1993. Revised Edition. Borden Pub Co.

John H. Woodhams, 1989. Funicular Railways. 1st Edition. Shire Publications.

Trevor Yorke, 2013. Britain’s Railway Architecture & Heritage (Britain’s Living History). Edition. Countryside Books.

Peter Zumthor, 2010. Thinking Architecture, 3rd Edition. 3rd Edition. Birkhäuser Architecture.

W E B S I T E S

AHF - The Architectural Heritage Fund: About the AHF. 2015. AHF - The Architectural Heritage Fund: About the AHF. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.ahfund.org.uk/grants.

php [Accessed 26 December 2015].

BCC, 2012. New exhibition reveals history of Clifton Rocks Railway. Available: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/node/12459. Last accessed 09/04/2015.

Clifton Rocks Railway Evening Post Articles . 2016. Clifton Rocks Railway Evening Post Articles . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.b-i-a-s.org.uk/rocks_railway_evening_post.

html. [Accessed 02 January 2016].

Clifton Rocks Railway. 2016. Clifton Rocks Railway. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.cliftonrocksrailway.org.uk/. [Accessed 02 January 2016].

English Heritage, 2014. Business management Stonehenge. Available: www.english-heritage- org.uk/education/resources/stonehenge/business-management/. Last accessed

09/04/2015

32

33

Issue 16 — Suspended animation | Explore | FCBStudios. 2015. Issue 16 — Suspended animation | Explore | FCBStudios. [ONLINE] Available at: http://fcbstudios.com/explore/

view/16. [Accessed 27 November 2015].

Heritage Grants | Heritage Lottery Fund. 2015. Heritage Grants | Heritage Lottery Fund. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.hlf.org.uk/looking-funding/our-grant-programmes/

heritage-grants. [Accessed 26 December 2015].

Douglas Kent. 2015. Conservative Repair. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/conservative-repair/conservative-repair.htm. [Accessed 28

December 2015].

Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway . (2015). Q & A. Available: http://www.cliffrailwaylynton.co.uk. Last accessed 29/04/2015.

Herbert, Ray. (1985). Uphill Battle. Available: www.latimes.com. Last accessed 10/11/2015.

SPAB. (2009). SPAB’s Purpose. Available: http://www.spab.org.uk. Last accessed 2015.

F I G U R E S

Figure 1: Uknown. (cir, 1900) Photograph of Clifton Rocks Railway prior to its termination. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.hows.org.uk/personal/rail/clifton/cliff1.jpg

Figure 2: ©Tony Carter. (2013). Photograph of entrance stairs down to Clifton Rocks Railway. (Photo) Retrieved from http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/95411942.jpg

Figure 3: ©Historic England Archive. (1914). Photograph showing one of the lintels being replaced during restoration at Stonehenge . (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.english-

heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/history

Figure 4: Unknown. (cir 1900). Photograph showing moving of stones at Stonehenge. (Photo) Retrieved from https://xenophilius.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/stonehenge1964.jpg

Figure 5: ©James Gray. (2014) Photograph showing entrance to Clifton Rocks Railway.

Figure 6: Unknown. (cir 1900’s). Photograph showing gorge entrance to Clifton Rocks Railway (Source: unknown, cir unknown) . (Photo) Retrieved from https://c1.staticflickr.co

m/3/2818/13463797503_837a4b9626_b.jpg

Figure 7: Hows. (n.d). Photograph showing works to Clifton Rocks Railway (Source: Hows, cir unknown). (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.hows.org.uk/personal/rail/clifton/

cliff3.jpg

Figure 8: Unknown. (2012). Photograph of Grade I Listed, Albert Memorial. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.britainfromabove.org.uk/sites/default/files/LONDON%20

ALBERT%20MEMORIAL%20HYDE%20PARKjpg_6.jpg

Figure 9: Britannica. (cir 1870). Photograph by renowned photographer Nadar of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc. (Photo) Retrieved from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/

commons/4/4d/Eugene_viollet_le_duc.jpg

Figure 10: Guild of St George (cir 1890’s) Photograph of John Ruskin. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.guildofstgeorge.org.uk/

Figure 11: Flickr. (cir 1805). Photograph of St Albans prior to restoration (Source: Flickr, cir 1805) . (Photo) Retrieved from https://flic.kr/p/8dvGZ3

34

35

Figure 12: Photograph of St Albans post restoration (Source: Joachim, 2014) . (Photo) Retrieved from http://mexichino-jr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/english-cathedrals.html

Figure 13: Online Wales Internet Ltd. (2009). Photograph of Talyllyn Heritage Railway. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.stayinwales.co.uk/ctf/picture_gallery/large_

images/3582_xl.jpge

Figure 14: Online Wales Internet Ltd. (2009). Photograph of Talyllyn Heritage Railway. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.stayinwales.co.uk/ctf/picture_gallery/large_

images/3582_xl.jpge

Figure 15: Dopiaza. (2013). Photograph of carriage on Lynton & Lynmouth Cliff Railway. (Photo) Retrieved from https://flic.kr/p/eiuChv

Figure 16: Unknown. (cir 1920’s). Photograph of Angels Flight in original setting. (Photo) Retrieved from http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.15709433.7101/flat,1000x1000,075,f.jpg

Figure 17: ©Michael Joseph. (2015) Photograph of character arch on entrance to Angels Flight. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.michaeljoseph.com/wp-content/gallery/los-

angeles/Angels-Flight.jpg

Figure 18: Exmoor 4 All. (2013). Photograph of Lynton & Lynton Cliff Railway from Lynton station, looking across Lynmouth Bay. (Photo) Retrieved from http://exmoor4all.

com/2013/09/12/lynton-and-lynmouth-cliff-railway/minehead-11-07-103/

Figure 19: The Locomotive & Carriage Institution. (2009). Photograph of Lynton & Lynton Cliff Railway from Lynmouth station. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.lococarriage.

org.uk/lyton_barnstable.html

Figure 20: LLCR. (2012). Photograph of repairs to carriages from Lynton & Lynmouth Cliff Railway. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.cliffrailwaylynton.co.uk/carriage-

refurbisment/

Figure 21: LLCR. (2012). Photograph of repairs to carriages from Lynton & Lynmouth Cliff Railway. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.cliffrailwaylynton.co.uk/carriage-

refurbisment/

Figure 22: Braddah Jay. (cir 1930’s). Photograph of Angels Flight in its original setting. (Photo) Retrieved from http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.15709433.7101/flat,1000x1000,075,f.jpg

Figure 23: Unknown. (2013). Photograph of Angels Flight in its current setting. (Photo) Retrieved from https://flic.kr/p/eZpfsr

Figure 24: Unknown. (1960’s). Photograph of a desolate Angels Flight prior to its dismantling. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.cable-car-guy.com/html/cclafun.html

Figure 25: Photograph of Santa Maria della Spina in its current setting (Source: Britannica, 2015). (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.freefoto.com/preview/14-19-57/Santa-Maria-

della-Spina--Pisa--Tuscany--Italy

Figure 26: ©James Gray. (2014). Photograph of gorge entrance to Clifton Rocks Railway.

Figure 27: Wikimedia. (2013). Photograph of artefacts collected inside Clifton Rocks Railway. (Photo) Retrieved from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/

Clifton_Rocks_Railway_MMB_02.jpg

Figure 28: ©James Gray. (2015). Photograph of wartime terraces inside Clifton Rocks Railway.

Figure 29: ©James Gray. (2015). Photograph of turn style inside Clifton Rocks Railway foyer.

Figure 30: ©Getty Images. (2015). Photograph of Alexandra Palace’s theatre. Retrieved from http://fcbstudios.com/explore/view/16#

Figure 31: Photograph inside Clifton Rocks Railway foyer (Source: Unknown, 2014, 2015). (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/clifton-rocks-railway-bristol-

sept-2014.t92918

Figure 32: ©James Gray. (2014). Photograph looking down service tunnel inside Clifton Rocks Railway.

Figure 33: Architects Journal. (2014). Photograph of Dovecotte Studio: subject to an adaptive reuse. (Photo) Retrieved from http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/

Figure 34: ©James Gray. (2014) Photograph Clifton Rocks Railway exit onto Portway.

36

37