Demolition of Brunel's Totnes Engine House

[Steven]

oops bit missing from my last post

its a foobar situation with EH basically devolving responsibility on to an LPA when this was clearly an issue which needed to be assessed on a national level.


Steven

[BAJR Host]

have contacted Exeter City Archaeologist - he's not in just now... to find out more... (Totnes falls into Exeter City rather than Devon!)

Asked to get info on whats going on, what can be done, whats being done and other info.



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[beamo]

Steven wrote 'Yes indeed it is possible that the LPA could have required recording, but any wise developer would just withdraw the application and then demolish the building before re-submitting.'

Demolition would still require approval from the LPA - the power to control demolitions is granted to the Local Authority in Sections 80-83 of the Building Act 1984. After receiving a notice of intention to demolish, the LPA has 6 weeks in which to issue a counter-notice including any appropriate conditions. This would be the opportunity to request building recording. Reading the available information in this case it appears as though demolition has started before the end of the 6 week period of notice. If so then the owner of the building is in breach of the Building Act.

However I agree that recording to any level would be a pretty poor outcome compared to the preservation of the building, which is surely what is required in this situation.


Beamo

[historic building]

Conditions for demolition are only for controlling the process of demolition; you cannot condition them in the way you can a planning application. The application is only a notification the council do not have to determine it if they feel there are no relevant controls necessary for the demolition.

[BAJR Host]

From Mark Horton

quote:News just in - DCMS has declined to list the pumping house and upheld EH's decision not to list.

A particularly fruity comment (among many that will be deeply offensive to archaeologists) is his views that because the atmospheric railway was unsuccessful, this does not rise the interest in a national context. err!! do we just whitewash history.

I will give you the link to the decision documents when they are on line

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[drpeterwardle]

See
http://www.totnesonline.com/brunel/DCMS/

for DCMS & EH comments.

I am a bit surprised by the situation and EH stance that there two better examples of a very rare building type to justify not listing the Totness example. Rarity has been used as a criteria for listing elsewhere.

EH do make the point the building is altered.

The notion that because the system did not work they are less important is inconsistent with other buildings that are listed for example the building in Oxfordshire constructed with paper roofs are listed for that reason even though the paper was replaced many years ago.

The EH paper on listing selction for Transport buildings contains the following statement.

The 1840s saw a massive expansion in the network and while the Italianate style was favoured, many designs were eclectic. Great care should be taken in seeking out work of this date because, although much survives, it is often hidden by later alterations and extensions. Rigorous selection is required for buildings after c.1860: this reflects both the quantity of what remains and the standardisation of design. A number of factors should be taken into account when assessing buildings of the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Also of interest is this comment on the Starcross listing example example

"Other features associated with the pumping house, including a massive water tank, exist below ground and are of historic and archaeological interest. Starcross is the only complete Pumping House to survive from the 3 operational atmospheric lines in the British Isles."

Peter Wardle

[BAJR Host]

One could say that as the building was created for a specific purpose (by a great Briton!) and then never used and altered.. makes it unique!

Peter is right to point out the inconsistency!

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[BAJR Host]

Curiouser and Curiouser

http://www.totnesonline.com/brunel/DCMS/

This link will keep you up to date with whats going on;
Documents relating to the DCMS ruling against listing the Brunel Pumping House buildings at Totnes station

DCMS ruling 22 Feb 2008

English Heritage advice

Statutory Criteria for listing

To quote

quote:"Heritage Champion, Town Councillor Pruw Boswell, was alerted late last night (13 Feb) that Brunel's Atmospheric Pumping House by the station on the old Dairy Crest site was being demolished. Contractors were seen removing the slate roof on both sides. TLC has sought to get to the bottom of this. Totnes Museum Administrator, Alan Langmaid, said that developers had to give 28 days' notice of a demolition, and that has not been done, so they are acting outside the normal procedures. When asked, the site staff said that they were 'repairing the roof' but it is common practice for developers to make holes in the roofs of buildings so that the rain gets in and the building becomes unsafe and this makes the argument to demolish much easier. There is no way they are repairing the roof, as there is no scaffolding up. Neither the Museum nor Cllr Boswell appear able to do anything to stop this scandal."

Note the ...cough.... repair work! Embarress the company... shame them... make them say that its all a misunderstanding...

and English Heritage... what are you playing at?




"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[Paul Belford]

Many thanks for the debate and helpful links and views. Please continue to make your voices heard!

[Gog]

I see the great Brunelophile, Jeremy Clarkson, has lent his support to the campaign, which is nice given that the reason for demolishing the building seems to be to help giant trucks move around.