When I read Boris Johnson’s dog-whistle appeal to anti-immigrant feeling this morning – presumably closely in line with the Tory’s election strategy to appeal to northern, working class Brexiteers – I couldn’t help remembering that Johnson is himself the grandson of a Turk, Osman Kemal, and great grandson of a German, Hubert Freiherr von Pfeffel.

Isn’t it a tiny bit distasteful that he should be appealing to aggressive British nativism at this juncture ? Doesn’t his appeal to anti-foreigner feeling carry a few risks with it ?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/election-2019-johnson-vows-end-to-migrants-treating-britain-as-their-own-nczv7r97n?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1575855443

I am re-posting this interview between Owen Hatherley and Emma Dent Coad, because it is such an incredible relief at this stage of the election, when there has been so pitifully little discussion of real policies, particularly about public housing, one of the key issues facing all three parties, to read the views of a historically well-informed and well-qualified candidate, who is in danger of being squeezed out:-

https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/12/defend-emma-dent-coad

Last time I discussed the saving of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry in the late 1970s, someone suggested I read Alec Forshaw’s book on 1970s London: Discovering the Capital, an engaging and extremely informative book about the character of London in the 1970s in the heyday of demolition, Council redevelopment and a general lack of interest in its historic character, written by Alec Forshaw, who worked in Islington’s planning department and became its head of conservation. I have now done this. The book makes clear how attitudes began to change in the late 1970s, not least thanks to the 1978 Inner Urban Areas Act, which provided public funding to protect and preserve inner city industrial buildings. I assume that this was what it made it possible for either the GLC or Tower Hamlets to provide funding for the preservation, repair and extension of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry in 1979. I now realise that this was before English Heritage was established (it was established in 1983), so James Strike may have been employed by Tower Hamlets or the GLC or even by the Hughes themselves with grant aid.

Whatever the exact circumstances – and I hope one of my readers will know more – it is sad that such a determined effort to protect traditional manufacturing in the inner city, including, presumably, substantial public investment, is at risk of being wiped out forty years later. It is also at least possible that conditions were set on what would happen in the event of the eventual sale or closure of the Bell Foundry. Once again, I hope someone in Tower Hamlets or the GLA has checked this out.

I have been asked by a reader who prefers to remain anonymous to remind readers that there does already exist a fully funded alternative scheme for retaining all the craft skills of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, which Historic England has inexplicably (or negligently) chosen to ignore.

It has been drawn up by the United Kingdom Historic Building Preservation Trust, jointly with Factum Foundation who have experience of running a foundry in Madrid and the great advantage of being very well connected with artists, so not being dependent solely on the sale of church bells for the viability of their business plan.

United Kingdom Historic Building Preservation Trust are uniquely well placed to take on the bell foundry, because they have recent experience of running a similar industrial site, Middleport Pottery, in Stoke-on-Trent, which won every prize going for the sensitivity and interest of the project, which was overseen by Ros Kerslake, now the Chief Executive of the Heritage Lottery Fund. If there are doubts about the viability of their proposals, which I know there have been, it’s worth noting that their Founding Patron is H.R.H. The Prince of Wales who has a long track record of involving himself in projects involving the development of craft skills. So, it’s hardly a fly-by-night organisation.

Factum Foundation is the charitable arm of Factum Arte, a brilliant and inventive operation based in the suburbs of Madrid which has a great deal of experience in retaining and developing historic craft skills, with the aid of new technology. I know that there are people, including the Hughes family, who think that the new technology is alien to the traditions of the Bell Foundry, but it is essential to the commercial viability of their proposals. And I should declare an interest, but not a commercial one, in that my son works for Factum Foundation and it was I who got them involved, knowing that they have the relevant skills.

So, Historic England have been, and still are, faced by a choice between, on the one hand, well-established, not-for-profit charities with the best possible experience of developing an industrial site in a creative way and, on the other hand, a rapacious New York speculator who has offered the Hughes family a small shrine to bell making, while demolishing half the site and building a hotel next door.

Which scheme has Historic England chosen to endorse ? The one from the property developer.

I thought it might be helpful to know a bit more about James Strike, the conservation architect who was responsible for adding the big industrial extension at the back of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry so sensitively in the early 1980s, which Historic England is now happy to see demolished in order to enable the site to be turned into a luxury hotel.

Well, blow me down, guess what ? He was the in-house architect for none other than English Heritage, the predecessor body of Historic England. He is a great expert on architectural conservation, with particular experience and expertise in adapting historic buildings for current use, and author of Architecture in Conservation, published in 2012.

In other words, the building that Historic England are now happy to see demolished as being of ‘no architectural or historic interest’ was put up by their own in-house architect, grant aided by the GLC, precisely in order to allow the Bell Foundry to continue to flourish.

Perhaps we could have James Strike’s views on this topic ? Or has he signed the Official Secrets Act, like the rest of Historic England ?

I apologise for persevering in exploring the issues surrounding the decision to support the demolition of the rear section of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry as being of ‘no architectural or historical interest’.

As I understand it, the Historic Buildings Division of the Greater London Council intervened in the late 1970s, recognising the exceptional architectural and historical importance of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry. They provided the Hughes family with funding to build a new extension at the back to keep it as a going industrial concern. There presumably will have been legal conditions attached to this funding, which may not allow its sale and demolition by an American developer.

I hope and assume that someone at Historic England has checked the files, which are held at the London Metropolitan Archives, because they are going to look a tiny bit casual, or negligent, if a great deal of documentation emerges as to how important historians and industrial archaeologists regarded the Bell Foundry in the late 1970s, whereas now the London Advisory Committee apparently supports the idea that part of the existing building can simply be demolished as of ‘no architectural or historical significance’ and the rest of it is turned into a late night drinking parlour in order to facilitate public access.

Although Historic England does not now publish minutes of its meetings online, or, at least, has not done so since October 2016, they have kindly provided a summary (see below) of the reasons why their staff and London Advisory Committee support the current scheme to demolish the rear section as being of ‘no architectural or historic interest’ and only keep a small token shrine to bell-making, while turning most of the rest of the historic ground floor into a café/bar (which will indeed give public access to those who want to buy a drink).

I can see that this assessment makes good sense if you take the view of a Courtauld-trained architectural historian doing a desk-based analysis. But the rear section was added in the early 1980s – I believe funded by the GLC – by James Strike in order to maintain the viability of the Foundry as a working operation of great, indeed unique, historic value and it is still very important to the current sense of an overall working environment which, to this day, survives remarkably intact, easily capable of restoration if it were to be reinstated as a working Foundry, as proposed by UKHBPT, a charity with the best possible experience of doing just this.

It does make me wonder whether the Committee was able to arrange to visit the Foundry (I know it wasn’t straightforward) because its quality and atmosphere – a uniquely well-preserved historic working environment – depended on seeing it, not just reading the relevant Survey of London entry.

Perhaps the Advisory Committe might be encouraged to review its decision in order to ensure that they still feel that the Raycliff scheme to turn it into a boutique hotel is genuinely better architecturally, than the UKHBPT rival scheme, which preserves the Foundry intact as a foundry.

Not least, it is surely in their interest to do so if the scheme is now going to be reviewed by the Secretary of State, who will, I hope, want their rationale to be spelled out in more detail.

https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/statements/whitechapel-bell-foundry/

As a break from issues relating to the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, it was a great treat to see the inside of St. Mary-le-Strand, for the Save Christmas Carol Service. It is not normally open, sandwiched by motor traffic as if no better than a traffic island, but inside is beautiful, stately and calm, the first of the Commissioners’ Churches, begun in February 1714, designed by James Gibbs, recently returned from his training for the Catholic priesthood in Rome. The wonderful lozenged ceiling is by Giuseppe Artari and Giovanni Bagutti, ‘the best fretworkers that ever came into England’.

I have been helpfully provided with the current UNESCO definition of the intangible cultural heritage:-

“Intangible cultural heritage means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage.  ICH is manifested inter alia in the following domains: (a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; (b) performing arts; (c) social practices, rituals and festive events; (d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; (e) traditional craftsmanship.”

By chance, Historic England have just announced how determined they are to be involved with the intangible cultural heritage in Connected Growth: A manual for places for places working to boost their digital, cultural and social connectivity, published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. So, let’s hope that they can now recognise that traditional craftsmanship and the rituals of bell making and the objects, spaces and artefacts which surround them are all better served by allowing the Whitechapel Bell Foundry to remain as a working foundry and not become just another posh watering hole.

In order to clarify the reasons for Historic England’s stance on the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, I thought it would be helpful to find out the extent to which the Bell Foundry has been discussed at meetings of the Commissioners (who, by the way, are paid, unlike the trustees of most public bodies). Their website states that the minutes of their meetings are published ‘as soon as they are agreed as a public record’. Yet, the last set of minutes which has been published date from October 2016, over three years ago and long before the Whitechapel Bell Foundry was sold. So, we do not know when and to what extent the issues have been discussed. Were they told of the sale ? Were they told of the UKHBPT proposals ? On what grounds have they supported the proposals by Raycliff for turning the Foundry into a hotel ? Do they share the officers’ view that it is a good idea ?

Each of the Commissioners will have signed a form committing themselves to probity and transparency in decision making. What, I wonder, is their view and where is it a matter of public record ?