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 ?

I am going to answer my own question as to why it is that Historic England has supported the plans to redevelop the Whitechapel Bell Foundry as a boutique hotel:-

1. They were consulted at an early stage by Raycliff. I guess that the advice they gave was followed. Raycliff have employed good and experienced local architects. So, the fact that Raycliff followed the correct procedures will have encouraged Historic England to support Raycliff’s application.

2. Historic England were not duty bound to examine, let alone support, the alternative proposal put forward by United Kingdom Historic Building Preservation Trust. This is in spite of Historic England having themselves supported the previous project run by UKHBPT at Middleport Pottery which won a Europa Nostra award for heritage.

3. The Hughes family who previously ran the Bell Foundry for several generations believe that it is uneconomic to run a Bell Foundry in Whitechapel. If they couldn’t, how will anyone else ? But Factum Foundation have a workable and sustainable business plan for making bells alongside running a Foundry for artists. So, the idea that the Foundry is uneconomic in its current form is not proven.

4. Some people in the heritage community, possibly including Historic England, think that, once the equipment of the Bell Foundry was sold, its previous life had essentially ended. But I have been to the Bell Foundry since it closed. It retains all of its character and atmosphere. Nothing has changed. Once it became a Bell Foundry again, it would spring back to life. But not if it is a cafeteria.

5. At heart, this is an argument between the heritage as viewed through its built fabric and what is now known as ‘the intangible heritage’ – the heritage as considered more broadly, to include issues of memory, the survival of what are essentially medieval forms of craft practice, transmitted through generations. Historic England may have felt that, as a legal entity, it exists only to preserve the former. And since the Whitechapel Bell Foundry was not designed by William Chambers or Robert Adam, its existence can be sacrificed.

As the dust settles on the decision by the Secretary of State to delay any decision on planning consent for the re-development of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, it has become clear that there are two potential pitfalls:-

1. In a week’s time, there will be a new Secretary of State. Robert Jenrick has proved himself to be unexpectedly and efficiently supportive of at least delaying the decision. Will the next Secretary of State be equally well disposed towards the heritage ?

2. The statutory agency which has responsibility for protecting the heritage is none other than Historic England. We know their view. They think the plan to turn the Foundry into a hotel is ‘creative, sensitive, and respectful of the historic buildings’, as their Chief Executive, Duncan Wilson, wrote in a letter to the Times on 15 July 2019. So, we need somehow to encourage Historic England to change their view and recognise that it may not be in their public interest to be seen to be accessory to the destruction of one of the supreme pieces of British industrial archaeology. So, the question is, how do we get them to change their view ?

All those of you who have dipped your pens in vitriol or are, even now, planning to do so, in all corners of the globe. Good sense has prevailed: the Secretary of State has realised that the decision to redevelop the Whitechapel Bell Foundry is too contentious to be left to Tower Hamlets planning committee on its own and has therefore issued a direction to the relevant planning officer instructing her ‘to enable him to consider whether he should direct under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that the applications should be referred to him for determination’. So, as I understand it, he hasn’t yet called it in for adjudication: merely indicated that a new Minister may, and I hope will, want to call it in for close scrutiny on grounds of its national importance, rather than allowing its development to be passed by the casting vote of the chairman of the planning committee, when the committee itself was divided in its verdict. So, the battle is far from won. In fact, it’s only just commenced. But there is a chink of hope entering into the discussion.

On second thoughts, do please still write, making the case for the importance of the Foundry. But temper what you say in the knowledge that the Minister may be minded to recognise the importance of the Foundry’s long and unique history above the case for its redevelopment and so, please focus on what the benefits of keeping its historic use as a Foundry, instead of bastardising it as a cafe, will be.

For those of you who are minded to write to the Secretary of State for Planning, Communities and Local Government about the recent decision by Tower Hamlets to grant planning permission for the Whitechapel Bell Foundry to be turned into a boutique hotel, I have received some good and sensible advice about whether or not this will, or can, happen. Essentially, the Secretary of State will only over-ride the machinery of local government if he/she feels that this is an issue of more than local concern.

So, in writing, please stress the national and international importance of the Bell Foundry, its uniqueness not just to Whitechapel, but to the world, and that the decision will remain forever contentious, a blot on the escutcheon of whichever party wins power in the election next week.

Campanologists and historians in Philadelphia, Toronto, Vancouver and New Zealand, please write. It is your history as well as ours which is being destroyed:-

https://spitalfieldslife.com/2019/12/01/a-letter-to-the-secretary-of-state/

I have now written to the Secretary of State as follows:-

Dear Secretary of State,

WHITECHAPEL BELL FOUNDRY

I am writing, as others are, to encourage you to call in the decision recently made by Tower Hamlets planning committee on the redevelopment of the Whitechapel Bell Foundry for review.

As you will probably be aware, this is an issue which has stirred deep passions both locally and internationally, because the Bell Foundry was the oldest company extant in Great Britain, still working in its eighteenth-century premises, which had been miraculously well-preserved and demonstrated what were essentially pre-industrial working practices.   Visiting it was quite unlike anything else I have experienced either in this country or abroad.

Historic England have argued that the architectural fabric will be preserved when it is turned into an upmarket, boutique hotel.   This is substantially true, apart from the demolition of the later rear section of the Foundry.   But the atmosphere, the history, the inherited skills, the sense of generation after generation inhabiting the same environment to cast Big Ben and the Liberty Bell:  these will be irreparably damaged and lost forever.

I very much hope that you will issue a holding direction so that the decision by Tower Hamlets planning committee, which was itself split and relied on the casting vote of its chairman, can be reviewed at the highest level.

Charles Saumarez Smith

I realise that Rowan Moore’s excellent article about the Millennium Dome may be the first of many attempts to recover the circumstances which led to such a spectacular fiasco on its opening night and a generally disappointing and unmemorable experience for those who visited it.

There is one aspect of it which has maybe been completely forgotten, which was that, since the lottery had been established in 1993, Kenneth Baker had been making the case for the establishment of a Museum of British History to teach schoolchildren about the past through artefacts and experiential displays. I was part of a small working group which met regularly in offices in Manchester Square and I remember suggesting, and discussing, whether or not it could be in docklands. But, strangely, doclklands was regarded as too far from the centre in those days.

I sometimes wonder, as I did at the time, what would have happened if the two projects had joined up and the dome had become an exploration of British history and identity, instead of, as it turned out, a grand projet, without any galvanising and controlling idea.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/dec/01/millennium-dome-20-years-on-new-labour?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_WordPress