Societyclimbsaboard HS2 group
THE SPAB has added its weight to a powerful alliance of environmental charities calling for fresh thinking over the current proposals for a High Speed Rail Link. The Right Lines Charter Group is not opposed to high speed rail in principle, but argues that four basic principles must be met first. In the case of HS2 these have not been met, the group says. The natural and historic environment have been the big losers in the polarised debate about HS2, it believes. This was the basis for the SPAB’s formal response
to the HS2 consultation, which closed at the end of July. More specifically, the SPAB questioned the accuracy of the historic buildings identified as being at direct risk from the preferred route. It also argued that buildings that had survived for hundreds of years should not be jeopardised by any proposal that might be in doubt in the long term. A good example was the grade II*, 17th-century building at Bourne in Lincolnshire. After a local campaign this escaped demolition in the late 19th century when the railway came to the town. Instead, the line was slightly diverted and the building served as the station until the line was closed in the 1960s. It is now a popular community centre and will survive many more years. Though the possibility of “moving” buildings out of
the way of the line has not so far been proposed as a way ofmitigating the damage, in its response to the consultation the SPAB argued that this should be dismissed at the outset. It is not the easy answer it may appear. In reality, “moving” generally involves the dismantling of a building with substantial loss of historic fabric, and re-erecting what may be a pale shadow of it in an alien location. Many of the listed buildings identified as being at risk of direct impact
are structurally unsuitable for “moving”, and would simply end up asmeaningless replicas. As long as “moving” historic buildings remains an option, more serious thinking about the route is put to one side. The Right Lines Charter Group, to which the SPAB
now belongs, is co-ordinated by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, but includes among others the RSPB, Civic Voice, Friends of the Earth,Wildlife Trusts, Ramblers,Woodland Trust and Greenpeace. Various transport organisations also support its aims. The Charter’s four principles are:
• National Strategy. High Speed Rail proposals need to be set in the context of a long-term transport strategy stating clear objectives. • Testing the Options. Major infrastructure proposals, such as High Speed Rail, need to be ‘future-proofed’ by comprehensive testing against different scenarios. This will help identify the best solutions for genuinely furthering sustainable development. “The treatment of impacts that cannot be monetised, such as those on landscapes, heritage and habitats has been particularly limited in HS2’s business case, with very limited weight given to them.” • Public Participation. Early public involvement in the development of major infrastructure proposals, including High Speed Rail, is essential. People need to be involved when all options are open for discussion and effective participation can take place. •Minimising the Adverse Impacts. High Speed Rail proposals need to be designed fromthe start to avoid significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, cultural heritage and local communities (including biodiversity, landscapes, tranquillity, and access) during construction and operation.
news
Expanding on the latter principle, the Charter says that setting inflexible objectives for HS2 tomeet technical specifications –such as a theoretical top speed of 400km/h – has seriously limited the range of route options and the ability of those taking part in the consultation to propose any changes to the preferred route. “Althoughmitigation can reduce adverse impacts,
it is not as good as avoiding impacts in the first place. Specifications and design speed should not be rigidly fixed in advance but be shaped by the opportunities to minimise impact and maximise benefit. This requires respecting environmental limits and a strategic approach to reducing impacts by prioritising avoidance overmitigation with compensation being the last option.” While the Government is analysing the responses
to the consultation plans are being made to carry out the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) required under European law. According to the Department for Transport, this will go into more detail and bemore accurate than the original Appraisal of Sustainability. This is the document that has identified 16 listed structures as facing direct impact as well as numerousmore within 300 metres of the proposed route. To help produce the EIA the Department says it
would consult with key organisations on its scope, and with local communities on the effects and possiblemitigation. No date has yet been announced as to when this will occur. PhilipVenning,Secretary,SPAB
Right Lines Charter:
www.rightlines.org.uk SPABresearch putsheat in thelight
DURING the winter of 2009-10 the SPAB undertook a programme of research into the U-values of traditionally-built walls. This resulted in a number of alternative in situ U-values, and cast doubt on conventional U-value calculation practices for traditional walls of certain constructions. (The findings of this research are detailed in “SPAB Research Report 1: U-value Report”, readable online at
www.spab.org.uk/advice/energy-efficie ncy/). As a result of this research it was acknowledged that heat loss as quantified by U-value assessment is only a part of a wider set of factors that affect the energy profiles of traditional buildings. To engage more comprehensively
with debates on energy efficiency and older buildings, more wide-ranging forms of building performance assessment are required. The SPAB Building Performance Survey is an
attempt to provide such an assessment by looking at a range of factors that may affect the energy performance and environmental behaviour of traditionally-built dwellings. The SPAB Building Performance
Survey has been supported in part by a grant from the Dartmoor National Park Sustainable Development Fund. Seven properties, four of which are located in and around Dartmoor, were identified as being of traditional construction and scheduled for various forms of energy improvement interventions over the year 2011-12. During a two-week period between
January and April 2011, while still in an “unimproved” condition, various aspects of the energy performance and environmental behaviour in these seven properties weremonitored and recorded. It is expected, once refurbishment work is complete, that these same buildings will again be
measured during the 2011-12 winter. When complete, this study will present an analysis of the various parameters relating to fabric performance and the environment both before and after refurbishment. It is hoped that this approach will enable an assessment of points of difference and change, beneficial or otherwise, within the properties as a result of the energy “improvement” work. The SPAB Building Performance
Survey looks specifically at: • Fabric heat loss through the U-value measurement of wall elements both in the form of in situ and calculated U-values. • Air infiltration through air permeability testing and thermographic survey. • Moisture, roomandwall moisture including wall surface and interstitial moisture behaviour. • Indoor air conditions and comfort levels viameasurement of CO2, interior
temperature and relative humidity. At the time of writing this research
project is in progress; data from the first season’s (“unimproved”) monitoring has been collated and is subject to a preliminary analysis. An Interim Report providing details of the projects findings thus far will be published in time for our Technical Day – “Old Building Energy Efficiency Research: The Latest Thinking & Results Update” – that is to be held, as last year, at Shaw House, Newbury, Berkshire, this 18October. For further information please visit our website or talk to Skye Dillon, SPAB Course Organiser, on: 020 7456 0915. A final report, detailing all research
results, will be published after completion of the second monitoring cycle, probably next summer. For an audio visual discussion online, visit
www.spab.org.uk/videos-podcasts/aud io-slideshows/ DrCaroline Rye, JonathanGarlick
Cornerstone, Vol 32, No 3 2011 15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112