Above, Cherry Hinton church interior. SPAB approved the work of JT Micklethwaite (far left) at the church, welcoming the move away from the influence of Gilbert Scott Junior (left)
is interesting in the building”, (what today might be described as “significant”, in the language of English Heritage’s conservation principles). Balfour was unimpressed by the assertion, commenting “this may be said of every restorer from his own point of view”. Balfour was right to be sceptical. Work went ahead between 1878 and 1880
with Scott spending the substantial sum of £4,300, according to Gavin Stamp’s biography of him.*Although the clerestory was not raised – a victory of sorts for the SPAB – the walls of both nave and chancel were virtually rebuilt by Rattee and Kett, the nave roof was made new and the aisle roofs much renewed. As far as the SPAB was concerned, it could “no longer be looked upon as mediaeval work”, according to theAnnual Report of 1885. The only good news was that the chancel
had been left unaltered. When proposals for its restoration were made in 1883, the SPAB contacted the Master of Peterhouse, as the college was patron of the chancel. The SPAB prepared a lengthy report on how this might be undertaken conservatively, which the Master and college accepted. In 1885 he asked the Society to suggest a suitable architect, and as a result JT Micklethwaite, Surveyor of the Fabric of Westminster Abbey and much favoured by William Morris, was appointed. Micklethwaite largely accepted the SPAB proposals, with a few exceptions. For example, he preferred the use of cement for underpinning, rather than the SPAB proposal to use lias lime, as “it sets quicker and expands a little which is an advantage in underpinning”.
the beautiful wall arcading has had nothing done to it beyond the removal of the whitewash with a hair brush, that the walls have been rendered secure by extensive under-building in brick and cement, and that the old chancel screen has been restored to its place.” However, that wasn’t the end of the story.
I
In 1958 the Society was drawn into an acrimonous technical argument about the possible use of various chemicals to consolidate the soft clunch of which the church is built. These had been suggested by Lt Col BCG Shore, a member of the SPAB Technical Panel, who was a committed advocate of ethyl silicate
n its Annual Report for 1886 The Society trumpeted the outcome as an exemplar for the treatment of other ancient buildings. “All who have seen this well-known building will learn with satisfaction that
and silicones, contrary to the advice of the Building Research Station. To Col Shore the BRS opposition to the use of water repellents was a violent, unreasoned, obstruction, and the view “of certain smug but mentally inactive architects”. Fortunately, both the college and the DAC disagreed with the use of chemicals at Cherry Hinton, and it appears the treatment did not go ahead. Today the Society has a warning technical note on the dangers of such treatments see (SPAB Technical Statement 2). These days the church is in active parish use,
with the main changes being the installation of a new bellframe and extra bells in 1952, the erection of a church centre on the north side in 1982, with further lesser changes in 1985.
*‘An Architect of Promise’, by Gavin Stamp. Shaun Tyas Donnington, 2002.
Cornerstone, Vol 32, No 3 2011 33
PHILIP VENNING
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