St Peters-Section 12 Appendices - Historic Scotland

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT - VOLUME 1: ST PETER’S SEMINARY FEBRUARY 2008 317 Final Issue Agrees with dismissal of the romantic ruin argument Considers it unacceptable to raise or impose handrails, including on entrance bridge and processional ramp. Agrees about quality of panel fi nishes, and suggests that stainless steel bolts could be considered as panel fi xings Recalls acoustic ‘over-brightness, from early visit - consider rugs rather than sheet fi nishes Agree with the term ‘should be incorporated within the original design intent’ and that this should be applied sympathetically, not religiously. There should be no fi re enclosures to staircases Timber screens and windows should be replaced in timber Failure of side chapel harl requires detailed analysis: refer to Section 4.6 ‘Brickwork’ Fire upgrade requirements should not be taken as ‘carte blanche’ to alter the interior. If bedrooms are able to be linked, consider providing doors each side of wall for acoustics A ‘museum bedroom’ would only be of value if its contents were real items Solar collectors could be considered where fl at roofs are not overseen. External chapel should not be roofed Any new uses will require storage, so sacristy could still retain timber fi tments/wardrobes. Altar treatment depends on new use – could be boxed in and displayed on demand. New lighting should match the light temperature/colour and design of the original; light fi ttings in teaching block should either match originals exactly or be contemporary and different. Floor upgradings should not be done, but waivers sought, or other means of achieving performance Loss of toilet pod is avoidable, as wc’s will still be needed whatever the eventual use. Kitchen block is key aid to understanding the group, particularly with a new Kilmahew House Accretions on the convent block roof to be avoided. Do not consider the ‘Consolidated Exhibit’ option to be realistically achievable. Without more detailed work on individual elements 5 year period for Holding Option may be misleading. ‘Stabilized Structure’ option is unacceptable, and could be a disastrous precedent to infl ict on an A –listed building Agrees that ‘Do nothing’ is not a realistic option, but useful to know if owners carry insurance for public liability.
12.10.15 12.10.16 12.10.17 CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT - VOLUME 1: ST PETER’S SEMINARY FEBRUARY 2008 318 Final Issue Demolition is unacceptable – Restoration / repair options should be pursued energetically Any option involving standing remains would entail 24 hour security presence Do not introduce metal reinforcing arches into rhodendron tunnel if none currently exist Do not consider the current scheme to be ‘Enabling Development’, but an examination of options should include re-occupation of Kilmahew Castle and construction of new buildings on sites of Kilmahew House and the Stable Block. A new Kilmahew House could make sense of the designed landscape and the GKC layout, but would need to be of supreme architectural quality Evidence from the landscape and archaeological assessments suggest the estate should be added to the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland Proposals for ‘Country Park’ should refl ect landscape values beyond ‘mere’ nature conservation and managed access. Avanti Architects Response/Actions Include synopsis of Charles Strang’s feedback in Appendix, including detailed recommendations on works to the buildings and landscape. (Note – processional ramp originally had handrail to open side.) Cross refer to new publication on GKC for further details of fi rm. Recommend publication of Executive Summary as a separate short document for wide public information and consultation. See Glossary for technical terms Add paragraph numbers as appropriate. Twentieth Century Society Feedback Welcome report as a necessary fi rst step in ending neglect of this heritage asset Endorse and applaud fi ndings of fact relating to the importance of the heritage asset, its state and condition. Studies undertaken and information compiled are most useful. Have serious reservations regarding defi ciencies and omissions of the report. In no way are said defi ciencies attributed to any neglect or failure of Avanti or the report team. Defi ciencies are attributable to inappropriate and inadequate brief and inappropriate client instructions.
Page 1 and 2:
Section 12 Appendices CONSERVATION
Page 3 and 4: General Roy’s map showing ‘indi
Page 5 and 6: 2nd Edition Ordnance Survey, 1896-1
Page 7 and 8: Aerial photograph, 15 May 1940 12.1
Page 9 and 10: Current ordnance survey map 12. APP
Page 11 and 12: MacGibbon and Ross indeed suggest a
Page 13 and 14: iii. The Gothick mansion The remain
Page 15 and 16: Detail of the upper part of the E s
Page 17 and 18: vi. Significance The significance o
Page 19 and 20: The possibility that much earlier a
Page 21 and 22: 12. APPENDICES CONSERVATION ASSESSM
Page 23 and 24: 18th Century 1721 ‘…the estate
Page 25 and 26: 1865-95 1st Edition Ordnance Survey
Page 27 and 28: The curling pond is labelled The no
Page 29 and 30: 1967 2 April: Opening of classroom
Page 31 and 32: Helensburgh Library West King Stree
Page 33 and 34: 12. APPENDICES CONSERVATION ASSESSM
Page 35 and 36: CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT - VOLUME 1:
Page 37 and 38: Buildings at Risk Register for Scot
Page 43 and 44: 12.9.6 12.9.7 12.9.8 12.9.9 12.9.10
Page 45 and 46: 12.9.17 12.9.18 12.9.19 12.9.20 12.
Page 47 and 48: 12.9.27 12.9.28 12.9.29 12.9.30 12.
Page 49 and 50: 12.9.38 12.9.39 12.9.40 12. APPENDI
Page 51 and 52: 12.10 12.10.1 12.10.2 12.10.3 12.10
Page 53: 12.10.10 12.10.11 12.10.12 12.10.13
Page 57 and 58: 12.10.18 12.10.19 12.10.20 CONSERVA
Page 59 and 60: 12.10.23 12.10.24 12.10.25 12.10.26
Page 61 and 62: authenticity the characteristics th
show all

St Peters-Section 12 Appendices - Historic Scotland

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?