Message to colleagues concerned with development at the Hornsey gasworks site:

17 August 2016

Dear fellow campaigners and residents,

In recent months I have been relatively quiet about Gasholder No.1 and have tried to resist making a big noise about it. This is because up until the last week in July there was still a slim chance that it would be saved by Historic England eventually agreeing to give it listed status, which would have prevented demolition. It was possible that National Grid was not aware of the listing review and it would have been wrong to alert them to it and possibly hasten their plans to demolish. Now, as we all know, the demolition is almost complete and the battle to save it has been lost. I want to use this opportunity to summarise the ten-year campaign to try and save this important gasholder and to explain the reasons why it failed. Sorry it’s a bit of a long story!

For me the story started in 2006 with my involvement in objecting to some aspects of Haringey’s development plans (the UDP), which included removing Gasholder No.1 from the local list of heritage buildings and structures. It had been on the list for many years and was correctly described as a structure from 1892 using Cutler’s helical girder concept. At the public examination of Haringey’s plan the Inspector questioned why Haringey wanted to take it off the list and seemed unconvinced of their reasons, which were to help clear the way for Haringey Heartlands. Together with other objectors, I thought we had won, but when the final UDP emerged it seems the Inspector had obligingly agreed to take it off the list.

The campaign was then directed at getting English Heritage (the ultimate custodian of listing -now Historic England, HE)) to recognise the importance of this structure and the first submission to EH was made in 2006. Early and informal feedback from EH had suggested that we were ‘knocking at an open door’ and success looked likely, but sadly, listing was refused. Over the next ten years there were three further appeals and submissions, all to no avail – these are summarised in the first of the extracts from my messages of protest – see below.

Although I have a technical background, I am not a structural engineer, but it seemed obvious to me that the 1892 guide-frame of Hornsey No.1 was a precursor for other and much later geodesic structures including the London Gherkin from 2004. The more I became involved, the more important it seemed to preserve this structure and if possible see its reuse as the outer-frame of a landmark building in Heartlands. I was pleased to find that I had allies in this and that there were heritage and structural experts who were also arguing for listing. Along the way, there was also additional support from the Victorian Society, the Greater London Industrial Archaeological Society, the Association for Industrial Archaeology and local residents groups.

Looking back over all of this, I have had to question whether the outcome could have been a happy one if we had done things differently. Sadly, I think the answer is no and I think we played our cards as well as we could have done. Haringey Council was clearly in the wrong when it cynically took Hornsey No.1 off the local list, but in itself this did not condemn the structure. If the appraisals conducted by EH and HE had been objective, then I think listing would have been achieved, but I think these organisations failed to live up to what we expected of them. It is also possible that a high-level decision was taken years ago not to list structures like this and in consequence all they attempted to do was trot out reasons to defend their first decision not to list.

The following sections are extracts from two messages of protest that I sent early in August. One was to the Chief Executive at HE, which is more general in its scope. The other was to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, whose Secretary of State is the ultimate boss of HE – this is a protest directed at the final decision and report in July.

If anyone would like to see the detailed submissions for listing and the formal responses, I would be content to pass them on.

Best wishes to all and everyone who might want to follow a similar path,

Colin Marr

Footnote:

There are other surviving examples of Cutler’s helical girder geodesic structures, including a very large one by the railway line at New Barnet, built on the 1930s. But these are relatively late, rather large and never ever likely to be listed. Hornsey No.1 was the most eligible for retention.

......

Extract from letter of protest (8 August 2016) to the Chief Executive, Historic England (HE):

In summary, the story started ten years ago when I first submitted a request for listing to English Heritage (EH). Early feedback from EH had suggested that the first bid was likely to be successful, but to my dismay, it was refused, mostly because of a technical misunderstanding about the innovative nature of Cutler’s structure. EH’s error was acknowledged and a further review was carried out, but this too was unsuccessful, mostly because an earlier prototype with the same structural form was found to be extant in Tunbridge Wells. In 2014 there was a further submission after the Tunbridge Wells example had been demolished. Surprisingly, and for insubstantial reasons, this too was refused in September 2015. There were deficiencies in Historic England’s refusal report, which together with new evidence prompted a further appeal. This appeal again resulted in a refusal notice and report, which was issued at the end of July 2016.

The reasons for my misgivings about HE’s final report are given in the message sent to the DCMS. I am not alone in being dismayed about this final decision. Other recent submissions in favour of listing have been from well informed people, including EH/HE’s own recent consultant expert on gasholders, and an eminent professional structural engineer and industrial archaeologist. Earlier submissions of support have been from the Victorian Society, the Greater London IndustrialArchaeological Society, the AssociationforIndustrialArchaeologyand local residents groups.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this experience has been the inconsistencies in responses from EH/HE with shifting reasons for refusal, almost as if a prior decision taken years earlier was simply being defended, rather than carry out any fresh and objective reappraisal. Institutions such as HE should not be above admitting mistakes and taking corrective action. In this unfortunate example, I think HE has not performed the role expected of it and in consequence there has been a significant loss to our industrial heritage and to the socio-economic history of Hornsey and Wood Green.

CM

Extract from letter of protest (3 August 2016) to the DCMS with copies to Historic England:

I received the message notifying me of the decision not to list the gasholder known as Hornsey No.1 on my return from holiday at the end of July. I am dismayed by the decision and the way that it has been arrived at, and I wish to register some of my misgivings about this – hence the following comments:

  1. I had expected the review would be a thorough and objective reappraisal of the case for listing based on the submissions made by me and two others. The report you have presented falls short of that and amounts to little more than an attempt to justify an earlier decision without much by way of a review of new material.
  2. The most serious reason for not listing rests on HE’s claim that Cutler’s technical innovation was merely a development of George Livesey’s earlier design. To substantiate this, the report quotes from observations made by the acknowledged expert in his earlier (2000) work for EH – observations that havebeen construed to diminish regard for the merits of Hornsey. In so doing, HE has ignored and failed to respond to the views of the same expert as expressed in his submission in favour of listing in September 2015!
  3. HE’s dismissal of the significance of Cutler’s biographical record because he isn’t referred to in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biographies is a perverse and insulting form of old-school snobbery. This is a disservice to the Institution of Civil Engineers Biographical Dictionary, where Cutler’s significance is duly referenced.
  4. This review again reveals shortcomings in HE’s approach to industrial archaeology. It seems that HE continues to associate architectural merit as being “enriched with a greater level of detailing” and shows a preference for “classical orders of columns linked by filigree cast iron bands”. While this hankering for classical references persists, it is no surprise that HE fails to recognise the simple functional elegance of Cutler’s design at Hornsey.
  5. In my submission for listing, I didn’t claim that Cutler’s geodesic design had any direct influence on later and better recognised structures, but that absence should not negate a claim for Cutler’s innovation and for Hornsey No.1 to be recognised as a structure of special architectural and historic interest. For HE to continue to see Livesey’s Old Kent Road guideframe as the principle form does not stand up to scrutiny. While acknowledging the excellence of Livesey’s work, a simple visual comparison of the two structures shows the huge advance made by Cutler a few years later. This is evident in the photos attached. Compared to Hornsey No 1, Livesey’s example looks relatively unremarkable and can easily be described as a lattice of rectangular square forms with five bold horizontal elements and with angled bracing. It is only at Hornsey that we see the clear triangular geodesic lattice form for the first time, without horizontals except at the very top.

Looking back over ten years of trying to get listed status for Hornsey No 1, I have at times been optimistic that logic and good sense would eventually prevail, and that EH/HE would see the light and find a way to correct their first erroneous decision. I am dismayed now to accept that the process has run its course and demolition is inevitable. I am sorry to say that some will see this as an act as vandalism sanctioned by poor decision making at HE and an apparent negation of concern for our industrial heritage.

CM

End