Main Edition
US
FR
December 25, 2024 - 10:00am
As well as heartbreak, all tragedies create opportunities — if we dare to seize them. From the 2019 Notre Dame fire came the opportunity for the French nation to reconsecrate itself, pour balm upon troubled relations between the Catholic Church and secular state, and give the world a moving example of energy and endeavour. Likewise, the National Trust has an opportunity to do something similar, albeit on a much smaller scale, with Clandon Park.
In 2015, the 18th-century Palladian manor in Surrey was mostly destroyed by fire. But, rather than rebuild it in its entirety and restore its magnificence, the National Trust has decided to leave it as a “country house laid bare”.
I first visited Clandon Park some 20 years ago on one of my very first dates with my wife. The exterior, which survives, is a little dreary; but the interiors, which largely don’t, were glorious: Rysbrack chimneypieces and sinuous plasterwork dripping with scrolls, flowers and Grecian gods and heroes. It’s awful to have lost the originals, but there’s a real opportunity to train a whole generation of master craftspeople, all funded by the insurance company. This is certainly the approach that would be taken throughout Europe.
Initially, the Trust got it right. It committed publicly to restoration and had £63 million in insurance funds to carry this out. Unfortunately, things soon changed. The Trust is influenced by the insular elements of the British conservation movement that, unlike European counterparts, have always opposed conservation beyond day-to-day repair. They prefer instead to rebuild de novo. In 2022, the Trust decided to abandon its initial plans and instead maintain Clandon Park as a fire-damaged shell, with a modern roof, glass skylights, and intrusive metal walkways so as to permit the public to inspect the remnants.
Not only might the restoration have employed and trained hundreds of craftspeople, but it could have used natural materials such as clay, lime, sand, animal hair and timber. It could have been deeply aligned with the National Trust’s principles of local skills, repair and sustainable development. Instead, the charity will be shipping energy-intensive plate glass and structural steel from abroad, burning oodles of precious carbon in the process. It has issued no public calculation of the relative carbon emission of the two approaches. But its key decision-makers must know that their chosen approach is deeply opposed to their own professions of sustainability, stewardship and love of place.
The good news is that a different approach could be so easy. All around the world, programmes which carefully and lovingly create buildings of wonder are rendered financially viable by the love bestowed upon them by the public. The “medieval” chateau of Guédelon in France, the street-by-street recreation of historic Dresden, the thoughtful restorations of the Landmark Trust, Wentworth Woodhouse in Yorkshire: all attract a paying public time and after time, visit after visit, to see the story of their recreation. At Clandon 2.0 there will be no emerging story. No one will come twice, if at all.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe last straw was the decision by NT to have at least 50% vegan food in their cafe outlets on the pretext that it was going to save the World,.although happy to have avocados shipped in from across the Globe. Sums up the NT ethos, virtue signalling at its best.
Hence cancelling our subscription.
Yet another reason not to leave money to the National Trust in your will.
Yeh TBH there’s not really a ‘national’ anything anymore and certainly no trust
National Distrust
I have to wonder if a complete restoration could be done for anything like 63 million pounds.
But I thoroughly agree with the plan; put a slate roof on it, petition the King for some help and await further developments. More public input is needed.
The King would be overstepping his role if he got too involved but a nudge and a raised eyebrow or two would make his feelings known. That might count for something at the NT.
Just an idea, but a renaming ceremony should be performed by those who disagree with the way the NT conducts its business.
National Distrust
“insular elements of the British conservation movement that, unlike European counterparts, have always opposed conservation beyond day-to-day repair. They prefer instead to rebuild de novo.”
Standard self-contradicting progressivism precisely mirrored by the plans for the building: Leave it hollowed out and meaningless while retaining the original facade. Only progressives would claim to be for conservation while preferring to build new.