X Close

National Trust will regret modernist Clandon Park restoration

All tragedies create opportunities. Credit: Getty

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.

The National Trust is seeking planning permission for a glass and metal box. Guildford Borough Council should refuse them and instead oblige them to put back the slate roof.

No one likes to admit that they’ve made an awful mistake. The current National Trust high command certainly will not. They are too publicly committed to their scorched-earth approach. But they need to be stopped from making the situation worse so that, in the future, hopefully more thoughtful, loving and enlightened stewards of the National Trust can launch the programme of careful restoration which Clandon Park so clearly needs. If done properly, the public will pay and the future will be kind. If only we could put the King in charge.


Nicholas Boys Smith is the Chairman of Create Streets

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

19 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
22 days ago

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.

LindaMB
LindaMB
22 days ago

Yet another reason not to leave money to the National Trust in your will.

General Store
General Store
22 days ago
Reply to  LindaMB

Yeh TBH there’s not really a ‘national’ anything anymore and certainly no trust

Chris Riches
Chris Riches
22 days ago

The 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.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
22 days ago

Just an idea, but a renaming ceremony should be performed by those who disagree with the way the NT conducts its business.

National Distrust

Hugh Jarse
Hugh Jarse
22 days ago
Reply to  Lancashire Lad

Restore Trust. Already exists and is doing good work. Worth looking it up. Even better, join.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
22 days ago

National Distrust

Daniel Lee
Daniel Lee
22 days ago

“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.

Realist 77
Realist 77
22 days ago

There is an ulterior motive with this approach. I bet they just want to save a big chunk of the £63 million for “progressive policies”, to try and make us feel guilty for our mere existence. Still it will pay for the big salaries and fat pensions of the virtual signalling hierarchy.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
21 days ago
Reply to  Realist 77

It’s “virtue signalling.” But “virtual signalling” works too, indicating there’s no reality behind the facade, that the people behind the signal don’t really care what you believe, or even what you believe they believe, as long as you both make the correct noises.

Su Mac
Su Mac
22 days ago

I finally got fed up of NT after they took to removing loads of beautiful old pine trees from the Purbeck heathland golf course on the Studland Dorset coast. I also am baffled how they have for years sold cake made with margarine, actually recommending it in the recipe book!! You have a dairy nation making a pure food like butter and you suggest funny-fats. Apart from the yuk taste of course.

I am in Historic Houses now, lots of independent house owners with individual views and approaches. Much nicer than the NT monoculture.

Trevor Q
Trevor Q
21 days ago
Reply to  Su Mac

I made a similar journey and much prefer Historic Houses.

Seb Dakin
Seb Dakin
21 days ago
Reply to  Su Mac

The lunatic thing with what they’re doing here is that instead of restoring it, they’re putting in walkways etc. so people can get a better view of a burned-out wreck of a house. Are they going to serve burnt toast in the cafe? Who’s going to wake up and decide they’ll spend their day off walking around some gutted remnant of a once fine house.

Paul MacDonnell
Paul MacDonnell
22 days ago

“burning oodles of precious carbon” — OK. so the sub-editor is on holiday.

Jae
Jae
21 days ago

National Trust is a National Disgrace. Don’t support it.

Peter B
Peter B
21 days ago

My first reaction was to say “burn it down” – meaning the National Trust leadership team (as they would doubtless style themselves).
To be fair to the NT, I think most of the operational side of things (the people actually doing the front line work) is still fine. I’m sure it’s exactly the same over at Jaguar. So let’s not imagine ourselves to be the primary losers (I almost used victims) here.
So the NT is sitting on an £63m insurance payout after this house burned down. Doesn’t this put them under some sort of obligation to use this money to restore the house ? Or are they allowed to pocket this cash and do whatever they want with it ?

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
21 days ago
Reply to  Peter B

Normally insurance of this nature only pays out for reinstatement or restoration, but the NT seems to have negotiated this out in this instance. But it is morally dishonest to take out full insurance and then use it for other purposes.

I hope the insurers for other NT properties will not permit this situation to arise again

Kiddo Cook
Kiddo Cook
21 days ago

pseudo religions of U.K. :

MacPhersonry – NCHI hit list
BLaMic – DEI, sick lame and lazy welcomed
Multicountry – sharia for all
Translie – denial of sex
BBC – antisemitism
Asylumgee – whatever floats your boat
Drax – trees across the seas
WindEVil – candle power

Chipoko
Chipoko
19 days ago

The feminised management of the National Trust has drenched the organisation in Woke DEI policies and programmes, fired staff who did not enthuse about this progressive agenda and denounced the history and heritage of the artefacts in their care. Senior management (including the DEI appointments) is well remunerated, thank you very much! The NT lost its soul many decades ago when the aristocratic pre-LGBTQ++ dandies reigned, but the more recent descent into Woke madness has destroyed its essence completely. I no longer visit NT properties.