Why is the National Trust so eager to dismiss the work of Britain’s finest heritage craft practitioners as ‘plastic pastiche’? The value of the magnificent interiors for which Clandon House was famous was in their design. This can be recreated by the craftsmen and -women of today using authentic materials and techniques. The roundel showing Hercules and Omphale, the centrepiece of the grand cube-shaped Marble Hall, was copied from an engraving which was itself copied from a painting. The ceiling was superbly well crafted, but it was not an irreplaceable work of art. A reconstruction project would provide the ideal opportunity to train the next generation of practitioners of endangered heritage crafts on the job. But instead of playing its part in keeping traditional crafts alive, the National Trust has made every effort to discredit the idea of restoration.
There is little public enthusiasm for the National Trust’s vision. The charity has spent its funds on employing a full-time member of staff to promote the scheme, putting on exhibitions and taking 75,000 people to see the site and hear about the proposal. It must have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. After all this, only 175 letters to the Guildford Borough Council in support of the scheme could be mustered, and around 50 of these come from employees of the architects’ firm working on the project, while 360 people objected. A survey of local residents found that 84% were in favour of some kind of restoration of the interiors. But despite the show of consultation, the National Trust has shown no real interest in what the public thinks.
There is no reason to think that the preserved ruin will be financially viable. If it fails, the community will be stuck with a white elephant. The claim is that the proposals are light-touch and that the interventions can be reversed, should another approach be adopted in the future. In reality, the new structures dominate the spaces. The reversibility of the scheme is theoretical, as it would be costly and difficult to remove them. The proposal involves the demolition of several sections of original 1730s walls. This harm is supposedly balanced by the benefit, but much greater benefit can be achieved in a way that doesn’t leave the interior of the house as a site of destruction. The destruction is now worth preserving, the proposal argues. This sleight of hand allows the National Trust to dodge the requirement to preserve the fine stucco interiors which gave the building its significance. But planning policies, straightforwardly interpreted, clearly favour reconstructing the interiors. This would do no further harm, reverse harm done by the fire and bring about all the benefits of a first-class visitor attraction and wedding venue.
The fire was caused by a faulty fuse board and was exacerbated by a failure to compartmentalize the roof space. The National Trust was not set up to take risks with our finest built heritage and to acquiesce in its destruction. One has to ask, do the people in charge of the National Trust love the houses they look after on our behalf?
Cornelia van der Poll
Restore Trust
