Many churches have been altered or extended over the
years – more than 800 years of change in the case of
Horsham Parish Church, and this is part of its
architectural and historic attraction. The roof of the
Church was raided and the clerestory inserted in the
13th century, the chancel arcades in the 14th,
the porch and side chapels in the 14th and
15th, and the existing vestry or sacristy
also in the 15th century. There were
numerous structural changes in the 19th
century, including extending the south aisle and
remodelling the whole south elevation in 1865.
Within this broad historical picture, the new vestry
is, perhaps, nothing unusual. The architects, Clive
Mercer Associates Ltd, have produced a reasonable
enough building in itself, although the bright zinc
roof and its shape do not sit happily with the
existing roofs and the smooth ashlar limestone will
not weather like the original sandstone (not least
because the overhanging roof will protect it from the
maturing effect of rainfall). It would probably pass
the tests of the Charter of Venice (a code established
for the treatment of ancient buildings) in that it
bears a ‘contemporary stamp’ and the SPAB (Society for
the Protection of Ancient Buildings) manifesto (1924),
in that it is ‘in the natural manner of today ……… and
not a reproduction of any past style’.
So
that’s OK then? No, it certainly is not – far from it.
The new vestry is, in my view, an act of architectural
vandalism. It is an unacceptably large intrusion on
the wrong site adjoining and ruining the most ancient
part of the church building. The Parochial Church
Council has ultimate responsibility and it should not
have treated the heritage in its care with such
disregard. If this had been a private developer all
hell would have been let loose. No Listed Building
Consent was required because church developments have
ecclesiastical exemption.
In a
sense, of course, we are all responsible. The
Council’s planners and their committee, and English
Heritage, could have stopped it in its tracks but did
not. I made two phone calls to question the proposals
but regret that I failed to pursue the matter further.
The Horsham Society accepted the concept and siting –
only worrying about the details when it was the siting
and basic principle of the thing that was so
insensitive.
It is
instructive to look at the way the church was extended
in the past – side chapels always as parallel
additions to the side aisles and the nave. The new
extension on the tower breaks that established
discipline, when previously each new addition played a
subsidiary role to the nave and aisles, with no new
part diluting or dominating the character of the older
parts or individual elements.
Externally the stone tower below the broach spire was
the best known feature of the Church; it dates from
the 12th century with heavy 13th
century buttresses. The new vestry challenges and
undermines the identity and special nature of the
tower as a principal feature of the building as one
approaches from the river and the south. Critically
the stonework rose sheer out of the ground to support
the wooden spire above. It had an extraordinary
massive quality and dignity that contrasted with the
intricacy of the rest of the church. That simplicity
and contrast are now lost. There is even a large and
wholly inappropriate lean-to roof against the tower’s
south wall.
There
is little doubt in my mind that if this new
accommodation were really needed, and there had to be
an extension of the actual church, it should have been
constructed as an almost free-standing pavilion south
of the Victorian façade that runs along the south side
of the south aisle. Access would have come naturally
through one of the 1865 arches. The clue lies in the
way chapter houses were built at, for example,
Salisbury, York and Wells Cathedrals and Westminster
Abbey. Whenever one extends an historic church or
builds on a graveyard, there are inevitably losses to
be suffered and compromises to be made, but at the
very least, in our case, nothing should have been done
to wreck a fundamental element of the special
architectural and historic character of St Mary’s. It
is, after all, Horsham’s only Grade 1 listed building
and it should have been treated with greater respect.
Roy Worskett |