New rules are thatchers' final straw.
Horace Batchelor
Country craftsmen threaten legal action over ban on using more durable
imported materials to replace grass and reed roofs. Rajeev Syal
reports
For craftsmen whose forefathers have made and repaired traditional
roofs for 2,000 years, it is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Britain's thatchers are embroiled in an unseemly row with the
Government's heritage watchdog over what materials they can use.
Solicitors acting for half of Britain's 500 thatchers have written to
every local council planning department urging them to ignore English
Heritage guidelines that allow the use of only certain kinds of straw
and reeds. They claim that craftsmen and owners of thatched houses
should be allowed to break with tradition and use imported wheat straw
and more durable water reeds.
Thatchers believe that 'English Heritage are determined to kill off
new developments in thatching.'
It is the first time that the thatchers, who claim that they are
preserving their ancestral trade, have banded together to oppose
Government regulations.
Bob West, the chairman of the National Society of Master Thatchers,
who authorised the letter, said that they may yet take legal action
against English Heritage. "We are traditionally a passive bunch," he
said. "But we are livid that English Heritage are determined to kill
off new developments in thatching."
He claimed that wheat straw and reeds imported from Turkey, Africa or
Russia were often stronger and more durable than their British
equivalents. "As long as we are not changing the character of the
building, we should be allowed to use any appropriate material," he
added. "English Heritage could kill off our profession altogether."
There are about 50,000 thatched buildings in Britain, around half of
which are listed buildings and therefore come under the jurisdiction
of English Heritage.
Nearly all British thatched roofs are covered by one of three organic
materials: long straw, from wheat or rye, that produces the shaggy
thatch common in the Cotswolds; combed wheat reed, a straw found
originally in the West Country; and water reed, a wetland plant that
was commonly used in East Anglia.
All three types use plant stems to shed water from the roof surface as
fast as possible, minimising rot. The five tons of long straw needed
to rethatch a three-bedroom cottage costs about £2,000 and should last
20 years. If combed wheat reed were used it would cost £3,000 and last
about 30 years. Water reeds would cost £5,000 and last 50 years.
Materials from abroad cost much the same, but are generally better
quality. Wheat from Eastern Europe is grown using fewer nitrogens and
other chemicals and lasts longer. Veldt grass from Africa tends to be
more expensive but lasts longer than British wheat or water reeds.
The thatchers claim that the new materials are virtually identical in
colour, but English Heritage insists that there are subtle
differences. The disputed guidelines, drawn up by English Heritage two
years ago for planning authorities, state that the existing type of
straw or reed should be used when a roof needs rethatching, that it
should be "done in a form of thatch traditional to the region" and use
homegrown materials so that the "character" of the building is
preserved.
Some homeowners, however, say that the approach has vastly increased
their roofing costs and, in some instances, forced them to leave their
homes. Mark Ridge, 49, a pharmaceutical consultant, bought a grade
II-listed cottage in Wherwell, Hampshire, nestling on the River Test,
in 1988 for £69,000. He hoped that it would be home to his family for
decades. It proved to be a costly investment, however. When the
cottage's thatch needed replacing, Mr Ridge had to spend £27,000 over
10 years rethatching with combed wheat reed, which rotted quickly.
In despair, Mr Ridge turned to South African veldt grass in 1998,
which cost £17,000. His choice of reed provoked the wrath of English
Heritage, whose rules can be enforced by the courts. The organisation
threatened to sue unless he tore down his new roof and replaced it
with local materials.
"My new roof looked exactly the same as it did before and was more
cost efficient," said Mr Ridge. "But for three years, I had English
Heritage and the local council hovering over my shoulder. It was like
a £20,000 sword of Damocles over my family's heads."
Mr Ridge, his wife and their son finally left the 250-year-old
property last year, moving into a modern four-bedroom home. "It has
been an awful experience for me and my family," he said. "My wife
cries whenever the roof is mentioned."
He has since been trying to sell the cottage, but has not been able to
find an owner because of the dispute.
Rod Miller, a thatcher who was last week repairing part of Mr Ridge's
roof to English Heritage specifications, said that the guidelines were
dogmatically pursued by councils.
"The traditional materials are not always right for the job," he said.
"The only people who can make that decision are the thatchers working
on it. We have always looked after our own craft by developing our own
innovations, without interference."
The thatchers' stance has provoked an angry response from English
Heritage. David Brock, the body's historic buildings inspector who
drew up the guidelines, said that the rules were designed to conserve
Britain's heritage.
"It is pretty clear that a frequent change of materials would bring a
change in appearance," he said. "Roofs are a vital part of our
country's heritage and we are entitled to see them preserved as we
would any other part of a building."
Bystander
"Horace Batchelor" <H...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:21dnlv4t5vd7d9qmh...@4ax.com...
> New rules are thatchers' final straw.
>
>
> Country craftsmen threaten legal action over ban on using more durable
> imported materials to replace grass and reed roofs. Rajeev Syal
> reports
>
>
> Thatchers believe that 'English Heritage are determined to kill off
> new developments in thatching.'
>Bob West, the chairman of the National Society of Master Thatchers,
> who authorised the letter, said that they may yet take legal action
> against English Heritage. "We are traditionally a passive bunch," he
> said. "But we are livid that English Heritage are determined to kill
> off new developments in thatching."
>
> In despair, Mr Ridge turned to South African veldt grass in 1998,
> which cost £17,000. His choice of reed provoked the wrath of English
> Heritage, whose rules can be enforced by the courts. The organisation
> threatened to sue unless he tore down his new roof and replaced it
> with local materials.
>
> "My new roof looked exactly the same as it did before and was more
> cost efficient," said Mr Ridge. "But for three years, I had English
> Heritage and the local council hovering over my shoulder. It was like
> a £20,000 sword of Damocles over my family's heads."
I have considerable sympathy with Mr Ridge and the thatchers. English
Heritage seem to be trying to preserve the past in a pickle jar, instead of
allowing the use of developments which, had they been available to the
original builders, would have been snapped up without a second thought.
I visited a church - at Sedgeford, near Hunstanton, Norfolk - recently: it
is an architectural hotch-potch of styles, and dates, depending on which bit
you're looking at, either from Saxon times, or Stuart, with quite a bit of
Victoria. It is clear that when the building was altered in the past, no
attempt was apparently made to restrict the work so that it matched that of
older parts of it. I'd guess most EH listed old churches face the problem
that if repairs and maintenance are required these days, EH are going to get
very picky about how the job is done, and the materials to be used.
Even Time Team have had their run-ins with this ridiculously conservative
(small 'c', you'll note) body, who would prefer water damage to continue in
a listed building whilst they argue over the use of some antique and
expensive material, which probably no-one will ever see, and which is less
effective than its modern equivalent, to plug a leak.
I seem to remember one TT episode, where they were excavating an earthwork,
but the man from EH, who was standing over them, had made it perfectly clear
that they couldn't dig where they wanted, and that there were parts of the
structure definitely out of bounds. There are a lot of highly-qualified
archeologists on TT: there seems no good reason to believe that EH's
archeological judgement is any better than theirs.
Pete