What does the Bedlam Theatre in Edinburgh have in common with the Abbey Church in Dunbar? Not much you’d think. Bedlam is home to a thriving theatre company and is the oldest fully student-run theatre in Britain. It has a 90 seat theatre and the Fat Cat Café are open for performances at least two nights a week during the University term. During the fringe Venue 47 49 is open 24/7. Bedlam is getting major roof repairs, not cheap.
By contrast, Abbey Church has remained unoccupied and unloved for around 40 years, used transiently as a reception centre when Torness power station was being built. Apart from occasional use, the last was in the mid 1990s, it has lain empty and progressively fallen into disrepair. The Buildings at Risk Register considers it to be at high risk and in poor condition, owing among other things to extensive wet and dry rot in the roof timbers and damaged rhones. Some attempts were made to bring the building back into use in the 1990s including a feasibility study for an arts facility under public ownership, as the site was and remains still in private hands. 1
So what is in common? If you are familiar with both buildings you’ll probably spot stylistic resemblances as they were both built in the mid 1800s by the architect Thomas Hamilton for the Free Church. The Bedlam was built on the site of the old Bedlam Hospital and Abbey Church erected for £1660 on a site sold by the Earl of Lauderdale for £200.
There is a pattern of old buildings falling into disrepair and Dunbar has a good share in this category, and a good number in the Buildings at Risk register. Larger public buildings, commercial/industrial and ones previously in ecclesiastical use are perhaps among the more challenging to convert for modern uses. So when in January 2011 planning permission was granted to convert the annexe / hall at the back of Abbey Church into a dwelling, it looked entirely possible that a private individual was also going to undertake the renovation or more likely a conversion of the Abbey Church itself. Long overdue.
The planning application to convert the Abbey Church was first registered in August 2011 by Richard Murphy Architects. The dwelling proposal was certainly interesting, in fact quite audacious. But as it turns out a bit too radical because before too long the Abbey Church Dunbar was back on the market. The whisperings on the High Street were that the planners were not in favour and that Listed Building Consent was unlikely to be granted.
Fast forward to the 23rd March 2012, and Listed Building Consent was indeed refused, on the grounds that the development would have had a deleterious impact on the character of Dunbar Conversation Area and the proposals were inharmonious with and an imposition on the structure of the original building.
Refusal was not about the house being created in the church per se, but the that Listed Building Consent could not be given due to the impact on the building and the area. In fairness to the planners they go out of their way to point out that there were no fundamental objections to a change of use. I quote from the original assessment letter:
The conclusion of that assessment [Listed Building Consent] is that as a consequence of the proposed downtakings and alterations, the wholeness of this listed building would be lost. It would be robbed of its architectural integrity, character and appearance to an extent that would be a degree of ruination harmful to its special or historic interest.
The drawings that follow illustrate how the proposal would have appeared from the East and West aspects, both poorly visible.
Dunbar was not a designed High Street and contains a hotch potch of buildings, some more attractive than others, that reflect an organic evolution over a fairly long time period. Herein lies its charm and character. There are very many modern visual intrusions on the character of the townscape and streetscape. Mostly they are poorly conceived – indeed designed – and are inharmonious, but somehow these changes seem to have been accommodated. The backlands of Dunbar have faired worse. Here the array of juxtapositions and visual intrusions abound, with the ruination of their unique and special features.
And, it is also difficult if not impossible to bring old buildings in line with modern building regulations and standards without some radical interventions and changes.
The creation of a dwelling inside the church envelope was among other things justified by the architects on environmental and energy efficiency grounds. The inner box could be built more or less independently of the original structure to meet or exceed modern standards. This left only the problem of how to deal with the church. The proposal here was to remove and repair parts of the roof and take down some of the rear walls. Partial exposure of the church envelope to the elements would have created a ruined abbey-like inner space and garden occupied by the new home, free of the constraints imposed by the envelope. Only glimpses of this would have been visible.
The removal of the rear wall and sections of the roof were such a big change that the planners balked. In their view the changes were so detrimental to the integrity of the building as a whole that Listed Building Consent could not granted. Ostensibly this is an interesting building, but really only in a local context. The way that the high street-facing elevations are in ashlar blocks and the side and rear elevations in sandstone was an interesting but money saving wheeze. The rear of the building is much more harmonious with the style of Dunbar than the austere gothic frontage. The pinnacled buttressed turrets and the tiled bellcote spirelet are curious and quaint bedfellows. The presence of trees decidedly softens the visual impact of the jarring wall of weathered grey sandstone.
It is a moot point whether the juxtoposition of modern and old would have detracted from the qualities of the Conservation Area. So the main argument hinges on whether the changes to the structure were justifiable. There is no arguing that the changes to the building would have been significant. Unlike nature, which has considerable regenerative capacity, archaeology, historic buildings and monuments have no such capacity. Once we dig them up or knock them down, they are lost, though our ability to document and record has improved dramatically. But even nature needs to be actively managed, and in nature conservation we routinely have to accept derogations provided there is a mitigation plan and that long term management will be put in place. The mitigation in the case of the Abbey Church, would have been that the building would come back into long term use and maintained, perhaps secured also through some legal conditions to ensure that the fabric and structure would be managed and maintained to a certain standard. Conditions on the use of certain materials and finishes to protect the fabric of the church could have been specified.
Perhaps this was discussed, but I got a frosty response when I tried to enquire as to what went wrong. We can assume from the revised drawings Richard Murphy Architects were presenting that the downtakings were indeed a stumbling block even before planning permission was submitted.
So a church which can be at best described as interesting, and then only in a very local context, could have become an an outstanding building worthy of international interest. Exactly what Dunbar needs. Despite this building being such a fine example, and so important to the Dunbar Conservation Area, only three individuals apparently wrote comments. All of these were in favour of the proposal. The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, a registered charity whose hard work and efforts I broadly support also wrote in, but objected. It is unclear whether anyone at Historic Scotland expressed a view. A further nine comments were made via the ELC website, though the officer report doesn’t record this.
The outlook for Abbey Church looks unpromising. Anyone undertaking such an ambitious project will need deep pockets and a patient and equally talented firm of architects. Dunbar desperately needs audacious and radical projects and the investment that usually comes with it. Was it myopic of ELC planners to refuse consent? Would this proposal have had a much higher chance of being granted permission were it in Edinburgh? Could the planners have insisted on any number of conditions that would mitigate the structural impacts, but at least secure a long future for Abbey Church? The jury is out.
- The Buildings at Risk website has a useful potted history. ↵