M I
A Smaller Splash A
quarterly reviewof current architectural, urbanist and environmental issues and events in the Cambridge area produced by the Cambridge Associationo f Architects. The views in this Gazette are those of the individual contributors and noto f the Association.
The design competition fora new fountain for Market Square has now run its course anda proposal isto go before the Planning Committee. The Committee will doubtless consider issues of scale, context and setting for the fountain, not to mention artistic merit. Public discussion has been clouded by the modernv tradition conflict, with an apparently finely balanced predilection for the former. The fountain isa component ina revamped floorscaping treatment for the Square, itself a casualty of public and political controversy. The time has surely arrived for proper and decisive action. The fountain competition follows five years on from the competition for the Market Square itself. Cambridge Architecture 13, reporting the results in 1990, stated The problems of the Market Sguare are notsuch that they may be solved by superficial interventions to do with floorscape and marginal sn//King of trading stalls, or even theintroduction ofa fountain. Notwithstanding, this high-minded disclaimer has in the meantime been stood on its head tobecome thedevelopment brief. From thelevel of discourse of this
MARKET SQUARE
FOUNTAIN
twinned public wrangle, who would guess that the location is part ofa prime, internationally accredited, urban heritage site? From the results of the fountain competition who could possibly conceive that the results in any way measure up tothetask and ranking order of the problem? The revised design might in itself be fun (in some minds) but to even think of it in the Market Square isa colossally
bad joke.
Impression of revised fountain proposal
VILLAGE DESIGN
The concept ofa fountain, in the context of this particular competition, isa crass anachronism. Popular opinion which favours the resiting of Hobson's Conduit in Market Square is an equally ill-founded notion (it works extremely well as an urban design element where it presently is). There are wonderful models of contemporary design in which water and the joy of its movement arethematerial substance of the design. The new park André-Citroën in Paris is an example ofwhat genuine design imagination can produce in this respect. Water is the ghost at the feast in the Angela Connor piece for Cambridge. Published images of the ‘successful’ fountain scheme reveal a most unremarkable piece of sculptural kitsch; out of scale, out of context and lacking any dimension ofdesign appropriate to such an object. In reward foreffort perhaps it would be kinder to site the selected fountain sculpture in the less critically exacting milieu of Milton Country Park, where there is the space forexperiment, for exubriant movement and sloshing about with water. Colen Lumley
STATEMENT
Village Views
1989 the Cou ntrys ide Co mm iss ion p u b I ish ed Planning fora Greener Countryside inwhich there were two paragraphs on built environment design issues. Although not normallya topic covered in great depth by them, these pa rticu Ia r references a ro useds uch comm ent that the Commission felt o b I iged to d irect m ore attention to the subject.A research project was set u p in collaboration with architect /Iandscape consultants BDOR, Bristol. It was their suggestion that led to the formulation of the Vi IIa ge Des ig n Statement con cept; an experiment to finda framework anda common Ianguage forthe sharing of ideas, so that laypersons could feel confident about expressing views on the protection and improvement of their local village environ ment. Cotten ham was selected by the Commission forbacking as one of three pilot application s in the co untry. Jane Heath,a Cottenham resident and active memberoftheVillage Design Group, describes what followed.
In September 1993 Cottenham residents unexpectedly found themselves invited to attend an open meeting to discuss the idea of producinga Village Design Statement. About 50 people attended.We heard that Cottenham had been chosen, with only three other villages across the country, to test in practice the theory of locally produced Design Statements. Many people turned out again a few weeks' later fora Saturday workshop. From here,a core of 15 or so formeda Design Group, which underwenta long series of meetings; took hundreds of photographs; spent hours in research, discussion, writing, consultation, rewriting, editing, mapping and illustrating; organised production and printing and finally published the Statement in June 1994. What motivated the Group tokeep going through sucha time-consuming and demanding process with uncertain outcome? There wasa good deal of suspicion to begin with about the aims and ultimate value of the project. This was offset by a strong sense that Cottenham deserved better than some of the inappropriate buildings or layouts being introduced; or the recent traffic-calming scheme; or
MANOR HERITAGE G Stonemasonry G Brickwork repairs G Stone and brick cleaning G Flintwork G Traditional timber frame repairs G Lime plaster, render and mortars
Resforofïon o/Hisforic Buildines O Cherches
Grove House, High Street, Fenstanton, Hiintingdon, Cambs PE18 8JG
Tel: (01480) 460574
the insidious loss of particular, often subtle charactistics like long views between houses, or black lapboard outbuildings. Pride in beinga national pilot project, and the significant advantages ofsupport and funding which this entailed, were also vital factors which held the Group together at difficult
moments.
The Design Group was entirely independent and was not adopted or steered by any pre-existing local body. The Group would not have functioned effectively without the expertise and “position” of some ofits members -a District Councillor, the chairman of the Parish Council, and representatives of the Village Coll ege and Co mmu nity Association. The mix of ideas and knowledge comingforward from every member ofthegroup made it overalla very stimulating and en lightening process, even though, day to day, patience and persistence often seemed to be themost necessary qualities for participation. South Cambs District Council planning officers helped and advised throughout the preparation of the Statement, and worked hard to keep tothedelicate path of guiding not leading. BDOR gave generally arms-length support. It was obviously the point of the exercise that the Statement didactually reflect the voice of local people. Yet the final Statement needed to be authoritative enough to give it credibility in professional spheres. There isa danger in such instances of patronising non-professionals by making thelask appear easier than it is and endorsinga superficial approach. The buildings section of the Statement, in particular, would not have been developed as it was without the advice drawn from architects, both local and nonlocal, and research on the village carried out by architect David Yandell and students in the 1970’s. The Group came together out ofa broad interest in the village environment, rather than, for the majority, more specific or focussed concerns about design. In fact, attitudes to design differed widely. This acted asa useful check which kept the Design Statement as faras possible in the objective realm of what constitutes the dominant, and most ‘locally distinctive’ characteristics of the village, and what kinds of development might be most in keeping with its rural position, scale and pace of growth.A draft version of the Statement was delivered to every house in the village (2000 copies), inviting comments. Few were received, and few of these raised critical points; so the Statement gained at least tacit acceptance from the whole village. What hastheStatement and work ofthe Design Group achieved so far? Less thana year from publication, the greater impact has been in terms of design awareness rather than design advice. Right from the start the exercise had the effect of making those involved more aware oftheVillage's character and visual qualities. People - including parish and district councillors - have recognised that design, in the widest sense, is an issue in all sorts of aspects of change in the Village - from new settlement patterns to replacing garden gates. The Statement's scope takes in far more than is regulated by planning controls, and the Design Group will continue to address changes atall scales, and encourage residents and local businesses, just as much as developers, traffic engineers and utlities, to ‘care for Cottenham’. At the level of local education and advice, we are considering possible activities which the Group might organise - such as an information point, schools projects, and a ‘building
trades and design fair’. It is often assumed that design advice or guidelines represent whata recent Times article on Village Design Statements (18/3/95) most unfortunately described asa formula to transfer the stamp ofa place on to modern buildings. Our Statement is at pains to stress that Cottenham welcomes imaginative and original design which can extend and renew the village's distinctive character. In writing the Statement, one of the most hotly debated points of architectural reference was Chris Cowper's wooden or ‘yellow house’ next to Cottenham Church. Examples of such houses, which seem in Cottenham terms to explore the limits of bolder reinterpretation of traditional modes, are all too few. Yet many in the village enjoy this new landmark, and find it acceptable within its ‘traditional’ setting. Cottenham's lead has already begun to show how village design statements can inform and influence the planning control process, broaden the scope of design in village affairs, and providea valuable new level of contextual information for architects. As the wo rd goeso utfrom th e Countryside Commission and the DOE to encourage the spread of Design Statements, what is also urgently needed is more vision and inspiration as to how village character can develop in different ways. We need more built examples, more reassuring evidence of innovation which extend character appropriately - alongside conservation and renewal ofa more gradual kind, of which this village has its share of good examples. Further reference: Tottenham Village Design Statement £3.00 inclp & p from Bridget Walker, Secretary, VDG, 11 Ivai:I Street, Tottenham CB4 4TX Desian in the Countryside ExDeriments: Report of a programme to pilot Countryside Design Summaries and Village Design Statements from the Countryside Commission Jane Heath, Chair, Village Design Group
An Architect's Assessment Cottenham isa village witha strong identity; it isa long village, with north and south linear extensions (post Norman) anda central core of lanes (pre Norman). It is not a “picturesque” village in the traditional sense, but it is interesting for the fact that its form clearly reflects its history as a rich agricultural fen edge village. It also hasa unique sense ofuniformity, caused by energetic Victorian rebuilding after various great fires. All this is recognised in the Conservation Area status, granted to the extended core ofthe village. Cottenham isa rapidly expanding village and has been designateda Rural Growth Settlement under the County Structure Plan, with sites fora further 400 houses identified. Cottenham's uniqueness was recognised by the Countryside Commission in this pilot programme, to improve development in rural areas and they initiated meetings with local residents followed bya series of consultations and exhibitions. The Statement is well illustrated with maps, line drawings and landscape drawings. Its sections cover community, economy, landscape and wildlife, settlement and buildings (the largest sections) highways and street furniture. Each section describes the pre-
sent character and provides guidelines for development. The Statement has broken new ground and is cited asa model by the Minister for the Environment, in making the planning process more locally responsive. The Statement, which has been formally adopted as supplementary planning guidance by South Cambridgeshire District Council, now gives village residentsa considered, collective, and ongoing voice in the planning process. Planning officers will bring the Statement to the attention of prospective developers, and this will hopefully influence architects and building designers to consider schemes clearly ina Cottenham context. Submitted developments will be considered against the Statement guidelines. Individual residents have always had an individual voice within the planning consultation process, and their elected District and Parish Council representatives give thema collective voice from within the legal framework ofthe Planning Acts. However, the Statement guidelines, having been prepared outside the terms of reference of the planning acts, should ensure that future development is more broadly sensitive to local opinion. The work oftheC.V.D.G. has not finished with the publication of the Statement. The council has now accepted the Village Design Group as formal consultees to the planning process. The comments seem, so far, to have been carefully considered in relation to the guidelines set down in the statement. In addition the C.V.D.G. continues to maintain public awareness in relation to design matters. There has been some difficulty in clearly identifying to all parties the need forthis extra tier of informal local consultation. Parish and District Councillors consider planning applications in terms of the planning acts and supplementary planning guidance, including conideration of land use, volume oftraffic, effect on adjoining users, employment, nuisance toadjoining owners, etc. The Design Group is able to be more specific, and concentrate on detailed design issues and the appearance of buildings, in conjunction with site planning and integration into the village fabric. Less than 50% of planning applications for Cottenham are made by architects. As a profession we well understand the need forrelating proposals carefully to context. So for architects the Statement will act as a succinct reminder of the forces that caused Cottenham tobe as it is, and the illustrations will remind us of some ofthedetails that give the Village its identity. This will help the cause ofcontextual design. The statement should neither be used asa conservationist's charter nor used asa brake on contemporary building design. Hopefully it should encourage forms and details of new development that strikea chord with the existing fabric. For developers the Statement will hopefully havea more fundamental message: namely that standard house types, laid out with 5.5m estate road cul-de-sacs, will not be good enough. The effect that the statement will have on thefuture course ofdevelopment is now under test. Recently, developers ofa large housing site, who are required by the Development Brief to consult the Design Statement, have submitted an outline planning application. Alsoa barn conversion has been refused planning permission on the grounds of being out of context. They have taken this to appeal and the outcome is awaited with interest. Bill Miller, committee member, Village Design Group
CITY CENTRE MANAGEMENT Cambridge isa supreme example ofa place becoming thevictim of its own success. ‘We have too much traffic, we have toomany tourists, we have toomany winos’ and too much clutter” was the not surprising and somewhat typical responseI got froma young man whose viewsI had ventured to seek. He was right, of course. And yet, Cambridge continues to be an enjoyable place to live and work in. This isa testimony to the quality of many ofits buildings, the robustness of its townscape and an air of joie de vivre' brought about by the high proportion of young population, be they lecal residents or language students. Confronted with the often conflicting demands of not only different types of users but frequently the same group, the City Council has decided to appointa ‘City Centre Managed. Whilst the post holder will be directly accountable to the City's Director of Planning, he/she will be working to the agenda set bya Steering Group. The Group will comprise 25 members some ofwhom will be politicians and others officers; it will represent a very wide cross-section of interests from the statutary planning authorities (the County, the City and the South Cambridgeshire District Councils) to amenity organisations, small traders, the Chamber of Commerce, the Colleges and the University. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the nature and scope ofthe post advertised fillsa page anda half of an A4 sheet.
In principle, his/her role will be to bridge the gap in responsibilities between thevarious stake holders and try to co-ordinate their seemingly impossible demands. Nevertheless, at least it will be a start in attempting to give the city centre some semblance of order. Hopefully, it will clear up some of the visual clutter, be it of signs, street furniture or bollards; it might even bring abouta resolution to the problem of deliveries and refuse collection to and from the shops against the general wellbeing of the public at large. The CAA will wish the post holder well witha polite reminder thata city is not a museum; that it isa living organism and, therefore, in the process of continuous change by definition. Let us hope there will be no attempt to turn the city centre intoa ‘tourist theme park’.
Viren Sahai
ROBINSON COLLEGE
New graduate building
The complex of buildings designed by Gillespie, Kidd and Coia in 1974 forRobinson College isa morphological curiosity in the Cambridge college scene. Its high density formulation at odds with the villas that occupy a/most /wo thirds of the perimeter ofits city-edge plot on Grange Road. The villas, with long, unexpired leases, have had an inordinate influence, since the original architectural competition, in determininga schema forthe college tha! would answer to theneeds ofphased and continuing growth. The Needham Institute, designed by Cambridge architects Lyster, Grillet and Harding, in the south west corner of the site, and the Graduate House offSylvester Road, by Cambridge Design, answer toa different pattern of ideas on site development, to which the latest Adams Road development proposals adda further twist. It is the suburban villa scale which emerges as the victor in this struggle foran appropriate modern form forthe college institution, building towardsa hybrid and potentially stand-off relationship from the founding footprint of the GKC scheme. The absence ofan enduring structural framework forfuture development ofthesite that is compatible with, and can reconcile, these conflicts of scale, points to an unresolved future. Four practices, Peter Hall; van Heyningen and Harvard, Freeland Rees Roberts and David Lea, were invited by Robinson College last year toprepare outline proposals fora new graduate building on Adams Road. David Lea and Freeland Rees Robeds were selected to preparea full scheme (illustrated) and DaVid Lea was appointed architect for the new building in December. This will be his first in Cambridge. The scheme is currently at the stage ofplanning negotiations.
David Lea Project Architects Statement Adams Road lies in the Newnham conservation area which is generally perceived to consist of substantial villas with gaps between them, set in spacious gardens.Since many ofthevillas are now student residences (all but one on Adams Road) the value of conservinga form devoid of its original content must remaina question. Our proposal demonstrates one way of raising the density of the site while conserving the integrity of the villas: make thebuilding long, low and narrow; wrap it around the garden, to reinforce existing open space. It formsa backdrop from which the villas stand forward independently. The building formsa three-sided two-storey court facing west, embracing the lawn of5 Adams Road. It is divided into four separate houses, three of8 rooms and one of4,each with its own kitchen/living area.
All the study bedrooms face onto the court; they have an open, calm view, and receive the afternoon and evening sun. Each room hasa combined window seat and bookcase celebrating the connection between the private world of the student and the natural world of the garden. Because thebuilding is one room deep, twenty out of thirty rooms receive daylight from two sides. Although many of therooms have similar dimensions the windows and section vary: there are only two identical rooms in each house. The student can choose how to arrange the room as the plans allow at least four different bed positions. The kitchen/living rooms overlook the entrance to each house, the visitor is received first into the living room before reaching the more private domain of the study. Occuli allow sunlight to penetrate these rooms throughout the day although they are attached to the east side of the building. The existing car park between4 & 5 Adams Road is relocated ina walled court closer to the road. The top of the wall is above eye level, and its south face will support climbing plants, shrubs, perhaps espaliared fruit trees, enclosinga gravelled garden which happens, perhaps temporarily, to have cars in it. We propose to use materials witha low embodiedenergy content where possible: concrete piers and ground beams toavoid tree roots, brick walls, concrete beam and block floors, slate roofs where pitched, lead or zinc where nearly flat. Energy measures include double-glazing with Low-e coatings, 200mm mineral fibre in the walls, 150 in ground floors, 300mm cellulose fibre in the roofs, small condensing boilers in each house, and a control system which supplies only the minimum heat necessary to each room when thewindows are shut and trickle vents open. The external materials will be chosen to match the colours and textures of Thornycreek and 5 Adams Road: oak framed opening lights, limestone cills and copings, and walls ofa warm redbrick, flush pointed ina mix of lime putty and sharp sand.
Freeland Rees Roberts Project Architects Statement Most of the students in Robinson College who are not housed in the main College building live in one of the houses along Adams Road and Sylvester Road. These arevery popular with the students due to the variety of the rooms, the relationship of the houses to their gardens and the large kitchen and dining areas which enable the groups ofaround ten students to mfi'et informally. We think the attraction of these houses to the students influenced the brief which called for bedsits for around 30 students, divided into groups of around 10, housed in rooms of varying shapes and sizes with large, easily accessible communal dining spaces. As the gardens at Robinson college are so attractive and the only available site (at presenta car park) is so restricted, Robinson College asked forthe new building to be raised abovea semi-underground car park. Our scheme provides fora pair of two-storey buildings for9 students which sharea large common room overlooking the gardens, and a three storey building for 12 students and a married couple between4 and5 Adams Road. No part of the scheme is any taller than the existing houses, although the two storey buildings stand on the semi-sunk car park. The ground floor rooms of these houses are therefore ata comfortable height for privacy and view, on a line with the tops of the plants in the border to the lawn. The new rooms face in all directions and so relate to both the surrounding gardens. The intention of the scheme was to continue the theme of individual houses standing in garde ns, with views of the landscape glimpsed between the buildings.
CAA EXHIBITION OF MEMBERS WORK Architecture Gallery 19 June - 8JuIy
Therea re stilI a small number of spaces available. Any practice who has not registered but would like to do so should contact me immediately (tel 843436) as the Panels and Practice Statements are required towards the end of May to enable final printing to take place. The Exh ibition will be opened by Lord Fawsley on the evening of the 19th J une in the U nive rsity Combination Room, next to the Senate House. This will be followed bya tour of the Exhibition. A buffet will be provided prior to the opening. Details of this will be sent to the Exhibitors. Michael Jeffels
”The Priorya I L avenham which is open to thepublic and by appointment, and well wortha visit. Conservation work isgenerally restrained and sympathetic and the handling of window openings is particularly successful. In the interior the wish to restore and expose all original sheture and features and the sandblasting of the frame has resulted in some loss of spirit and sense of the buildings' historic development.
CONSERVATION -some design issues
David Raven is looking for an
architect to share office space
and overheads at hisHills Road practice. No preconceptions but mutual assistance and collaboration on projects obviouslya possibility.Tel: Cambridge 353115
The new PPG 15 Planning and the Historic Environment’ published in September 1994 provides local authority conservation officers with more teeth in their dealings with building owners, their agents and builders in the conservation of buildings. For the first time some specific guidance is also given to support the general principles outlined. Annex C. The general principles are quite clear. Anything inside or outsidea listed building which is to be altered requires Listed Building Consent. This includes any building, fixed structure or object within the curtilage of the site if the property has been listed since 1948, or which existed at the date when the listing was confirmed if later. Straightforward minor repairs which involve no change in materials or character are exempt (although this must be something which is difficult to enforce). The minimum of work should be carried out in all cases using authentic traditional materials, techniques and details of the period as far as possible and most importantly ina manner which is indigenous to the area. Speculative reconstruction should always be avoided. Missing work should only be put back if there is sufficient historical evidence to support it. The restoration of buildings to their original form is discouraged, unless later work has been done unsympathetically, on the principle thata building representsa history of architectural development, associations, lifestyles etc overa period of time which is what makes it interesting.* Some specific guidelines are particularly welcomed by conservation officers - the need to respect both the character and layout ofa listed building when converting to different uses, the absolute priority of preserving historic fabric, the new emphasis on the use of locally indigenous materials and techniques, the need to preserve all associated features like statues, plaques etc which
are part ofa buildings history. Some grey areas inevitably remain and some of thedifficult day-to-day issues have not been adequately addressed. How should extensions be handled? When does an extension begin to erode the character and integrity of the listed building? (3.12 3.15). Little guidance is given beyond the stated need foran intimate knowledge ofthe building type, together witha sensitive handling of scale and detail. The tendency with extensions is to ‘play safe’, to imitate, and this often results ina poor simulation of the original features and a building form which is quite obviously not part of the original. This can muddy thewaters, and mislead. As recognised in the g uidance some listed buildings can not be extended without destroying their integrity. Others may be best extended in the manner oftheperiod. It might also be stated that others can be extended imaginatively using modern-day materials and techniques reflecting the spirit of our age and providinga continuing record of the building's development. The use of the technology of our age can achievea marvellous interplay between new and oldand emphasize the qualities of the original. Sometimes toretain the structure and organisation ofa listed building it can be appropriate to house incompatible presentday use ina purpose designed extension. Both the siting and the connecting interface between oldand new needs to be carried out with great sensitivity respecting the original buildings structure form and organisation-something not adequately addressed. The recognition that modern buildings form an integral part of conservation areas is to be welcomed buttherequirement for an appropriate scaling and detailing of contemporary buildings (4.2). could be misinterpreted. It also states ‘What is important is not that new buildings should directly imitate earlier styles, but that they should be designed with respect fortheir context, as part ofa larger whole which hasa well established character and appearance ofits own (4.17) Again closer guidance is needed on this to avoid misinterpretation. Also 4.20 Whilst the character and appearance of conservation areas should always be given full weight in planning decisions, the objective otpreservation can be achieved either by development which makesa positive contribution /o an area's character or appearance, or by development which leaves character and appearance unharmed As architects sensinga primary responsibility to conserve but also to build buildings in response to context and in the spirit of our age we must remain concerned at some remaining lack of direction and clarity in this new document in precisely the areas where it is perhaps most needed. David Raven
SLEDGEHAMMERS, NUTS AND CDM It would bea foolhardy person who opposes the new CDM regulations. It would be like saying you enjoya nice piece of French veal or that the greenhouse effect is justa figment of some scientist's imagination. No politician would risk saying that improving site safety isa minor matter not worthy of consideration. So the CDM Regulations are now law and A Good Thing. If they save lives, reduce accidents and improve efficiency by saving lost working days, then all this will be applauded and rightly so. But could this not have been achieved by introducinga new section of the Building Regulations on site safety and building maintenance, by increasing CPD for architects on buildability and by increasing the number ofHSE inspectors to check and advise on contractors’ site management? Instead the powers-that-be, driven by European Directives and an HSE whose judgement cannot be questioned (see above) have createda whole new tier of bureaucracy. Planning Supervisors, Health and Safety Files and Health and Safety Plans are now with us and they will keepa whole raft of people occupied (not least lawyers) for years to come. Already the manuals, flow charts, handbooks and conference proceedings could (safely) filla large football stadium. The regulations came into force on 31 March. The Approved Code ofPractice explaining the regulations was published on 7th March. Learning curves have seldom been steeper or more hazardous. No-one quite knows therole of the Planning Supervisor; all we do know is that they will neither plan nor supervise. There are no set standards for their accreditation and literally anyone can call themselves one. There are already various institutes springing up but, like Trade Guilds, they are self-styled and self-policing. The scope of the PS's duties are open to interpretation. For a small or evena large job it may be that they attenda few design reviews to pass comment on buildability, make sure that someone producesa Health and Safety File and Plan (they do not have to produce them themselves) check that the principal contractor is broadly following theH & S Plan, then hand the lot over to the client on Practical Completion. For this they can command up toa 1.5% fee. Nice work if you can get it. So if this is the case why don't we all jump on the bandwagon? After all we are architects and should know how tobuild safely. Indeed if you set up as a PS with little or no experience or training you may get away with it. But if something goes wrong and you cannot demonstrate toa court that you are competent in the field of Health and Safety you could find yourself in jail as well as facinga massive civil suit for damages. If you decide to do things properly views differ on the amount oftraining required. Our local CPD Office is runninga course which lasts for four days and costs £340. Health and Safety UK Ltd (which rana conference at the RIBA in March on this issue) states 120 hours asa minimum requirement and their course will set you back E3,750. Even if you do not want to becomea PS theregulations imposea duty on all designers to design buildings which are safe to construct, maintain and demolish. Do you feel confident that you can do this or will you need toundertake some specific training? It is not surprising to learn that the latter view is favoured by CPD providers. How will the PS role work in practice? Do you have an in-house PS? If so how will you resolve the conflict of interest when an employee witha statutory duty as PS tellsa partner to reconsider his design? Do you separate out the role by setting-up an independent limited liability company ora joint venture with other practices? Or do you ‘take in each others washing" by forminga Plan ning Supervisors’ club? However you tackle it the training and set up costs will not be insubstantial, the risks onerous and let's face it - becominga Health&
Safety specialist does not appeal to everyone. Inevitably then there will be a few larger practices engineering-based perhaps - who will perform the role for everyone else. Take care when recommending one however. The client has a statutory duty to ensure their PS is competent and in advising your client you too could be liable. Also if you are administering the contract and theH & S File is part of that contract then, ergo, you takea certain responsibility for its content when you come tosign the Practical Completion or Final Certificate. There is alwaysa tendency to panic when new legislation is landed on the profession. Like everything else however we will probably absorb it, make it work, perhaps even profit from it. Whether asa result site safety is actually improved will be left to the statisticians to judge. But we should not underestimate the effect of these changes. There isa new kid on the block, the Planning Supervisor, backed by powerful legislation and like him or loathe him he is coming toa project near you soon. Jeremy Lander
Cambridge Women Architects Making the most ofcomputers The Women Architects' Group givesa chance to compare experiences and share tips overa glass of wine. The subject this time was computers, with the subtitle From surfing the Internet to improving your cashflow. Those who expected to meeta mob of accountants in wetsuits at the door of the Architecture Centre were sadIy disappointed. However, there was an excellent discussion introduced by thecomputing professional Anne Rooney with many well-informed contributions from the floor. The topics of interest showed thewide range of experience between members ofthegroup: • your computer and how toplug it in • fileservers - who needs them • Internet availability of NBS, BSs and stuff you might actually want toread • how to get the most outofyour (hardware) supplier • problems in exchanging graphics files between members ofthedesign team and (surprisingly for architects) • whether you can getaway without using Windows atall? Using computers successfully, we concluded, isa management problem forall architects and one that isn't going to go away. Helen Mulligan
CAA
PRACTICE LIST
The 1995 edition of ‘Cambridge Chartered Architects In P ract ice’ was p rodu ced this January. It lists 46 practices registered with the Cambridge Association of Architects who have subscribed and wish to be included. All registered practices were invited. It also gives some basic information on employing an architect. Local p ractice lists form pa rt of the RIBA Eastern Reg ion's marketing initiative and all branches are encouraged to maintain and distribute th em. Th e I irst was p rodu ced for the Cambridge area in 1992 and it is planned to update theb roch ure every2 years.A small charge is made tothose wishing to be included, E30.00 forthe 1995 edition. After deducting• production costs,a small profit has been achieved forthe Association. The ‘red brochure’ has been distributed to Local Authorities, Plan ning Departments, Libraries, Citizens Advice Centres, Local Building Societies, Estate Agents and Banks, and copies can be picked up at the Architecture Centre in Kings Parade. Tim Brading
YOUNG
ARCHITECTS CPD
Events are held monthly at the Martin Centre in Chaucer Road foranyone who isa year-out student, preparing for Part III's or recently qualified. They areusually based arounda talk froma builder, client, architect or other professional. They providea useful background to professional practice training as well as a chance to meet other student architects in the area. For further details contact Tim Brading on Cambridge 461458 orJeremy Landeron 366555.
Chairman's Message The Association has demonstrated its strength and weaknesses in the last year. Its own CPD sessions h ave been well s upp o rted. This newsletter flourishes and impresses. Talks by visitors have been few and not well supported. There has beena strong response to take part in the Summer Exhibition and its opening reception should providea successful social occasion. Many members contribute their time and expertise as listed below. This activity deserves and requires your support, please come tothe AGM. Help shape thefuture programme. Offer your services. Nominate those who you think can best represent you. We need to electa new chair,a mem bersh ip secretary and a meeting secretary, and we need to add to the Executive Committee.
CAA/RIBA DIARY
G R E EN 8U I L D 3
Greensic!e, Caferbeach, Cambriclge. CBS 9HW
Telephone (01223) 862900 Facsimile (01223) 863222
CAA Database Robert Alexander Sherry Armstrong Lewis Backhouse
ARCHITECTS + ENERGY CONSULTANTS
SCDC Panel, Ctizens Advice Women Architects Group School Careers Advice
1995 BUILDING REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE WITH THE REVISIONS Rickaby Thompson Associates has fifteen years experience in domestic energy consultancy, is an NHER registered assessor, carries professional indemnity insurance covering energy rating consultancy work and can provide:
Kenneth Bass (843436) SCDC Panel Anil Barnes (317410) Citizens Advice Rosalind Bird (313386) Women Architects Graham Black (316309) City Historic Buildings Committee Tim EasterR egion CPD, CAA Executive Committee, Richard Brimblecombe (835998) Citizens Advice, Architects Golf Stephen Brown (293686) SCDC Panel, City Historic Buildings Committee Ray Chudleigh (316309) Eastern Region Awards Panel John Cole (313386) City Historic Buildings Committee Anne Cooper (315766) CAA treasurer, Vice Chair Eastern Region Energy Group, Women Architects Group Barry Coupe CDC Panel Chris Cowper SCDC Panel
Gerard Crouch (244430) Citizens Advice
Nigel Dalton (312238) SCDC Panel Paul Darlow (811744) Meeting Secretary CAA Executive, CPD Organiser Michael Emerson (01353-778651) SCDC Panel
•
Quality assured SAP energy ratings
•
National Home Energy Rating (NHER) assessments
•
Housing stock profiles
•
Advice on energy efficient design and specification
For further information contact Rickaby Thompson Associates, 15 Sturton Street, Cambridge, CB1 2SN. Fax (01223) 361332, Telephone (01223) 315766
University of Cambridge
Jonathan Ellis-Miller (01353-668200) Eastern Region Marketing/Public
Affairs Committee
Board ofContinuing Education
Chris Fleming-Jones (214115) CAA Executive Committee, SCDC Panel
Henry Freeland (66555) City Histotic Buildings Committee James Griffith (835998) City Histonc Buildings Committee, Architects Cricket H (413031) City Historic Build“ Committee GrahamH andley (01480-495 Ctngens Advice, SCDC Panel Nicholas Hellawell (358914) Panel, Citizens Advice Malcolm Holmwood (01767-260 984) Citi zens Advice Rob Homewood (462727) CAA Executive Committee, Urban Forum Mike Jeffels (843436) CAA Executive, Exhibition organiser, Eastern Regan Education Committee Jer L de 6555) Eastern Re@on Education Committee, Youug
CERTIFICATE IN HISTORIC BUILDING CONSERVATION 4 2 year evening course in central Cambridge.
Colen Lumley (843931) Architecture Gallery, Newsletter editor, Tour
organiser, Urban Forum William Miller (01954-51426 lCi Historic Buildings Committee, Citizens Advice, SCDC PaneT
-I- No previous qualifications required.
Richard Pleasants (351626) SGDC Panel Adrian Pettit 337780) City Historic Buildings Committee (representing
John
R Practice Committee Neil Advce David Raven (353J15) Newsletter editor, ERA editor, Eastern B SCDC Panel Citizens Advice n’venE*Urban %ru
Brian Reeve (354846) CAA Executive Committee, City Historic
B
"Id" 131)'‘ r ctice Dialogue' convenor,City Historic Buildi Committee Jeremy (234839) SCDC Panel John 01638-667 166) SCDC Panel V iren Sahai (26359 n Forum Nicholas Twitchett SCDC Panel Michael Undrill (811196) Vice Chair CAA Executive, Eastern Region Ian Steeng(
Membership and Branch Affairs Committee
s'
A.G.M. Hall Barn, Fen Ditton Weds 17th May 6.30p.m. Reception, wine, buffet/ reports, elections (nominations forcommittee, Chair and officers are required) "Pheonix or fos”siI" talk by Robert Chitham, Chairman ofthe new National Conservation Group, who will explain this RIBA initiative to promote the architect as the preeminent conservation advisor CWAG ‘Living sane/y - managing your time’ Architecture Centre 24th May 8.00pm EREG Seminar& visit to the Learning Resources Centre Anglia Polytechnic University Chelmstord. Details David Curtis (01923) 664757 - 26th May CWAG Garden Party Date and venue tobe confirmed Regional Dinner Speaker; The RI.Hon John Gummer MP.Tickets E35 / head Jesus College 22nd September
ARCHITECTURE GALLERY Quadratura An artist/architect installation project with Commission's East. Installation at St.Peters Church and exhibition at the Architecture Gallery featuring artist Edward Allington and architects Beevor Mull. Ian Wiblin, photographs, Caius& Kettles Yard Artist in Residence 28th April - 31st May. These arejoint exhibitions over this period. Barber Casanovas& Ruffles Practice promotion exhibition Sth - 17th June
Introduction to historic , . building conservation and its ’“. ' legislation.
Cambridge Association of
’ ‘--’
For
I.I
the Cout-ses Registrar,“ Universit)' of CanN›t idge, Board ofContinttrug h.ducotion, Madingle) Hall, Vadinqley,
Regional College Public exposition ofa notable new Cambridge building 14th July - 23rd August
further details please contact
Roger Wilson (01763-242403) CAA Executive Committee Simon Wilson (01954-5 CDC Panel W ht(312238) Advice, SCDC Panel Heton bright (356518) SCDC Panel Richard Wright (312238) SCDC Panel Da dYandell (293686) Chair CAA Executive, Citizens Advice SCDC
THECOBYCENTRE THE CAMBRIDGE PRINTING› PARK, MILTON, CAMBRIDGE CB46AZ TELEPHONE 0223420862, FAX 0223 420783 , ISDN 0223# 23 613
ONE COMPANY - INFINITE POSSIBILITIES
Architects Exhibition of members work 19th June - 8th July
This Newsletter isdistributed by
Letters and contributions to Cambridge Architecture are welcomed. Copy deadline for Summer Issue, 16 June 1995
Editorial Board: David Raven l co—editors Colen Lum ley Anne Cooper David Yandell Cambridge Architecture c/o Trumpington Mews Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2LS Tel353115/ 843931 Fax 576488/ 844426