ST MARY, ST MARY...QUITE CONTRARY

16-12-2009

Sybil Ruth wrote on The Stirrer yesterday about the battle for the future of St Mary's Church in Moseley which centres on a row about solar panels. She argued that they would do little to harm its visual appeal, but architect and urban designer Joe Holyoak begs to differ.

This is interesting because two forms of conservation appear to be in opposition; the conservation of energy and the conservation of historic buildings. Both are of serious concern, and both deal with finite resources.

As the Chair of the Casework Subcommittee of the Birmingham and West Midlands Group of the Victorian Society, I represent the architectural conservation lobby. We fully support the autonomous production of solar energy in principle, and in many cases it can be done without damage to architectural quality.

I ran a conference on the subject of historic buildings responding to climate change at last year's Climate Change Festival, and English Heritage, the National Trust and the Building Research Station (and local eco-architect John Christophers) all showed admirable examples of how it can be done successfully.

But at St Mary's Church we feel that the panels are proposed for the wrong place. Yes, they will be invisible from most viewpoints, but not from all. There are many other locations in Moseley where they could be more appropriately located.

The English Heritage guidance which is cited in support of the installation clearly states that "The guidance provided here deals only with the practical aspects of installing the equipment."

It does go on to state that the "acceptability of the installation will depend on the historic significance of the building or the site being adapted". It's not an extreme case of outrage, such as some we have to respond to. This case has claims to virtue on both sides.

But on balance we feel decidely that the panels should go somewhere else.

DISCUSS THIS ON THE STIRRER FORUM