It is shocking that one of only a handful of post-war designed
landscapes that have been recently added to the English
Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens has gone.
Modernist landscape design did not take off in Britain and
exponents such as Christopher Tunnard would leave England
to work in America, where his designs were valued. This
makes
examples such as Sylvia Crowe's design for the entrance to
the Commonwealth Institute so special and rare. She used
some of the language found at the Festival of Britain:
- broad simple plains of surface material
- structures appearing to float
- elegantly thin railings
- water to reflect sky and provide the subtlest of sounds
- the spectacular array of flags
advertising the coming together of the Commonwealth
Nations that could be seen from way along Kensington High
Street.
This was a destination that enchanted children,
perhaps with the kind of pull that now draws children to
Disney. Like Battersea Park and its tree walkway, it was a
'must-see' site in London. The approach directly off the High
Street was delineated by slight stepped changes in level so
that it was clearly part of the Institute site, but was open and
welcoming and thrilling to walk across water to reach the
entrance.
Architects Allies and Morrison, who oversaw the refurbishment
of the Royal Festival Hall and its outdoor terraces, are overseeing the
refurbishment of the building; and Dutch landscape architects
West 8 will design the new landscape.
The Garden History Society was not consulted about the
removal of the Registered Landscape by local planning
authority, Kensington and Chelsea, and we must assume that
English Heritage failed to flag up just how important this
design was.
Could it be put back? Technically, yes: by analysing the
surviving pictures, plans, etc., it would be possible to 're-
create' the Crowe design... but to what end? It has lost its
context and the open front to the High Street has been given
over to a new block of flats as part of the refurbishment. Even
if put back, it would not be with the original materials and we
are likely to impose some values from today's perspective
that would mean it would not be Sylvia Crowe's garden. I feel
similarly towards the Frederick Gibberd garden at Harlow New
Town: the developer of the prime site in central Harlow paid to
move the garden out of the way and it survives as an
embarrassed truncated remnant, dislocated from its intended,
designed place. It, too, has been removed from the English
Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens. Thankfully, so far, one
of the other stars from this period, Geoffrey Jellicoe's Water
Garden at Hemel Hempstead survives intact and is the subject
of a very sensitive refurbishment, part funded by the HLF –
however a watchful eye is needed here to protect the setting
of the Water Garden from encroachment by proposed new
buildings that threaten to leave the garden in a canyon.
At the Commonwealth Institute site the refurbished building,
Design Museum, new flats and design by West 8 will result in a
very vibrant and enjoyable place which I am sure I will visit
and admire, but I cannot forgive the loss of a unique and bold
piece of twentieth-century landscape design and regret the
lack of respect and understanding demonstrated by the limp
local planning authority and English Heritage.
English Heritage have recently consulted the Garden History
Society on the likely deletion of Sylvia Crowe's Commonwealth
Institute Garden from the EH Register of (important) designed
landscapes in England and Wales – what a pity they waited until
it has gone!
Historic England responds:
Having read the article by Dominic Cole CMLI FIOH regarding the consultation about the proposed de-registration of the Modernist landscape designed by Sylvia Crowe for the Commonwealth Institute I am compelled to request a public right to reply to the assertions about Historic England (formerly English Heritage) in the final paragraphs.
Whilst I understand the concern expressed about the impact of the proposals on the designed landscape which were permitted in 2010/11, it is simply not the case that it was the result of a lack of respect or understanding as claimed by Dominic Cole. Had Mr Cole made the effort to look at our formal advice he would have seen that the position taken by the then English Heritage was the result of extensive involvement with this site over a number of years. That involvement included commissioning work on the significance of both building and landscape to inform decision making. It also involved workshops with our London Advisory Committee (LAC) the applicant and local authority to try and find the best way forward for what was acknowledged to be an extremely difficult situation.
The site was on the Heritage at Risk Register, with a series of failed attempts at finding a new use and a large conservation deficit. Our consideration of the proposals involved the Parks and Gardens Panel, the Economics Director and the Commission of English Heritage in addition to the LAC. It was expressly stated in our formal advice that this case was one of the most challenging ever faced by the organisation, which was why it received such exhaustive consideration at the highest level.
Whilst I share and understand the disappointment and regret of Mr Cole at the loss of the designed landscape, the judgement was reached only after thorough examination and challenge. To suggest otherwise is an unwarranted attack on the integrity of those involved.
Yours sincerely
Nigel Barker
Planning and Conservation Director London
E-mail: nigel.barker@HistoricEngland.org.uk
