Tone Works: A Targeted Approach to Conservation Repairs

Joanne: Good afternoon, everyone. So, I'm Joanne Williams. I sit in the Technical Conservation Department at Historic England. I sit in the climate change adaptation area specifically, and focus on adaptation works to historic buildings. So, I'm really excited to have Joanne and Claire, who You can hopefully see on your screen, as well as our presentation. And we're going to be talking about this amazing site that is 10 minutes up the road from me, which is even better, in Wellington in Somerset. And it was a very unusual, complex project, and Joanne and Claire are going to be giggling, Going [00:39 inaudible]. So, today's format, for those of you who have been with us before, we're not going to do a traditional format here. We're not going to have the girls presenting, and then Q&As. What we're going to do is, we're going to just talk back and forth. If you've got questions, put them in the chat, and we will answer when we're on that topic. So, who are our speakers today? We've got... Jo O'Hara. She's an architectural historian by trade, with experience in academia. Oh, Claire, I think I can hear you. No, that's fine. So, experience in academia, museums, commercial planning, and most recently local government. She was formerly at Somerset Council, and she's now with Salford City Council. And Claire Fear is a conservation accredited architect and the founder of South West, based [01:40 inaudible]. And she has extensive experience working on high-profile, complex heritage projects across the country. So, let's get into this, girls. So, Jo, I'm going to start with you. Can you just give everyone a bit of a brief understanding of how all of this came about?

Jo: Absolutely. Hi, everybody. And thanks for having me. I arrived at Somerset Council, or Taunton Deane Borough Council at that time, in 2017, on a capacity building program from Historic England specifically to look at heritage at risk in the district. And this was one of the grade two-star listed projects that was very firmly on the list, and had been for quite a while by the time I arrived. The site had not been short of interest over the years before that, and there have been many people who had really pulled together to try and make something happen on the site. That included various local community groups, significant effort from Historic England, the Council, but also including people like the Prince's Trust as well. And so, there were trips to Clarence House and involvement from all sorts of people across the country to try and get it back into use. But, it never quite transpired. By the time I arrived, the site had been subject to a number of listed building consent and planning applications. And you can see from this first ide on the left here, what we have is the site immediately in front of us, with the chimney on the north light roofs. But on the left-hand side of that slide, what you can see is a housing estate. And that was actually an enabling development that was granted in order to try and cross-subsidize the repairs to the historic building. But unfortunately, that mechanism was... It didn't quite work exactly as perhaps intended at the very beginning. However, as we approached the October 2019 deadline, which was in the Section 106 agreement, the council was soon to received the £780,000 asset contribution that would go towards repairing this building as part of that planning agreement. And so, what we knew at that time was that we had five years to spend that money, otherwise the funds would revert to the developer, and that we needed to spend that money really, really wisely. And so, the money arrived in the account in October 2019, and at that time, the owner of the building was trying very hard to work out what was going to happen with the site, but really wasn't able to find a solution. So, the council were able, in the end, to agree a negotiated position for the acquisition of the site. And that transferred into council ownership in 2020. And I think that's plenty from me at the moment. I think that's probably the perfect time to hand over to Claire, who arrived at that moment to help the council, although had been involved in the site previously.

Claire: Hi. So, hello, everyone. Thank you for having me. Yes. So we were kind of along beside this, working with the Wellington Mills CIC. And they had got some money from, I believe it was from the HF, with a bit of help from you, Jo, On looking at the feasibility of the sites. Now, bearing in mind this site floods, it is structured- Well, it's heritage at risk, we couldn't go in because it was too contaminated. Big whole areas we couldn't go in because it was too contaminated. So, we started- There's a wonderful Historic England document that had been written a long time ago, about the finishing sheds, which are the north lights you can see in the picture, most close to you on the bottom right. And so, we started with that. And then Vanessa in my office, who is brilliant at just going through archives, and just digging through text like a mole, she went through everything, and we worked together, and we also worked with a machine specialist whose name, Jo, completely goes out of my head immediately. It'll come back to us. Jeff. It was Jeff. And he had gone through and looked at all the machines in there. Because one of the really key things about this building, which you will see when we get into the photographs inside, is, essentially, in the seventies, parts were operational still, but they just down tools and left, down tools, down tools and left. So, you have machines with fabric still in. You have sign-in card still there. It was then subject for many years to a lot of urban explorers. So, lots of things have gone. And I understand when people did leave, they took the odd thing. But there's still a hell of a lot left in there. There's a lot in there. So, there was a lot to understand. So, we started understanding what we had is grade two-star listed. It's heritage at risk. And understanding the processes, and its place in the wider context. So, another reason I like this photograph is you can see Wellington, it's kind of up to the left. And this was just- I don't know, we haven't really said about what it actually is, for people who don't know what it is. So, this is Tone Works, And this was an offshoot of the Fox Brothers empire, as it were, which was in Wellington, starting in the 1650s with the Weir family, then moving on to Thomas Fox. He married into them. And they set up Tone Dale, which is on the right- sorry, on the left on this photo. But this particular site was really key because it was down by the waterways. They completely managed the waterways and reclaimed land, diverted water just so that they could get wet, milling, scouring, milling and dyeing in this section of the site. So, this wasn't a bit of the factory that things came from and went out of for somewhere else, it was part of the process. So it's a really key part of a wider significance within the town.

Joanne: And they were quite entrepreneurial, weren't they? The Fox Bros did everything.

Claire: Yeah, kind of. And it's kind of that, like, they were really great. They paid everyone in- There's a special pound, a kind of Fox Brothers pound, But then you bought and spent in their shop, which they stocked. And you know, part of me thinks, "Oh, that's brilliant." And then part of me thinks, also, that's not great. But they did. And there was a swimming pool. You know, they were really, really, really invested in the staff, and also in the town. I'm actually sat in Wellington now. There are people who talk about it, who have living memory of the place when it was operational. So, it's still very much present in the town.
Joanne: Yeah. It is. So, we've just had a quick question come up. Can you just remind us what the date of the building was?

Claire: Well, there's a question. So, approximately, the earliest, the core part of the building has a key stone date of 1754. Then it essentially evolved. So the north roof lights and bits you see there are 1830s, 1890s. So, it started in the late 18th century and then grew. The last bit of development was, I think, 1913, which is the water softening towers and the reservoirs out the back. So, 20th century mostly.

Jo: If I can just add to that as well, I think one of the things that did become clear through various phases of work is that this building did evolve, and change, and lived depending on what the process required. And isn't an architectural set piece, but bits were added, bits were taken away, bits were stolen from one place and fitted into other places in order to facilitate what the company required of that building at that time. So, it wasn't static. So when we come to talk about some of the repairs, I think that particular point is quite important, because I think we just felt like we were another step in the evolution of a very long line of other people before us.

Joanne: Yeah. And I think that's something really important, actually, and something we really need to grapple with in the conservation sector, isn't it? Buildings don't stand in history, that they continuously evolve and grow when their use and all of that comes into it. And I actually think that's a perfect time for you guys to just explain the sequencing of works around that really complicated door.

Claire: Jo, you want to do that?

Jo: I don't- I don't know. That one is for you, I think.

Claire: So, the red wall, the red brick wall you can see at the bottom of that photograph on the right is about six meters tall, if a bit more. The picture on the right hand side is the large earlier sliding door. So, this is the way that deliveries came in from Tone Mill. That had been boarded up. We have that little red door. That's a normal-sized- well, a little under normal, because you have to duck to go in it. And we very quickly realized and found that that was now a structural door, essentially the earlier one, because the whole wall was moving back from the roof structure internally, so we couldn't make the opening bigger to decontaminate and get in. We had to go through the small door, then to do that- So, we had to decontaminate, then we had to do the repairs before we could address the door. So, everything that we are about to talk about came through that door or over the river.

Joanne: The two complexities of access. And I think that's what's really interesting about it. And as we've just changed slides, you can see, this is what you guys were grappling with. This was quite representative across the site, wasn't it?

Claire: Yeah. I mean, so the first on the left is area V, which we will get to as a further phase of works. It's one of the earliest structures. So, we think that's around the time of the late 18th century. What you see there is, what I can tell you is there, you can't really see very clearly, is- there was an earlier roof structure. Then, that was adapted to carry machines. Then, that was adapted again when the machinery changed. So, there were three phases of adaption to the roof. You can see holes in the vertical sections, the clear story sections, because that was all levered, and then at some point they put paneling on the back side, and then at some point they took that out and popped a fan in. So, it was that evolution of all of these phases that we could see. And then, you had massive areas of collapse. So, that was one of the main things. And the wall on the right-hand side you can see is over the river. And the largest piece of timber we've got in there, I think, is 14 meters long. Yeah, I don't know how they got it in. So, yeah, we're talking really big pieces of timber. We're talking 400 by 300, if not bigger, pieces of timber. So, if that went, it's pretty catastrophic. It will take the wall out. These were taken post-decontamination, these photos. And the photo on the right, I'm very fond of this tree, and everyone keeps telling me I have to take it out. But, at the moment it's not doing any harm, and it's really- it's fine, and it's not in an area which- we can talk about how we make decisions about what we do. But again, we had a lot of vegetation inside, because a lot of previous repairs- this is actually on the north, with the north lights, on the finishing works. There had been a lot of work before trying to moderate the decay, to slow it down. So, there'd been a lot of tarpaulin slung over clear stories, which then nothing had happened. So, they've all slid into the gutter. So, then obviously we've got detritus in the gutter, we've got rising water levels. And so, a lot of the problems we've got in that area are because of that, the gutters being completely full.

Joanne: And this is why we say maintenance is important.

Claire: But we can't get it out, because it's asbestos and too fragile.
Joanne: One of the questions is: was it contaminated with? We will show you what it was contaminated with in a bit. One of the other questions is: who took those photos? Claire did. She's an amazing photographer, and has actually created a kind of- we joke about Vanessa writing the love letter for the Heritage Impact Statement, But Claire probably wrote the love book of photos, which is great. But let us go back on topic. So, can you guys explain to me a bit about the financial issues? Obviously, you got funding around it. A lot of us in the sector appreciate that funding comes with time constraints. Some aren't always going to be practical, you know, if you have to do winter works. So, it'd be really interesting to know how you guys felt the funding maybe molded any decisions you did around the site. Jo, I don't know if you want to start.

Jo: Yeah, I'm happy to start with them. And I think I'll just take a step back in terms of Section 106 in the Heritage Asset Contribution Funds that we had, because we knew we had a big chunk of money to spend on that site. But, you know, being brutally honest about the situation, the building was in such a bad state by the time that we were ready to take this step and by the time that that funding arrived, we actually had discussed with Historic England's listing team to do a reassessment about whether the building was still worthy of that designation. And we had a visit to say, and we were informed, you know, not only was it an extraordinarily important example regionally, but also of its type in the entire country, and it really, really was worth saving. And so we had to really pull our socks up at that point and think, right, well, what is the solution to this? But, you know, there was a serious decision to be made about, actually, was it so far gone that that money should just be used to make the site safe for the community, and actually not invest in its heritage significance? But what we did try and do was make the best investment possible at every stage in order to make the maximum use of the funding that we had. And so, we were able to use that Section 106 money to further release additional grants. And we were very lucky that we had been supported by Historic England throughout this process. And we did manage to get a number of grants, mostly through COVID in terms of the Culture Recovery Fund, and other bits from their regional budgets. Usually we were able to match funds through that Section 106 in order to really maximize the impact that we were spending there. But none of the financial decisions were taken lightly. And I think as we go through the different phases, there were essentially three main priorities that we looked at in terms of how we decided to spend the money. And one, it was how far will our money go, the biggest bang for our buck. As Claire mentioned, Vanessa had done a really good history and understanding of the building so that we knew when we were making the decisions which areas were of greatest historical significance, so we could make the best and the most informed decisions as we went through. And also, there was the issue of urgency. And quite honestly, there were some bits of the building that on paper looked better, or looked like they would naturally be the first choice to do. So, for example, protecting the machines from further water ingress, that's what the listing really emphasizes in terms of significance of that site. However, you know, if we lost the security and the perimeter of that wall, you know, that wall could have collapsed into the river, and we could have had serious knock-on implications for the much wider community in Wellington. So, it was really those three priority decision making things that brought us to it. And we'll maybe touch on this again when we have discussion around contractors, but once we were able to have people on site, we could feel what the building wanted. And when we had contractors there, they could rent the building, they could just see from day to day what bits were falling down, you know, how it was feeling, and really be able to help lead us to the next urgent issues.

Joanne: That's really interesting. And someone just asked about the Section 106 money. Was it originally supposed to cover all the costs of the repairs, or was it, as you mentioned, an enabling development scheme?

Jo: Now, I'm not best placed to discuss all of the intricacies of the planning situation, but originally there was meant to be the £780,000, which was the contribution from the developer on the opposite side. And then there was also a contribution from the landowner as well that, I think, was £800,000. It was only later when the process started to draw down those funds that we realized that that wasn't going to be possible. And, so the Section 106 was then amended, and then also had a process of going through a judicial review as well. So, there was quite a delay in terms of that as well. But I think it was always known it wasn't going to go the whole way, but it was very much hoped that the money would have reached the building long before Claire and I got involved.

Joanne: That's really interesting. And Jo, thanks for pointing out that I put "grand", not "grant".

Jo: Yeah, I feel like we're very...

Joanne: Dyslexic.

Jo: To be honest… And I think finally, in terms of the grant funding, it is also worth mentioning as well that some sites are in receipt of leveling up funding for more works as well, so the project will be continuing into the future as well.

Joanne: Yeah, it's going to be fascinating, isn't it, the additional work. Claire, Did you wanna say anything about finances and the grant funding before we go on to the next lot of slides?

Claire: No, I think next was moving on to the decontamination, and that becomes quite relevant in that. So, we had to spend... As Jo mentioned, we had to sit around a table multiple times with the engineers at Integral, with Margaret Cooke particularly. And her and I just went through every single area of the building. What is going to fall down? What are the implications of that? How significant are they? To make those assessments. And our initial thoughts were actually different to where we came in the end, having gone through that rigorous proposal. But to get there, we had to get in, and we had to get other people in. So, to do that, we had to decontaminate. To do that, we had to spend £600,000 on asbestos removal. We have machines in areas above which there are line shafts like you can see in the left-hand picture, which have asbestos, like when you break your arm and you have the kind of solid- so, it's the wet, they put it on wet, and they wrap it up. So, the picture on the right is part of that decontamination process. So, to decontaminate, they had to erect essentially small rooms. Well, actually, there were very large rooms. With timber frames, to completely enclose the area they were decontaminating. and the line shafting in this build, in these series of buildings, incredibly important, because they record three phases of development of power across the site. So, what we couldn't do, which is what they normally do when they have.... Obviously, we couldn't do normal. What they normally do is, they just cut the pipes out, and off they trot with the pipes, and it's fine. We had to get them to cut the asbestos off, take it off, dust it down. And then we had to seal it. And we had to be really careful about the lacquer we needed to use on that because, we didn't want everything suddenly to be really shiny, and everything had to feel right. So, we also had issues where... Because as Jo has already mentioned, it's a very live site- literally, it's moving. We had a collapse overnight. So, one of the tent bits got annihilated. So, it was- we had to be really on the ball in terms of health and safety, and access, and risk assessments, method statements, and all of that stuff. But also, bats. So, we have multiple species of bats. This site has been left for very long. We've got loads of mushrooms too. This site has been left for a really long time, and we have, amazingly, for rebuilding... But you know, obviously for this kind of building, we have channels of water that run through to help with the washing and the dyeing. So, we have really handy little bat routes through, linking all of the buildings. So, not only is that an issue when you come to build up scaffold, which we'll talk about in the next phase, but when you're doing- when you are building whole constructions like this to remove asbestos, you are obscuring bat routes. So, we had to work really closely with the ecologist. She was straight on the team, and we set up this team... I saw someone say "how many people were involved?" Lots. Lots and lots. And I'm a great believer in a specialist, and someone who has done these things. So, the ecologist was very good, and we spoke to... We really had to understand how the asbestos, how she wanted us to take the asbestos down. because I'm used to, on a construction site, saying we found asbestos, close it down. They come in, and you never really see it. But with this, that's not how this happened. So, we had to understand a lot more how they were going to do it. We had a really tricky issue where, because it was COVID, obviously all of this is being done during COVID, the environment agency wouldn't come to site, so the bat license application went in and they wouldn't come to site, which was really, really difficult, because to explain the complexities of this building…

Joanne: Do you mean Natural England?

Claire: Sorry, Natural England. The Environmental Agency wouldn't come. They didn't come up. We'll come back to them. Because we have a river. So, Natural England. So, that became really difficult. And the ecologist did really well in unicating this. But we had a situation where we had the contractor going, because we had to get him going, because - this is where it comes to grant funding, we had to spend the money, or we were going to lose it all. So, the decision had been taken to decontaminate, the tender had gone out. The contractor- I mean, we really got a fantastic, fantastically collaborative asbestos removing company. We then sat- I sat and went through the list, I think it was, as Jo reminded me, 647 items of asbestos removal, and split, which required a license, which was licensable and non-licensable removal works. And then had to work with the contractor to obviously prioritize the non-licensable ones, even though it meant them going all over the building. And I think we nearly got to the end of that, I think it was like a day or two, and then we got the license through, and then they went. But we were in the situation because of the funding. We had no option but to trigger the removal starting.

Joanne: But also how much it was. 600...

Claire: It's a lot of money. It is, but we came in under budget. So, we also managed to get in some propping work. As soon as everything was decontaminated, we could get the engineers in, and then we could get them in with the ecologist to work out which areas were really, really suffering, which areas we needed to worry about, which areas don't look great, but are fine. And so, we were able to get a program of propping done as well. But obviously, the council owned it by this point. They don't really want ongoing costs, so we were buying scaffold. And then there was a discussion about that big wall at the front at the beginning that we talked about, and propping that was going to cost something like £100,000, because of the buttressing required. And I worked with the engineer very quickly. We worked to work out a repair strategy which cost £40,000. So, we had enough budget left to do that. So, it was... Because we had such a clear understanding, and then we could get access from the asbestos removal, we were then able to consolidate. So, then we were able to repair that front door, so then we were able to open the door.

Joanne: I think it just really highlights, you know, when you think about buildings, and especially in a world where we're talking about retrofitting and energy efficiency, this is like the extreme of retrofitting. It is all of those sequences of events that you have to consider. Like, you have to go, well, what are we gonna do health and safety-wise with the asbestos? Oh, that's a lot of money. Then we've got to try and get the other professionals in. And so, I think that leads really well into the next bit, which is about the conservation philosophy. But I did just want to ask, because someone put it in the chat: When was the building abandoned? So, I believe it was the 30s, but was it later?

Claire: No, so... Hang on. 1995, parts of it were still occupied. They closed down the incredibly highly contaminated area X, we called it, which is the dye works. They closed that down about the 70s, I think, maybe a bit later. And then they still use the other area. But the... With the asbestos, Yeah, I think it might have affected the bats.

Joanne: I don't think I've ever read a study about it, but they have lungs...

Claire: We do have otters as well. I mean, we have incredibly rich biodiversity... Biodiversity on site. Yeah.

Joanne: Amazing. So I think a lot of people here, they're all into the heritage, and we've talked about some really complex issues that you guys have to look at. I think the conservation philosophy, when I first met you, was probably the most fascinating. So, Jo, I don't know if you want to lead on to that, and then how you and Claire created this beauty between you.

Jo: Yeah. And I think, if you don't mind, I might try to mop up a couple of the questions in the chat as well as I go. I think one of the key things is that we didn't know when we first acquired the site- we knew that we were going to be aiming for decontamination. We knew we were going to aim high. We wanted to bring the site back into use. but really, we didn't know how successful we were going to be. And so, on Claire's appointment, I think what was really important is that we had an accurate record of what the building was like when we acquired it. And so, Claire was commissioned to take that full photographic record of the building. I also knew that she was a very talented photographer as well. She just took some really incredible, incredible snaps on that journey too, that I think is just a work of art in its own right. And so, I think the photographs and the early record were really, really important for that understanding. And I think, Claire, you'll mention a bit more about your book later on. But I think that kind of approach to the respect and the understanding of the building was really, really important. And going back to what I said at the beginning as well, we knew we wanted to be part of the evolution of this building. We didn't want to... We just wanted to kind of continue to help tell the story. And also, going back to the funding, we didn't have enough money to do anything too jazzy, so we had to do what was absolutely essential to keep the building standing at that point, for financially prudent reasons as well as this conservation philosophy. Claire, can I maybe hand over to you for the nuts and bolts stuff?

Claire: So we... I mean, I don't know. I hope that some of the people attending have been onto the site. If not, they do tours. We made it safe enough for tours to happen. It is a mind-blowing site, and there are more photographs of the inside. Here we go. So, when you come in, I've been going there for five years now, and I still notice new stuff, as do all my colleagues, As does Jo, and everyone else who comes. When we are presented with a building like this, I always think of it as a painting in particular. I think of everyone around dissecting a body in training, in a really old style, old master painting. And I always think, this is before us, and we have to do it no harm, essentially. And like Jo just said, we didn't have the money to do anything jazzy, so we didn't have the money to do harm by changing things we didn't yet understand. Because what you've got to remember is, we were only able to get into so much of it. We only had so much money to be able to effect a certain amount of change. So, our philosophy, our conservation philosophy, our whole approach to the site was: what do we need to do to conserve the maximum amount of fabric and the form of the building in order to make it safe for other people to come in, for future uses to be more... more fully thought about? Someone just asked about graffiti. There's a lot- I mean, there's a lot of graffiti on site. We didn't get rid of any of that. You know, some of it has naturally washed off because there's a hole in the roof and it's come down. So, I think there's this whole evolution. So, the philosophy was "do no harm". We had a lot of discussions with Historic England. There was something in the chat about permissions. Obviously, this had to get listed building consent. The asbestos removal didn't. The roof works, which you saw a picture of previously, we did, because although we were repairing the roof, there were whole sections that didn't exist. So, that was stretching the nature of repair a little bit far. And we also had to decide whether we put levers back or whether we put boards back. And essentially, we replicated what was there when we found it. and we had discussions such as, I mean... It's a remarkable site in that they've used metal, they've got cast iron columns. We've got some wrought iron in there. We just used steel where we needed to. We got local Douglas fir, we got timber surveyors... The scaffolding debacle is quite interesting. Being able to scaffold this place. Because my line was, "You do not hurt a line shaft." I've just spent quite a lot of money getting asbestos removed from it. If you hurt that, you're in trouble. So, any fabric that was left on the conveyor, you can see that's a suspended conveyor. you do not touch that fabric any ladders that were up, you do not touch that ladder. So, everything had to go round all of this. And again, that was larger- I don't know, Jo, if it's worth mentioning about the procurement. We'll come to that. but we had a very collaborative relationship with the contractor, but Jo will come on to that, how we achieved this. Because it's not the kind of thing someone can necessarily price for, you know? Because it was a JCT contractor. Someone asked that question. Had a JCT contract with a contractor design for the scaffolding.

Jo: And just in terms of- somebody else in the chat mentioned the contract, and it was JCT, but I think the most- in the bespoke parts that you just described around the roof repairs, I think what was also vital was that we did start that process with a PCSA, so a pre-contract service agreement with the contractors. because what we needed to do was have a better understanding of the site for the professional team to really get to grips with exactly the detail of it that we could only really do once we had a contractor on board. And so, we had other parts of the building that had been specced up in more detail that we were able to do as a sort of standard procurement exercise. But we did then go into a slightly nonstandard contract, because the works were not able to be priced in that sort of traditional way. But that initial contract was really, really important to get the contractors with us, and to be working with us essentially as part of that design team, to be fully embedded in the decision making process, and to be able to help us with some of the logistics. You know, Claire's mentioned the issue around the door and actually getting into the site. you know, in the roof repairs, we were not able to have a crane on site because of the very tight geography. We're bound by river access issues. And so, we had to be creative at every moment. And what we thought was creative needed to be really confirmed and put together from the contractors as well. So, that contract side of things was really, really important, but it did mean that we all had to be very open and honest. I think we'll probably get to this as well during the role of contractors, But there were through all these processes weeks, well, many weeks that the whole project almost ground to a complete halt. And it was only through proper, true collaboration and actually problem solving to get those issues resolved. You know, when an issue came up, we made sure that we all worked on it together. It was never just lumped on one team, or one part of the team, or one person. It was always a team effort to really get out of that, to get out of that hole and continue the program through.

Joanne: I think that was really key, actually, wasn't it? I remember when I first came to site and I think everyone was there, which is very unusual, to come to site and have the structure engineer, you guys, all the contractors. And you could really see that you just had this cohesiveness of working alongside one another. And I think actually you needed that. You had the complexity of the asbestos, you had the complexity of the structural problems. You've got flooding going on on site. You've got all of the industrial machine heritage that you need to look after. You had a small amount of money, and a really quick time frame of what you have to do with it. And I think that's really interesting, actually. And I don't know if you guys want to talk more about how you did that as a team.

Claire: Well, I was just going to mention, I think someone's just asked about an example of a collaborative decision. And the photo on the left is quite good at helping with answering that question, because we had a lot of scarf repairs to do in the roof structure, and they carry a lot of load. And the load paths in the roof, because I mentioned earlier about the three different roofs, series of roofs going on, three different layers of structure going on, The low parts were really difficult to understand. So, the engineers really wanted to test the load-bearing capacity of these joints, and make sure that they work to the standards that they needed them to work to. So, they came with, "We need to do this." So, we need to test every single one. And that would mean adapting the scaffold, that would mean doing very specific tests on each joint. And so we all sat down, said, A, timewise, that's not gonna be possible. B, cost-wise, I mean, that's a lot of money on something that we could spend on something else. We accept that this needs to be done, but is there a way that we can do it in different ways? So what they did, what we finally agreed that we would do, is that they made this joint that's on the left-hand side, and then they essentially tested that one joint that was done to the same standard as all the others. So you've got the two on each side, And they're full of water, they're a ton each. And then they put pressure on the middle of that joint, and they pushed up to see how much pressure that joint would take. And I think it was three times the amount of force that they needed it to take. So, because there was such a degree of comfort, the engineer was able to then say, "Yep, happy with all of them." And that was a very small expenditure of time. Took a while to work out how to do it, it took quite a while to work out how to do it. It seems simple when I'm saying it to you, but it was a really effective demonstration, I think, of everyone saying, "How do we solve this problem?" Rather than someone just saying, "We need to do this, and we need to do it my way." So, that was one example.

Joanne: I think it's a very good lesson for... Depending on what everyone's job is on this call. Surveyors, architects, contractors, local authorities, you know, all of us, I think it is that. Let's all have an open, honest conversation, and actually figure out what is the best way of doing this, and how we can do it. And I think we all need to accept that, you know, we're all very competent people, otherwise We wouldn't be doing the jobs we do, but we're not always going to be specialists in the area, And that's why we employ other specialists, isn't it? And I think that's really key to it all. There's loads of questions coming in.

Claire: I also think the other thing was not being- I mean, we were a very open team, and no one was guarding their profession to the point where you couldn't comment on, "Perhaps I have an idea about this." So I think everyone was like, "Is that a stupid question? Doesn't matter, ask it." So, because you really had to think differently with this. This picture is the machine that everyone really, really, really, really loves, which is the tendering machine. No, that's not the tender machine. What am I talking about?

Joanne: The diesel machine.

Claire: The diesel machine. Everyone also loves the tendering machine, But you can't photograph it because it's in the dark. This has all the teasels lined up that were farmed locally. And one of my staff used to have- one of their ancestors was a teasel grower, so we like to think that they're hers. And then the photo on the right is the extent of the contamination. It wasn't just suiting up and masking up. We had to be washed essentially as well when we came out of the building just to get outside. And so, this machine, we had to go over this machine in order to get up to the roof to fix it to the end wall. And then, yeah, this is a photograph of the roof at the end, with the new Douglas fir. So, we used Douglas Fir, which was procured from the new forest. It's all local. And, bearing in mind that some of this is actually a complete rebuild, some areas of the roof were completely on the floor. We had as part of the PCSA agreement, when we were trying to work out what to do, myself and colleagues were in that rubble helping the contractor pick out the rubble to find the bits of the roof that we knew we needed to replicate. So, lever details, boarding details. Were they beaded? Were they not? Window frames, those kinds of things. so, these photos are of it completed, of the main roofs that we've now completed. And also things like... The battens have to be dyed from a health and safety point of view, so a roofer knows that He or she can stand on it. We didn't want dyed battens because we couldn't have you looking up at the back of, say, some pink battens. So, we had to get special permission from the timber merchant that he didn't put them through the dye process. So, we had to get it confirmed that they were of that standard so the roofer was happy to go on, that they weren't dyed. So, you know, it's things like that that were... Yes.

Joanne: Those beautiful little- Those beautiful little details that not everyone picks up on, isn't it? And I remember you guys had really complex issues around the scaffolding, didn't you? Because obviously you had to scaffold into a river that floods, that had structural issues.

Claire: We didn't go into it, Jo.

Joanne: You did not, but that was my point. But it is those questions, isn't it? Because I've had sites where you have to scaffold over in, or over a river, and it's... You guys managed to find a really unique way of doing it, didn't you?

Claire: Well, we- I mean, the design, that was part of the PCSA thing, because the scaffold designer came in as well. So, we had to clear the rubble away, which I just mentioned about, and then we had to get the surveyors in to scan the floor because we knew there were lots of voids. And obviously, that was an area we hadn't scanned before. The contractors, I think they took over a month to put the scaffold up, and it had to cantilever out the windows over the river above the flood levels to get us up onto the roof. And also, then we ended up bridging over the river to be able to get materials in, because we couldn't get 11-meter pieces of timber in through that little red door, which had become a bigger red door by then, but still had to go around all the machines with an 11-meter long piece of timber. I think the scaffold itself deserves a book. It's phenomenal scaffold design. It was amazing. Never seen anything like it. It was tricky to get, wasn't it, Jo? It was like an assault course.

Jo: It was a really tricky bit. And all of those rooms were nonstandard, as you said. There were voids in the floor. The scaffolding pads had to be positioned where we knew there was a secure bit of ground underneath, which wasn't everywhere. And so, there were lots of different constraints. The windows had to come out, cantilever out the windows. But, you know, really, really, really, really complicated. And I think the only other thing I just wanted to mention about the scaffolding is that those rooms had been completely filled with scaffolding during all of the repairs. In terms of the prioritization, we had always considered those in terms of how much we could get for our money, the historical significance, and the urgency. But what we didn't really conceive of, that it was going to be absolutely beautiful when it was done. And I think the last picture that was on the slide before, looking up into the underside of those roof battens, I think it's beautiful. And it has that kind of cathedral awe of looking up into that space, a really, really special space that I think before, you know, we were so blinkered because it was, you know, it was so difficult to even conceive of it as being put back together, it was just amazing that it had that esthetic quality when it was finished as well.

Joanne: There it is. And loads of people are asking all about the bats. So, we've got to answer the bat questions.

Claire: To be clear, there's no breather membrane. There were some- There was some crazy bat mitigation done. We had to put some bat access points in the roof. As you can see, they're all open levers. So, I didn't quite understand that, but we did it. And we didn't have to provide them other bat routes, because actually we haven't changed the habitat. We just were in the habitat for a bit. So, that would become part of the next stage of works. We haven't actually changed anything. We re-roofed and repaired. Funnily enough, the tank that you can see in the picture on the right is what I've got eyeing up for a bat roost, for a little bat house. Because I think we can't get anyone in it. So, it's perfect. Absolutely perfect. It's got holes in for a bat roost.

Joanne: But the stories of sludge in this tank?

Claire: Oh, yeah. So... This is where I thought we might find a body, but thankfully we didn't. So, this is two cast... I think they're cast... Vanessa will be downstairs Shaking her head or nodding. Cast iron tanks. They're made of panels together. We think they supplied water to... We don't really know. But also, at one point, they supplied oil. So, that's part of the evolution. We've traced the pipes that come from them into the rest. We couldn't get to it. You couldn't go under the tanks to repair them. They were failing. They were resting on the walls, part of which had timber insert into the wall, which was also failing. So, we worked really... I mean, this is the engineering solution. They're brilliant. They worked out a kind of claw way of holding the tank up on the top of the wall heads to suspend it , so that we could get under it and then support it a little bit. Because again, we've got voids in the floor, So, we couldn't go under, A, because it was unsafe, it was gonna fall on our heads. It's tons. It was full of water. We got it tested. So again, the asbestos surveyors, they went above and beyond, because we said, now we've got this water, is it contaminated? And then we had to get the test. You have to get it to the labs within a certain amount of time. And they had some poor guy drive all the way across the country for us to get it done. I mean, this is the thing. It's people kind of really going, "Okay, I'll do it." So, it was fine. We then found out it wasn't contaminated water, and then we worked with the Environment Agency on how we could... Actually, with a really simple siphon, we emptied it. But we did find sludge at the bottom. And so, this is actually post-COVID, but we had guys in full hazmat suits. And essentially it was defined as a contaminated confined space, going in and digging it all out. It was revolting.

Joanne: You could call the whole site that, couldn't you? Contaminated.

Claire: It is, but, you know, some more than others. It's fine. But it was a bit of a curveball. Because we got more funding, didn't we Joe, to be able to add this repair on. Because in doing this repair... So the gable you can see at the end is the gable that's got the 1754 date in it. And it's one of the earlier gables. So, we were able to also put a steel frame up behind that to stabilize it. We didn't have the money to put a roof on it. And I think, actually, below this area, there's a lot of, again, huge amount of biodiversity and ecology going on below. There was talk of a little dormouse run through it, but that didn't materialize in the end. So, that becomes a garden right in the middle. So, thinking about... I think someone asked about, "Do we need an end use to get money?" At the moment we're just stopping it collapsing, and making it safe for other people to go in. We've had, I think, 300 people in, Jo, just through our tools that we did. Jo organized a cherry picker so we could get people up to have a look down at the roofs to kind of see what's going on. Because the more we share it, the more stories we'll get back. So, the more we'll know about how to develop it.

Jo: Yeah. And we've had some really... We've had lots of people coming on the tours and really enjoying it, but also giving us lots of stories, including people who went there when their parents worked on site. You know, some just really nice oral histories of what the site means to them. And I think in terms of that, there are real complexities. The site is a very complicated one that even now will be very difficult to solve and bring back to use. I think one of the points to also mention, we've touched on the issue of flooding, this building was built to be in an area that flooded. It needed to be there for the water. That was its raison d'etre. And in terms of that, now it means that the flooding risk is very, very high. And so, in formal planning terms, the floors were requested to be raised by two meters. And these are predominantly single-story buildings. If that were to happen, the whole thing would be... The significance of the site would be decimated. And so, it's about taking a step back now and working at how we can repair as best we can, and then working out that future use in a sensible way without the gun to our head of imminent collapse. And on that commerciality, we also knew that the site had failed commercially, and that because of the high volume of machinery, and I supposed the difficulties around the grade two star listing. We knew that it's not going to be a commercial venture. And that's one of the reasons why the council intervened to be the owner of last resort. But it was always anticipated that that ownership would be a stepping stone into the community and into bringing this back, bringing this back to life in a sensitive, community-based way. When we were able to get the site to a position that we were able to open the doors, And as Claire said, we had upwards of 300 people coming in on those tours, there were limits- The tour sizes were limited for health and safety reasons. But we have already had lots and lots of interest from people who want to use some of those spaces, and want to be part of a function that uses this building again into the future. So, I think there is an awful lot of hope, and it's a really, really exciting project that will come together. But I'm just not quite sure what it's going to be in the end.

Claire: I think, just to comment as well, someone mentioned about sustainability, we've got to remember that the Fox Brothers were really smart. I mean, like, super smart. So we've still got the line shafting. Yes, that can still be used again. We've still got all of the water in the weirs and things. We've got the water well, which unfortunately is in half now. It doesn't work. but we still have- When it's raining, water thunders through the site through the culverts and everything, and it's amazing to hear as much as anything else. So, we've got the potential of a waterwheel and a turbine to be able to generate energy. We've got a north-facing... North-facing roof. So we've got huge amounts of south-facing roof on the north lights, and we've got a huge amount of structural redundancy because the reverberations that that original steel structure, iron and steel structure was erected to take isn't there anymore. So, we've also got the engineers at the moment looking at the loading for putting solar on there. So, I'm absolutely convinced, and the people that we've spoken to are really convinced, that we can make this a completely self-sustaining site to carry on that legacy with the Fox Brothers.

Joanne: Yeah, and I think it is. And I'm very aware of time, and people are going to be wanting to run away, but I think it's one of our key things, isn't it? You've had the extra leveling up funding, which is fantastic. That means we can still continue to do work on the site. We've all very much met onsite and had conversations about the overheating risk and the flood risk, and what Renewable heating systems we can put in, and all of that. And there's been a lot of engagement regarding, "Can we put solar panels on it?" Let's see. Does the calculation work out? How are they going to be maintained? It's all there. It's just having that big conversation, isn't it? And it's about making sure we justify the solution for it.

Claire: But also it's about what that use will be. So, I think that it's very, very clear that there's very few spaces in this building that can accommodate, fully insulated, sit in- like all the buildings we're probably sat in now, especially the fancy one Jo looks like she's sat in, you know, it isn't going to be like that. There's one area potentially on the north, on the north that might be a case. It's above ground. You can get out easily in flooding and all of that stuff. But what we actually use it for will help dictate how viable these solutions are. Because it was a factory. Wellington is a huge area of growing. You know, we've got a lot of north light. Let's think beyond, "Let's turn it into flats." Let's turn into units for studios. let's turn it into- you know. Some of it can be. Some it can be theater, some of it can be all of that stuff. And people are really used to wearing jackets and things now. They're quite good at it. Is it a market? You know, what is it? So, that kind of consultation and thinking about all of the uses beyond the normal is where this is going to sit. If we think normal, it will fail, which is why it's failed so far, I think, previously. because it's had ambition previously.

Joanne: That's kind of why we have to watch this next space, isn't it? We've got the case study, someone's put it in the chat for us, that got published yesterday. It was being amended. A long haul for all of us to get that published. It's brilliant. It looks really good. And obviously, if you guys want to see more photos, Claire has got an amazing book. Have you got it in front of you?

Claire: I might have it in front of me.

Joanne: It's stunning. And she's even embroidered the front. And I have it as my coffee table book because, you know, it's a special place.

Claire: The reason we did this book is to sell it to raise money for the project.

Joanne: You did, yes.

Claire: So, it wasn't just because I like the photos. And then, we also mentioned, we really thought that... It was quite a special project in terms of the collaboration, the PCSA, and the way the contractor worked. And I always thought that, you know, well, exactly as we are now, the architect and the client are here presenting, but we are a tiny part in all that was achieved. So, we put on a conference as well. I said to Jo, "Should we do this?" And then obviously you say anything to Jo, it then happens. So, we put on a conference in Taunton, and maybe had 100 attendees. They were from local people who were just interested, to industrial archeologists. My old primary school teacher, which was bizarre, and just a whole gamut of building professionals, or just people who are interested in the site, just to share what had been done. And we had the contractor talk, we had someone from the council talk, David talked about procurement. And I think just understanding- someone asked earlier, what was the team? The team was big. You know, it takes a family, you know, to raise a building. So, you know, it was that kind of thing. And actually, to put on a conference for that, we had 100 people come. I'm really happy that we did that. Jo if you want to say anything about that.

Jo: Yeah. I think I would just say on the team, yes, it was a big team, but actually there wasn't anybody there that didn't need to be there. And it was... It was because we needed that wider range of specialists, as Claire mentioned earlier, health and safety, and we also had a sort of standing invite for our procurement team, because they were always a really important part of the process all the way through. Similarly, legal... Everybody played a really important part of this.

Joanne: Yeah, it did. And there's so much to think about, isn't there? And I'm seeing loads of people in the chat saying, thank you very much, and wish we had more time. I wish we had more time, because I always talk about our works. But yeah, do you guys want to just say anything as like a sign off? Lessons learned, or any recommendations for people who might be in a similar situation? And then we can say our thank yous and goodbyes.

Claire: Go on, Jo. You can go first.

Jo: Crikey. I think it's about doing the things that are too difficult to do, and this one was very much in the "too difficult to do" pile. And as I said, even when the project got going, every week there was something that almost brought us to a halt. And it will continue to be in the "too difficult to do" pile. But it didn't mean that we didn't give it our all, and that we gave our full determination to making it happen. But if we'd listened to a lot of people along the way, we would never have got is started because so many people just said, "This isn't worthwhile, this can't be done." But it can, and we have, and we continue to.

Joanne: Can't agree more. Claire, can you follow that?

Claire: I don't think I can. No. I mean, if you say it's too difficult, give it to us.

Joanne: Love that. Yes, please. I think that's a good thing. If you could do it, you can do it. It doesn't matter how difficult it is.

Jo: Yeah, with the right people.

Claire: It did make us cry.

Jo: We only cried a few times. But, you know, that was okay.

Claire: I mean, you know, it was a very long and tough journey, but I would do it again in a heartbeat.

Joanne: Yeah. And you will be.

Claire: And I'm about to, yes.

Joanne: Fantastic. So, thank you so much everyone. Sorry we overran by minutes. I hope people found it really interesting, and let us know if you enjoyed this sort of presentation, because this is obviously not how we normally do it. But yeah. Matt, hand over to you to close the session.

[END]