Case-Study_Silvia_Rossi_20-5-2015

UCLAN, MSc Building Conservation and Regeneration BN4102 Conservation Technology
Silvia Rossi, G20635985, Assignment 2: Building Conservation Case Study, May 2015 p. 1 / 25
Assignment 2: Building Conservation Case Study
Conservation repairs to the windows of St. Leonard’s Church,
Balderstone, Blackburn, Lancashire BB2 7LL
Figure 1: St. Leonard’s Church, Balderstone – East elevation (© Steve Houldsworth, 2007)
Brief historical notes
The church was designed by R.B. Rampling of Preston and built from
1852 to 54 (Historic England, 2015), replacing an old chapel probably
founded around 1504 (Lancashire Online Parish Clerks, n.d.). The tower
was added in 1906. The dates of the stained glass windows range from the
late 19th
century to the early 20th
century.
Listing: Grade II
Construction: Sandstone rubble with slate roof (Historic England, 2015)
Style: English Decorated Gothic (Overton Architects, 2014a)

Figure 2: St. Leonard’s Church, Balderstone – South elevation (© Steve Houldsworth, 2007)
Figure 3: St. Leonard’s Church, Balderstone – Internal view towards the West window (photo: Rossi,
2015)
Figure 4: St. Leonard’s Church, Balderstone – Internal view of the East Window by James Powell & Sons
of London (photo: Rossi, 2015)

1. Introduction
The programme of works at St Leonard’s consists of:
a) repairs of the stonework to a number of windows (marked with a red box in
Figure 5),
b) repairs to the windows’ stained glass (marked with a blue box in Figure 5),
c) raking out and re-pointing of sections of the external walls
d) stripping of old roof and installation of a new roof to the Baptistry (Overton
Architects, 2014b).
This case study report will consider only the first two aspects of the
conservation project.
As works to the church are due to start in June 2015, the examination of
the conservation technologies to be employed is based on the architect’s
specification documents and on in-depth interviews with the project architects,
the stained glass conservator and the project coordinator (Interview questions,
Appendix 2).
2. The defects and the specified repairs
Figure 5: Diagram of the church plan indicating the windows included in the conservation project.
(Source: Daniel Burke, Lightworks) The architect’s plan is in Appendix 1.
S6 S7
Tower

The following summary gives a brief illustrated account of the defects in
the windows stonework and the stained glass lancets and a short description of
the specified repairs.
2.1 Stonework defects to windows E1 /s6 / s7/ s8/ s9/ W1
 A number of mullions show signs of decay and damage due to corroding pins or
dowels.
Figure 6: W. s7 – Base of mullion with exposed rusting
dowel (photo: Rossi, 2015)
Figure 7: W. W1 – Corroded iron pin at joint of two
mullion sections (Photo: John Mather)
 Defective lead window trays allow for the build up of condensation at the base of
the window lancets.
Figure 8: W. s7 –Poorly maintained lead window tray (photo: Rossi,
2015)
Figure 9: W. s9 - The external drain holes are
not sufficient and were often blocked (Rossi,
2015a – photo: Overton Architects)

 Corroding saddle bars and jointing bars have caused the stone to blow at insertion
points (Overton Architects, 2014a p.4).
Figure 10: W. s8 – The mullion suffers from the combined
effect of corroded iron dowel and corroding saddle bars.
(photo: Rossi, 2015)
Figure 11: W. W1 – South mullion showing serious
cracking ( photo: Overton Architects)
 Severe vertical cracking in a number of mullions is due to edge bedding of the stone
(Overton Architects, 2014a, p.5) i.e. where the layered structure of the stone is
positioned vertically instead of horizontally, on the natural bed.
Figure 12: W. E1 – Top: vertical cracking on the North mullions (
photo: John Mather)
Figure 13: W. E1 – Left: vertical cracking on South mullion (photo:
Overton Architects)

 Past repairs with cement mortars to remediate spalling by corroding dowels has
accelerated decay, causing cracking and further spalling.
Figure 14: W. s9 - Plastic repair to the base of the
mullion (photo: Rossi, 2015)
Figure 15: W. W1 – Cement repair to top of mullion. Part of
the tracery above was replaced with a hard stone of different
type to the original (Overton Architect, 2014a p.15 - photo:
Overton Architects)
 Mullions replacement with unsuitable stone types shows in their accelerated
deterioration and, in some cases, in their poor seating on the stooling of the cill
(Overton Architects, 2014a p.7).
Figure 16: W. W1 north mullion. The outer sections of
both mullions of the West window were replaced in 1992
(Overton Architects, 2014 - photo: Overton Architects)
Figure 17: W. s6 – Close up of the mullion base showing
the misalignment between the mullion and the stooling of
the cill ( photo: Rossi, 2015)

 A number of joints have lost their pointing mortar and thus become vulnerable to
water ingress.
Figure 18: W. s8 - Open joints at junctions between
jambs/mullion and tracery (photo: Rossi, 2015)
Figure 19: W. E1 – Partly open joint in the cill (photo:
Overton Architects)
 Cracking at the West window cill, in the wall below the East window and around a
number of window arches is the result of building movement.
Figure 20: W. W1 – Crack in the cill and arch (photo:
Overton Architects)
Figure 21:W. E1 – Cracking at the head of arch (photo:
Overton Architects)

2.2 Specified repairs to the stonework of windows E1, s6, s7, s8, s9, W1
The repairs to the windows stonework will consist of:
 Mullions replacement to full depth and length entailing the:
o removal of old mullions and of corroded iron dowels;
o installation of stainless steel dowels resin anchored into the stone
(Overton Architects, 2014b p.21);
o installation of new mullions made of a suitable fine grained stone
(p.21), using NHL3.5 lime
 Indent repairs to the base of tracery of windows s6 and s7, after careful
removal of previous mortar repair, with a suitable replacement stone and
prior installation of stainless steel dowels in the stone above.
 Lead condensation trays will be either re-fitted or replaced by new ones
provided to the base of each lancet before refitting of the glazing
(Overton Architects, 2014a p.5).
 Raking out of all previous cement mortar repairs and repointing of cracks
and joints with NHL3.5 lime.
The radical decision to replace all mullions was prompted by the evaluation of
the windows - their condition and the history of their construction and/or repairs
- and by economic considerations. The reasons for replacement in each case are:
a) the extensive vertical cracking of both mullions of the East window,
due to the construction defect of edge bedding, which prevents satisfactory
repair of the stone,
b) in the West window mullions, past replacements of the mullions with
unsuitable stones have failed, as have plastic repairs and
c) in the side windows the proportion of the required indents would be
such that only small original sections would remain, making the intervention
uneconomical (Rossi, 2015a).

2.3. Stained glass defects to windows E1/ s8/ s9/ W1/n6
 Buckling and/or bowing in some areas of a few window panels caused a number
of problems: detached tie wires [from the saddle bars], pressure fractures to the
glass, failed solders and glass pushing out of the lead matrix (Burke, 2014 p.12).
Figure 22: W. n6 - Bowing out of upper section (photo: Daniel
Burke)
Figure 23: W.s8 - Pressure fractures to the
glass and failed solders caused by bowing
(photo: Daniel Burke)
 In the West window, in particular, a) a number of pressure and strike fractures
to the lancets glass (Burke, 2014 p.14) are visible and b) the joints are poor
between panels with leaded light cement used to fill any gaps (p.14).
Figure 24: W. W1 – Poor joints between the head panels and those below (Burke, 2014 – photo: Rossi, 2015)
 General obsolescence of some windows i.e. lead matrix around 100 years old, or
older.

2.4 Specified repairs to the stained glass in windows E1, s8, s9, W1, n6
The following repairs will be carried out in studio after the lancets glass
is removed to allow for the replacement of the mullions:
 Piecing together of any cracked/damaged glass (Burke, 2014 p. 12) by
inserting a thin strap (generally 1/8”) of lead came between the separate
sections of broken glass (Rossi, 2015c, Appendix 2, p.2).
 New replacement glass (maximum of 12 pieces overall), where the
amount and type of fractures affect the legibility of a detail (Burke,
2015): matching and re-cutting, re-painting and kiln firing where
required (Burke, 2014 p.12).
 Full re-leading of all glass panels, except possibly in window 9, on the
basis of
a) window age of nearly 100 years old and structural faults,
b) age and condition of the leaded light cement, which provides weather
proofing,
c) additional stress applied to panels through removal and transportation
(p.12).
 Window s9, because of age and condition and depending on studio
condition assessment, might only need minimum remedial works such as
panel flattening, replacement of all outer edge lead cames and fixing of
new copper wires (p.13).
 After full re-leading: soldering, cementing, cleaning (p.12) with soft
brushes, new cotton rugs and deionized water (Rossi, 2015c), lead
polishing and fixing of new copper wires (Burke, 2014 p.12).
 Replacement of all saddle bars with 12 mm square manganese bronze
saddle bars as part of the re-installation of the glass panels.

A full recording of all details of the glass panels, including the lead cames
sizes, the tie positions and the record of all damaged glass (p.12), will precede
the start of any work.
3. Project approach and constraints
3.1. The principles of conservation
There are issues raised by some particulars of the conservation repairs to
the windows at St. Leonard’s, in respect both of the principle of ‘minimum
intervention’, defined as the only work that is unquestionably necessary ...to
ensure the survival of a building’s fabric (Kent, 2011 p.2) and of the principle
of ‘maximum retention of historic fabric’. In the case of the stonework of the
East and West windows, structural defects and previous failed renewal and
repairs made a strong case for full mullions replacement, whereas for the side
windows the option was open of retaining part of the fabric of the mullions. In
this case, a compromise was reached to ensure the long-term success of the
intervention, albeit a non- reversible one, in that what might theoretically have
been salvaged from the original fabric would be lost.
On the other hand, the project does endeavour to ensure the compatibility
of methods and materials by sourcing a suitable stone type for the mullion
replacement and the use of lime mortar for their bedding, both appropriate
practices (Ashurst and Ashurst, 1988, Environment and Heritage Service,
2006). The shape of the mullion section will be exactly replicated by the stone
masons.
For the conservation of historical glass, Kerr (1988) prescribes three basic
principles: minimum intervention, full recording and reversibility of techniques.
Because the windows have to be removed, to allow for mullion replacement,
minimum intervention (i.e. to repair in situ) is not really an option (Rossi,
2015c) otherwise the recommended solution for windows s9, W1 and E1 would
be to leave well alone (Rossi, 2015c). Since the lancets need to be removed,

considerations of age, condition and future-proofing to avoid further
interventions within 40-50 years makes full re-leading the recommended option.
Full recording will be a key element of the repair process and the only
way the next conservator will be able to recognise the replacement glass.
3.2. The influence of economic and statutory constraints
The conservation repair project for St. Leonard’s was prepared as part of
a successful application for Heritage Lottery Funding.
On the one hand the availability of funding guaranteed the feasibility of
all works deemed necessary to ensure both the long-term conservation of the
church in its use as a place of worship and the long-term preservation of its
significance as a heritage asset for the closer and for the wider community.
On the other hand the principles of conservation were partially
compromised by the need to future-proof the building, which followed from the
unpredictability of both future funding and the availability of personnel to
manage further interventions (Rossi, 2015b). An informed, conscious decision
was agreed by all parties that the right approach would be to tackle the root of
the problem in the stonework and to prevent the glass of the lancets having to be
removed for another 100 years (Rossi, 2015b).
At the time of writing Faculty approval for the works (i.e. the equivalent
of Listed Building Consent in the Ecclesiastical Exemption process [Rossi,
2015a] ) has yet to be granted [Mather, 2015], so it is not yet known whether the
project will be subject to any conditions.
4. Evaluation of the specified repairs
As with all repairs of an historic building the best approach is to be
conservative in the extent of the works and to retain the maximum amount of
historic material (Environment and Heritage Service, 2006).

Although this statement defines the correct starting point of any
conservation project, the determining factors for the best course of action will
always depend on a thorough assessment of the condition of the building fabric,
an understanding of its significance and an acknowledgement of the financial
context and constraints. They will also, inevitably, be in part mutually
contradictory.
The fabric condition was outlined above. Further investigation will be
carried out in the West window, once the scaffolding is erected, to ascertain the
cause of the failure, internally and externally, of previous repairs. In the
meantime the consensus is that full mullions replacement is the best option for
both structural and historical reasons, as the original fabric has already gone.
In the East window the original architect’s proposal was to replace the
outer face of the mullions only, since the internal face does not show signs of
decay and is much better protected from the elements. This could also reduce
the risk of damage associated with a full replacement to the ornate reredos
which stands close to the window (Rossi, 2015a). The ‘half-and-half’ technique,
where it is possible simply to cut back the decayed stone to the glazing line, and
dowel or glue back a new outer face to the old inner half (Ashurst and Dimes,
1998 p.11) has been used successfully in a number of project such as in the west
tower of Ely Cathedral (Ashurst and Dimes, 1998) and in the clerestory of
Rochester Cathedral (Stewart, 2008). In this latter project, the mullions suffered
from the same problem as in St. Leonard’s, of being laid on the wrong bedding,
but only one window required complete renewal of the mullions (p.2).
It can be argued, however, purely on the basis of architectural and historic
interest, that there is a difference between the significance of the mullions of St.
Leonard’s and those of Rochester Cathedral. They are roughly the same age,
the latter having being replaced by Gilbert-Scott in 1870, but different
judgments might well be made regarding their preservation.

Finally, the deciding factor was the client’s requirement of a long-lasting
solution that respected both the significance of the fabric as a whole – and not
simply of particular elements - and the economic context and constraints of the
project. For the same reason, the plan adopted ruled out both plastic repairs to
the south windows and making indents to the mullions which would have meant
that only small sections of the original fabric would survive.
Moreover, the preservation of the stained glass was more important for
the project from all three relevant perspectives: historical, aesthetic and
community.
The removal of the glass to allow for the replacement of mullions causes
major disturbance, posing a danger to the integrity of the glass panels. This, and
the availability of funds, dictated a repair strategy which meant the windows
would not need to be taken down again within 100 years. This included the full
re-leading of all windows, which followed the advice of the stained glass
conservator, which was that it is not possible to re-cement properly [to ensure
weather-proofing] without re-leading (Rossi, 2015c).
Strobl (2002) contends that the set benchmark of 100 years for replacing
the leadwork is totally artificial and asks, forcefully, what about the quality of
material, manufacturing process, design of the window or its location within the
building (p.1). He then develops his argument that these are the important
factors. And even where structural defects of the lead matrix are found action
does not necessarily mean re-leading (p.3). The rationale of this position is that
the lead is as much an integral part of the history of the window as the glass is
(p.3), therefore it is imperative to save as much of the lead as possible (p.3).
On the other hand, Kerr (1998) acknowledges that as all lead cames
eventually relax and deteriorate due to continual movement, all glass requires
re-leading at intervals in its life (p.38). The judgement of the extent of
deterioration in a lead matrix, and whether to advise partial or full replacement,
ultimately relies on the skills of the stained glass conservator. Age and rarity

also play a significant part in the decision as prescribed by the Comité
Technique of Corpus Vitrearum (1989), which states that medieval or old lead
matrices have to be conserved in every case as an important part of the art
work. Newer leads are a different case... If new leads are needed, they should
follow the profile and contours of the original (p.3).
Similarly, the recommended replacement of all corroded saddle bars – of
which some had already been replaced over the years – is standard practice
when the windows have to be removed (Rossi, 2015c). An alternative, where
only the ends are corroded, and so not in this case where corrosion is rather
extensive, is to tip the ends with stainless steel or phosphor bronze. However,
the significance of the bars in a grade II listed church can be rather low (Rossi,
2015a) and the long-term success of such an operation remains to be
demonstrated (Rossi, 2015c).
5. Conclusions
The materials and techniques adopted for the preservation of the fabric of
the windows at St. Leonard’s, both the stonework and the glass, follow
established, appropriate codes of conservation practice. However, questions
based on the principles of conservation were raised about the extent and the
appropriateness of the specified renewals of all mullions included in the
programme of repairs and the full-re-leading of all relevant glass panels.
A number of factors contributing to the decision to replace were
evaluated:
a) the condition of the fabric;
b) the significance of the fabric, overall and of the affected elements;
c) the desirability of ensuring the long-term preservation of the building
both as a heritage asset and as a used church, without further disturbance;
d) the opportunity of presently available funding;
e) the uncertainty of sufficient funding in future;

f) the uncertainty in the future of the human resources capable of dealing
with such a demanding project.
The guiding principle of minimum intervention and maximum retention
of fabric should always be at the heart of the conservation professionals’
approach, but a case-by-case judgement is always also required. This will take
into account all the relevant factors, the most important of which - but not, as at
St. Leonard’s, the only one - is the condition of the fabric.
Finally, the most important requirement in conserving our common
heritage, along with the necessary expert guidance, is the commitment of all the
people involved. John Mather, the project coordinator, put it well:
We, as current custodians of this building, have responsibility
to do whatever could reasonably be justified to give the building the
longest possible life (Rossi, 2015b).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANDERSON, D. (1996) Stained Glass and Its Decay, The Conservation and
Repair of Ecclesiastical Buildings [online] Available at:
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/stainglass/stainglass.htm
(Accessed 3 April 2015)
ASHURST, J. and ASHURST, N. (1988) Stone Masonry. Practical Building
Conservation, English Heritage Technical Handbook, Vol.1. Aldershot: Gower
Technical Press
ASHURST, J. and DIMES, F.G. (1998) Conservation of Building & Decorative
Stone. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann
BAMBROUGH, M. (2005) Aesthetic Protective Glazing, Historic Churches
[online] Available at:

http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/aestheticprotective/aestheticprote
ctive.htm (Accessed 3 April 2015)
BURKE, D. (2014) Stained Glass Report, St. Leonard’s Church, Balderstone.
Clitheroe: Lightworks Stained Glass
Comité Technique of Corpus Vitrearum (1989) Guidelines for the Conservation
of Ancient Monument Stained and Painted Glass, ICOMOS [online] Available
at: http://www.international.icomos.org/publications/93stain1.pdf (Accessed 2
April 2015)
Environment and Heritage Service (2006) Stonework Repairs, Technical Note
No. 39 [online]. Available at:
http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/tn39_stonework_repairs-2.pdf (Accessed 2 April
2015)
FIDLER, J. (ed.) (2002) Stone – Stone Building Materials, Construction and
Associated Component Systems: Their Decay and Treatment. English Heritage
Research Transactions: Research and Case Studies in Architectural
Conservation, Vol.2. London: James & James
Historic England (2015) List Entry: Church of St Leonard, Balderstone [online]
Available at: http://list.historicengland.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1072061
(Accessed 1st
May 2015)
KENT, D. (2011) Conservative Repair. The Building Conservation Directory
[online] Available at:
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/conservative-repair/conservative-
repair.htm (Accessed 3 May 2015)
KERR, J. (1988) The repair and maintenance of historic glass. In J.Ashurst and
N. Ashurst, eds. Wood, Glass & Resins – Practical Building Conservation,
English Heritage Technical Handbook, Vol.5.Aldershot: Gower Technical
Press, pp. 31-71
Lancashire Online Parish Clerks (n.d.) The Church of St Leonard, Balderstone
[online] Available at: http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Balderstone/stleonard/
(Accessed 3 May 2015)
MATHER, J. (jdmather@hotmail.co.uk), April 20, 2015, RE: Faculty approval.
E-mail to Rossi, S. (sross1gb@gmail.com)

Overton Architects (2014) a, Report on Masonry Defects to the Windows – Rev.
C, St. Leonard’s Church, Commons Lane, Balderstone, Blackburn, Lancashire,
BB2 7LL. Skipton: Overton Architects.
Overton Architects (2014) b, Conservation Repairs: Specification of Works –
Rev. B, St. Leonard’s Church, Commons Lane, Balderstone, Blackburn,
Lancashire, BB2 7LL. Skipton: Overton Architects.
ROSA, R. (2004) Adhering to the Point, Historic Churches [online] Available
at: http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/stainglass/stainglass.htm
ROSSI, S. (2015) a, Interview with Keeble, T., Project Architect, Overton
Architects, April 10, 2015, Balderstone, Lancashire. MP3 file
ROSSI, S. (2015) b, Interview with Mather, J., Project Coordinator, April 10,
2015, Balderstone, Lancashire. MP3 file
ROSSI, S. (2015) c, Interview with Burke, D., Stained Glass Conservator, April
10, 2015, Clitheroe, Lancashire. Appendix 2 and MP3 file
Scotland's Churches Trust (no date) Stained glass and tracery repairs to St
Ninian's, Glasgow [online] Available at:
http://www.scotlandschurchestrust.org.uk/maintain-your-church/case-
studies/3/stained-glass-and-tracery-repairs-to-st-ninians-glasgow (Accessed 3
April 2015)
SELIGER, L. (2013) Cleaning Historic Stained Glass Windows, The Building
Conservation Directory [online] Available at:
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/cleaning-stained-glass/cleaning-
stained-glass.htm (Accessed 3 April 2015)
STEWART, I. (2008) Repairing the Nave Clerestory at Rochester Cathedral.
Historic Churches [online] Available at:
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/rochester/rochester.htm
STROBL, S. (2002) Lead in Stained Glass Windows - Integral Part or
Disposable Commodity? Historic Churches [online] Available at:
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/leadstainedglass/lead_stained_gla
ss.htm (Accessed 3 April 2015)

Appendix 1: Church plan drawings (Overton Architects) – not to scale

Appendix 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
a) Interview questions for Tony Keeble, Overton Architects
Responses are in MP3 file, as per the bibliography.
Stonework
1. What is the relative contribution to the present condition of the
windows of the following factors?
a) incorrect repairs (e.g. cement mortar repairs, incorrect installation of
replacement stone elements etc.),
b) building movements
c) condensation?
2. Have you established that the cracks and open joints that are due to
building movements are old, or are more investigations needed? If some are still
‘alive’, what risk could they pose to the success of the repairs programme?
3. Full height and depth replacement of almost all mullions:
a) What are the reasons for proposing a single radical solution to a
number of conditions?
b) Could you have envisaged some alternatives? For example, whereas
extensive cracking along the length of the mullions in the East window and
previous full replacement and failure in the West window seem cogent reasons
for full replacement, in other cases might you have considered plastic repairs or
partial replacements, to abide by the principles of minimum intervention and
maximum retention of fabric?
4. Replacement stone:
a) What are the criteria for selecting the replacement stone in the case of
new mullions, where it works almost in isolation from other adjacent stone?

b) How easy was it to find the right stone for the mullions?
c) Is the one indicated for pricing the definitive stone of choice?
Stained glass
1. Full re-leading for all windows: in the Specification of works, Rev.B,
‘Glazier Preambles’, point g, the prescription was to ‘reuse all sound lead cames
and agree extent of cames to be reused with the architect’. The Stained Glass
Conservator proposed the replacement of all lead cames:
a) Was there full agreement on this intervention or did a compromise
need to be reached?
b) If the latter, on the basis of what considerations?
2. Significance of old ferramenta: all saddle-bars will be replaced by
manganese bronze saddle bars:
a) Are the sound ones not important enough to be retained?
b) What other considerations played a part in the choice?
3. Condensation drainage to windows: internally it seems generally not to
be provided and externally to be insufficient with ‘only one hole’.
a) Did you consider improving this aspect?
b) If not, what other measures are assumed to be in place to prevent
damage from a build-up of condensation?
4. Wire guarding: this is provided to the East window only and a
replacement is proposed.
a) Why does only one window require protection?
b) Are there other viable alternatives with less visual impact?

Approach and constraints to the conservation project
1. In what ways have economic considerations been important?
2. In what ways, if any, have statutory considerations influenced the
conservation repairs proposal?
3. a) Are there aspects of the conservation repair programme that had to
be compromised due to the client’s requirements?
b) If so, for what reasons?
b) Interview questions for John Mather, Project Co-ordinator,
Parochial Church Council, Balderstone Church
Responses are in MP3 file, as per the bibliography.
Approach to and constraints on the conservation project
1. a) Did any aspect(s) of the conservation repair project necessitate
compromise(s) between, on the one hand, your committee’s views, opinions or
felt constraints and, on the other hand, the proposals from the architect and/or
the stained glass conservator?
b) If so, which ones and for what reasons?
2. Maintenance plan:
a) Will it be updated after the works are completed?
b) If so, which changes and additional actions or recommendations do
you anticipate?
3. Financial considerations : on my previous visit you talked about the
details of the HLF grant application and how this would allow the church to
undertake the full list of repairs, starting as soon as June 2015.

a) Has the way in which the money is released from the HLF affected the
planning of the programme of works?
b) If so, how?
c) Has the way in which the money is released necessitated any other
compromises?
4. In the unfortunate event of your application being rejected, you said in
your e-mail of 13.03.2015 that the most urgent repairs, especially to the West
window, will have to take place, but with some delays. Can you specify how
would you expect the programme of works to change and what the new
timescale might look like?
c) Interview questions for Daniel Burke, Stained Glass Conservator,
Lightworks
Responses partly in MP3 file, as per bibliography, partly on a printed
Word document.
Conservation/Restoration recommendations
1. Full re-leading of all windows to be repaired - except possibly for
Window/S9: are your criteria for proposing this based only on their age
(the recommended baseline of 100 years) or did you judge by experience
that the material quality and/or the extent of structural damage did not
warrant the retention and repair of the majority of the old lead- cames, as
the principle of minimum intervention might have suggested?
2. Window/ S9 – in the case of remedial works:
a) Can you please explain the technique of replacement of the outer lead-cames?

b) How strong and durable an intervention is it?
c) How does it compare cost-wise with full re-leading?
3. Repairs to cracked/damaged glass:
a) Are you envisaging chemical bonding or copper foiling or other?
b) Why?
4. a) What is the extent of new replacement glass for each of the 5 windows
and what are the criteria for going for replacement rather than repair (e.g. a
piece is too fragmented to be put back in place, etc.)?
After replacement is decided on,
b) What criteria affect your decisions on how to reproduce an image?
c) What criteria affect your decisions on how [if you do] to make the
replacement recognisable as a later addition?
5. What cleaning technique/s of the glass will you use?
6. Significance of old ferramenta: all saddle-bars will be replaced by
manganese bronze saddle bars:
a) Are the sound ones not significant enough to be retained?
b) What other considerations played a part in the choice?
Timescale, approach to the project and constraints
1. Timescale:
a) How long will the proposed treatment of each lancet take?

b) Will the windows be re-installed all together or each window
separately, as soon as the repairs (glass and stonework) are completed?
2. a) To what extent did the following considerations affect your choices of
intervention?
i) financial factors
ii) the client’s requirements,
iii) timing of the project (i.e. in conjunction with stonework repairs)
b) If the removal of mullions had not been proposed would you have suggested
the procedures that you did for the repair of the glass?

Case-Study_Silvia_Rossi_20-5-2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Similar to Case-Study_Silvia_Rossi_20-5-2015

Similar to Case-Study_Silvia_Rossi_20-5-2015 (20)

Case-Study_Silvia_Rossi_20-5-2015