Using historic buildings as contemporary workplaces: An investigation into the conflicts between building conservation and contemporary requirements for fire safety and accessibility

Abstract

This study examines the impact of Workplace Legislation on historic buildings that arecurrently in use as workplaces. The work focuses on those aspects of the legislation that relate to fire safety and access for disabled people and examines the implications of these legal requirements for such buildings. The interplay and conflict between this legislation and the philosophy of building conservation is examined.
The hypothesis of this study is that: as a result of the Workplace Legislation, a more pragmatic approach will have to be taken to the conservation of historic buildings that are being used as workplaces and the issues of fire safety and access and facilities for disabled people will assume greater importance, than has previously been the case.
The terms "historic building", and "workplace" are defined for the purposes of this study. The philosophy and practice of building conservation is examined. The principles of fire safety and the concept of accessibility are both reviewed and are
applied to the context of historic buildings that are being used as workplaces. Distinctions are drawn between cultural monuments and working buildings.
Two distinct research methodologies are employed in this study. First, a questionnaire survey is used to investigate the prevailing attitudes amongst conservation professionals to the conservation of historic buildings. Second, case studies are used to establish the approach that building conservation works demand in practice.
The survey results are used to establish benchmarks or profiles to inform and direct the case study investigations. The benchmarks provide an empirical basis for the assessment of the impact of the Workplace Legislation, upon the current approach to building conservation.
According to the survey the reasons for conservation fell into three broad categories: (i) protecting the heritage, (ii) stability and economics and (iii) sustainability. The category 'heritage protection' included the reasons for conserving historic buildings that were considered to be 'most justified': custodianship of the built heritage, architectural merit, social history and character and appearance. The survey also found that the two most justified forms of interventions were routine maintenance and 'conservative repair'.
The survey found that, in the conservation of historic buildings that were being used as workplaces, the fire safety issues were all rated as above average workplace considerations, whereas accessibility issues were rated as meriting below average consideration.
According to the case studies, there was little evidence to support the view that fire safety had become more important in historic buildings, as a result of the recent implementation of the Workplace Legislation. This was because it was already a high priority. Accessibility seems to be becoming a higher priority since the questionnaire survey, where lottery funding applications are involved, but it is still not a high priority in commercial properties.
The evidence in this study suggests that it is too early to determine the impact of the Workplace Legislation on historic buildings that are in use as workplaces. Fire safety provisions already covered many buildings, but access for disabled people is likely to become a more important consideration in the conservation of historic building in the near fbture, and this is an area for fUrther research.