Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
1 Victoria Baths Conservation Plan CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1. BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN 1.1. Introduction 1.2. The site 1.3. Owners, users, and stakeholders 1.4. Historical background 1.5. Purpose of the Conservation Plan 1.6. Structure of the Conservation Plan 1.5. Updating the Conservation Plan 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 2. UNDERSTANDING 2.1. Victoria Park, Chorlton on Medlock and environs. 2.1.1. Overview of the development of Manchester’s south-eastern suburbs 2.1.2. Social history of the catchment area and changing social patterns. 2.1.3. The development of the site and immediately surrounding area 2.2. The provision of social amenities in Manchester 2.2.1. History of the provision of social amenities in Manchester. 2.2.2. Building, financing, and operating public baths and laundries in Manchester 2.3. History of Victoria Baths . 2.3.1. Planning, design and construction 2.3.2. Contractors and suppliers 2.3.3. Decoration and architectural style 2.3.4. Details of structural, decorative, and technical changes 2.3.5. How the Bath’s complex was used and how it functioned 2.3.6. Decline and closure 9 9 SIGNIFICANCE (See also Gazetteer) 3.1. Historical, social and architectural significance 3.2. National and regional comparatives 3.2.1. Baths visited for comparative purposes 34 34 35 3. 12 18 2 Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 4. ISSUES AND POLICIES Introduction 4.1 Ownership 4.2 The future of the site 4.3 New Development and Major Change to Existing Fabric 4.4 Retention of the Elements of the Victoria Baths site that are of greatest significance. 4.5 Access 4.6 Resources 4.7 Maintenance 4.8 Public Safety 4.9 Inappropriate Structures 4.10 Structurally Weakened Structures (see also 4.4 Retention of Elements) 4.11 Statutory Considerations 4.12 Understanding and Record Keeping 4.13 Interpretation 4.14 Vulnerability of site 4.15 Building Services BIBLIOGRAPHY 53 54 55 55 56 58 59 60 61 62 62 63 64 64 65 66 67 Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 3 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Front Cover – Changing cubicles to Males, 1st Class Pool (watercolour by Lynne Duric) Title Page (and footer throughout) – Terracotta plaque to Males, 1st Class Pool (LEP) OS Map, published 1889 OS Map, published 1922 OS Map, published 1956 Page 13 – Turkish Baths 1906 (Manchester Central Library: Archives and Local Studies) Page 23 – Ground Floor Plan by Manchester City Architectural Department (Manchester Central Library: Archives and Local Studies) Page 24 – Pump House 1906 (Manchester Central Library: Archives and Local Studies) Page 27 – Front Elevation 1906 (Manchester Central Library: Archives and Local Studies) Page 30 – First Class Entrance 1906 (Manchester Central Library: Archives and Local Studies) Page 32 – First Class Pool 1906 (Manchester Central Library: Archives and Local Studies) Page 39 – First Class Pool 1906 (origin not known – image held by Victoria Baths Trust Archive) Page 41 – Interior of Public Baths Kensington and Chelsea (AHP) Page 41 – Interior of Dulwich Leisure Centre (AHP) Page 41 – Exterior of Dulwich Leisure Centre (AHP) Page 41 – Exterior of Camberwell Public Baths (AHP) Page 42 – Interior of Beverley Road Swimming Centre, Kingston Upon Hull (AHP) Page 45 – Interior of Balsall Heath Library and Public Baths (AHP) Page 46 – Exterior of Balsall Heath Library and Public Baths (AHP) Page 47 – Interior of Beverley Road Swimming Centre, Kingston Upon Hull (AHP) Page 48 – Interior of Beverley Road Swimming Centre, Kingston Upon Hull (AHP) Page 50 – Exterior of Bramley Baths, Broad Lane, Leeds (AHP) Page 50 – Interior of Bramley Baths, Broad Lane, Leeds (AHP) Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – To be finalised after consultations) This Conservation Plan for Victoria Baths was commissioned by the Victoria Baths Trust. It has been prepared by The Architectural History Practice and Lloyd Evans Prichard and follows terms of reference set out in the English Heritage led document ‘Brief for a Conservation Plan’. The plan aims to research and examine the history of the site, assess its significance and set out a policy framework for the management and development of the Baths in the future. Victoria Baths is owned by Manchester City Council. The buildings became rundown in the 1980s but remained open until 1993 when despite local opposition, the complex was closed and Manchester Victoria Baths Trust was born. Victoria Baths is a fine example of the high quality of social amenities provided in nineteenth and early twentieth century England which came about as a result of reforms to The English Poor Law, various Acts of Parliament and other legislature which provided local authorities with the power to implement social provision and facilitated the borrowing of public money for such improvements. At this time Bath Houses were seen as a way of promoting cleanliness, exercise and the general self-improvement of the working classes. Designed initially by the City Surveyor’s Department and constructed under the control of the City Architect Henry Price, Victoria Baths was opened in 1906, built on the site of the former Victoria Park Lawn Tennis Club on what is now Hathersage Road. Renaissance in style, Victoria Baths’ exterior is of red brick and elaborated with creamy-yellow terracotta, a combination of colours often observed in Edwardian buildings constructed for public use. The interior finishes are extravagant, including mosaic flooring, decorative wrought ironwork, glazed ceramic tiling and stained glass, even to be found in the original staff areas. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 5 Facilities at Victoria Baths were strictly segregated until 1922, with separate entrances and swimming pools for Males 1st Class, Males 2nd Class and Females. Wash baths housed in cubicles in the pool rooms provided the community with private washing facilities largely absent from working class dwellings. The building also housed a full Turkish Baths suite. In one hundred years, whilst alterations and modifications have occurred, many have not been highly intrusive. Much of the original construction materials and finishes remain in situ and intact, presenting an invaluable opportunity to conserve a significant example of a type of building unique to the social conditions and political will prevalent at the time of construction. Listed grade II*, Victoria Baths has been extensively compared with other surviving public bath complexes. This comparison suggests that it is probably the most intact and lavish example of its date and type in the country and it is of great importance to the nation’s built heritage. Victoria Baths is at a cross roads. Having successfully gained the nation’s support through the BBC 2003 Restoration programme a future use for the complex must be identified and – more critically – must be sustainable. The alternative, the gradual destruction of a magnificent building, is unthinkable. The policies in this plan aim to assist in the determination of the future for the Baths. They are a set of guidelines or signposts that should enable effective development of this site whilst retaining the many elements of the structure which are so universally admired. The implementation of these policies will be guided by the Steering Group which comprises the major stakeholders in the Baths; Manchester City Council, the Victoria Baths Trust, English Heritage, The Heritage Lottery Fund and the Restoration Fund. They face an enormous challenge. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 1. BACKGROUND TO THE PLAN 1.1. Introduction 6 This Conservation Plan for Victoria Baths was commissioned by Victoria Baths Trust. It has been prepared by Lloyd Evans Prichard in conjunction with The Architectural History Practice. 1.2. The site Victoria Baths is an outstanding and complete example of a municipal public baths built at the time of the 20th century, by Manchester Corporation. It has achieved national status as a result of being voted most deserving structure in the BBC Programme Restoration. Victoria Baths (listed Grade II*) is not in a Conservation Area. 1.3. Owners, users, and stakeholders Victoria Baths is in the freehold ownership of Manchester City Council. Victoria Baths was closed in March 1993 and subsequent lack of maintenance has resulted in deterioration to the fabric. The Victoria Baths Trust was formed in 1993 and has enthusiastically and effectively campaigned for funds to restore the principal spaces. The stakeholders directly concerned with the preparation, approval, and endorsement of this Conservation Plan are: • Victoria Baths Trust • The Friends of Victoria Baths Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 1.4. • Manchester City Council • English Heritage 7 Historical background Victoria Baths is located on Hathersage Road in the suburbs of south east Manchester which were laid out in the late 1830s around the newly created Victoria Park. Initially an area of larger houses and villas, by the end of the 19th century when the baths were designed, a considerable amount of terraced housing had been erected in the vicinity. Planning began in 1895 and designs by the City Surveyors Department were completed by February 1903. The complex opened in 1906. 1.5. Purpose of the Conservation Plan The Conservation Plan provides an understanding of the historical development of the site and of the various buildings that are or have been there, it examines and evaluates significance, and considers present and possible future vulnerabilities. The plan then proposes policies for the protection and management of the significant aspects of the buildings and their principal spaces. In common with other conservation plans, it comprises a single, comprehensive document that can be consulted in connection with: • Providing clear guidelines for the testing and evaluation of new development proposals or for material changes to the site or buildings. • Preparing long-term conservation programmes for the site and its various components. • Making day-to-day decisions with regard to maintenance and repair. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 1.6. 8 Structure of the Conservation Plan The Conservation Plan is presented in two sections, the first containing the following topics: • Understanding • Significance • Issues and policies The second section is a room-by-room Gazetteer of the two buildings. 1.7. Updating the Conservation Plan Conservation policies should not be considered as being static; updating and amendment may be required for both philosophical and circumstantial changes. This Conservation Plan should, therefore, be considered as the first in an ongoing exercise, to be updated at intervals of not more than five years, or whenever changing circumstances demand. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 2. UNDERSTANDING 2.1. Victoria Park and its environs 9 2.1.1. Overview of the development of Manchester’s south-eastern suburbs Manchester grew up along the banks of the River Irwell, and the town initially spread from a medieval core close to the confluence of the Irwell and River Irk. Expansion in the eighteenth century was followed by dramatic changes as the Industrial Revolution transformed the area. Until that time outer areas of Chorlton-on Medlock and the adjacent parts of Rusholme and Longsight were essentially rural in character, with ribbon development along main routes and a scattering of farms and hamlets. The Manchester conurbation had spilled over the River Medlock by the later eighteenth century, and industrial buildings were erected alongside the River Medlock, in the present Cambridge Street area. A planned suburb around Grosvenor Square was one of the first significant residential developments. Land there had been bought by Roger Aytoun and was sold to developers in the 1790s. Streets and building plots were laid out and the development took off a few years later. By 1821 there were 8,000 inhabitants. The Chorlton-on-Medlock Town Hall and Dispensary was erected on the square in 1830-1. By the early nineteenth century there was increasing demand from the merchant and middle classes for dwellings away from the polluted town centre. Ardwick had been developed for middle-class housing before 1800, and other places also became popular, especially the slopes of Cheetham and Broughton, north of the centre, and areas to the south offering easy access to the centre. The most ambitious scheme was Victoria Park, laid out in 1837 by the architect Richard Lane. This was a gated residential park, and villas there enjoyed spacious grounds and landscaped surroundings. The prospectus described the site as offering ‘total freedom from manufacturers and their disagreeable effects.’ Whalley Range, developed from the early 1830s by Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 10 Samuel Brooks, was another, less elaborate scheme. Housing was often built speculatively to let, and this was probably true of those built along Plymouth Grove, of which only three or four survive from the first half of the nineteenth century. By the middle of the nineteenth century areas in the southern suburbs were beginning to be built up. Continued expansion saw cheaper terraced housing springing up everywhere, and the 1899 OS map shows that terraces were packed into streets along Stockport Road and Upper Brook Street. Victoria Park retained a leafy feel, but in the early twentieth century the eastern part was developed with terraced housing as well. By 1922 tightly packed terraced housing had started to fill up almost all of the available land in the area. Clearances came in the mid twentieth century and a large council estate was established in the area between Plymouth Grove, Stockport Road, and areas to the north and east. The hospital and university sites continued to expand through the twentieth century and new building in the mid 1960s was accompanied by demolition of housing. 2.1.2. Social history of the catchment area and changing social patterns. Houses and villas erected in Victoria Park and along Plymouth Grove and Wilmslow Road during the first half of the nineteenth century were occupied by middle-class families, many of whom rented the properties. Typical residents were merchants or businessmen. Louis Schwabe, a leading Manchester merchant and inventor, lived on Plymouth Grove, and the home of the novelist Elizabeth Gaskell stands nearby. Famous residents of Victoria Park included Charles Hallė and the artist Ford Madox Brown. Some of the biggest changes to the area came in the late nineteenth century with the building of Owen’s College (subsequently the Victoria University of Manchester) from the 1870s on Oxford Road, and the later development of the area to the south for hospitals. Victoria Park remained relatively exclusive into the twentieth century, and the proximity of the university made it a popular choice for halls of residence. Meanwhile the College of Art had been established on Grosvenor Square and the area subsequently developed as Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 11 another educational centre, eventually becoming Manchester Metropolitan University. Parts of Chorlton-on-Medlock, especially those to the north nearest the centre of Manchester, had become slums by the late nineteenth century, and included terraced and back-to-back housing occupied by poor working people. An illustration is given by a report prepared by T.R. Marr in 1904. His Housing Conditions in Manchester and Salford has a chapter describing certain districts in detail, including Chorlton-on-Medlock. He writes: ‘In no part of town have we found worse conditions prevailing among the homes of the people’ and goes on to describe back-to-back housing and a district which gave the impression of ‘hopelessness squalor and misery.’ His study mentions occupations such as stonemason, bootmender, blacksmith and waste-worker. High Street (later known as Hathersage Road), however, was still relatively prosperous. Residents in 1907 included a professor of music, music teachers, solicitors, accountants and other professionals. The social mix by 1922 included several doctors and surgeons, while the occupants of terraced houses on Welby Street included a clerk, joiner, electrician and a bath attendant. 2.1.3. The development of the site and immediately surrounding area Until the mid-nineteenth century the area around High Street was partially rural in character, with open fields. Victoria Park was laid out on farmland in 1837, and a sprinkling of villas and older buildings appeared here and there, principally along main routes. By the time that the 1848 Ordnance Survey map was surveyed, houses, mainly villas in their own grounds, had been built alongside Plymouth Grove, the southern parts of Oxford Road and Upper Brook Street (then known as Clarence Road). High Street (later called Hathersage Road) had been laid out but only three houses and a short terrace are shown on the 1848 map. In 1850 the residents included manufacturers engaged in textile production. None of these buildings has survived. The Ordnance Survey map surveyed in 1888-9 shows that a number of larger Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 12 houses, of the type which survive immediately east of Victoria Baths, had been built along High Street including a substantial development on the site now occupied by the United Utilities offices. The site of the baths is marked ‘Lawn Tennis Ground’ and the area immediately opposite and to the north remained undeveloped. By 1922 the site was becoming hemmed in by terraced housing. The baths, and Bax Road immediately to the west, still had large houses as neighbours. The area immediately to the north remained vacant, but the whole of the south side of High Street had become built up, with a series of short streets running down to the border of Victoria Park, all of them with terraced housing. In 1956 the area to the north was also built up. Later developments included demolition of houses to the west and the building of the Electricity offices and continued expansion of the hospital site. 2.2 History of the provision of social amenities in Manchester Social amenities were initially provided in nineteenth-century Manchester through a mixture of public and private charitable or philanthropic initiatives. The English Poor Law system was reformed in the 1830s. Essentially this offered workhouse accommodation for the poorest in society, administered through boards of guardians and funded through the poor rate. Facilities such as dispensaries and infirmaries were initially charitable concerns funded through subscriptions, though facilities for paying patients were also provided. The provision of publicly funded amenities was essentially dependent upon the extension of the powers of local authorities through Acts of Parliament. An early step was taken through the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, which, amongst other provisions, allowed local authorities to take over social improvements such as drainage and street cleaning. Later, various legislative initiatives empowered corporations to raise or borrow money to provide services of various types, for example Acts in the 1840s and 1850s allowed Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 13 municipal cemeteries to be formed, and facilitated provision of libraries, museums and so on. The Baths and Wash-house Act (1846, later amended 1847 and 1872) gave local authorities the power to borrow public money in order to erect public washing, bathing and laundry facilities, and in later years, swimming pools for ‘the labouring classes’. An architectural competition for the design of public baths and wash houses was held before the Act was passed in 1844. It was sponsored by the Society for Obtaining Baths and Wash-houses for the Labouring Classes. The interest in provision of such facilities was allied not only to health considerations, but also to ideals of selfimprovement for the working classes. Healthy exercise was promoted for similar reasons, and the provision of swimming baths can be allied to concern to provide people with alternatives to traditional working-class pursuits revolving around the alehouse and racing track. Although baths were supposed to operate at a profit to cover capital investment, in practice almost all ran at a loss. The promotion of Turkish baths started at about the same time and was initiated by the diplomat and traveller David Urquhart as a way of breaking down the rigid class divisions in Victorian Britain as well as promoting cleanliness (Nebahat Avcioglu, ‘Construction of Turkish Baths as a Social Reform for Victorian Society: the Case of the Jermyn Street Hammam’ The Hidden Iceberg of Architectural History, Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, 1998 p.59-78). Turkish Baths 1906 Urqhart based his ideas on his personal experience of the mixing of social classes in the baths at Istanbul, and gave his first public lecture on the subject Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 14 in 1847. Eventually Urquhart’s Turkish baths were opened in Jermyn Street, London in 1862 but entrance charges were beyond the reach of the working classes. Turkish baths were built in many places from the 1860s and were subsequently incorporated into the designs of public baths. Bradford Corporation in 1865 was one of the first local authorities to provide Turkish Baths and the Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Baths Committee incorporated a suite of Turkish baths within their new Public Baths in Henry Square five years later. Provision of baths and wash-houses in Manchester and Salford was initially provided by individual philanthropists, charities or private companies. The Infirmary at Piccadilly offered therapeutic baths in the early nineteenth century, conceived as treatment for various conditions, including mental illness. Baths were also available for the paying public. The first known bathhouse (with slipper baths and a wash house) was a house in Miller Street (demolished), near the centre of Manchester, converted for the purpose by the builder E T Bellhouse in 1845-6. Funding had been raised by a charity appeal, chaired by the mayor. The establishment was well-used and returned a small profit, which encouraged the banker Benjamin Heywood to finance a similar venture at Sycamore Street, Miles Platting in 1849 (demolished). This establishment was designed by M. Bunnell and based on Paul Street Baths, Liverpool. In addition to bath and wash tubs a swimming pool was included to encourage healthy exercise. The Manchester and Salford Baths and Laundries Company was formed in 1854. The company built Greengate Baths, Collier Street, Salford, which was designed by the Manchester architect Thomas Worthington. As one of the earliest surviving examples of this building type in the country, the Italianate Greengate Baths are of national importance and listed grade II*, though they have been derelict for a number of years. The way in which they were planned became the standard for later establishments. Halls for the pools (male firstand second-class only) and wash house were placed side by side at the rear, Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 15 and other accommodation ranged along the front. Pools were provided with galleries where slipper baths were installed, and changing cabins, known as dressing boxes, opened on to the pool side below. The company erected two more baths to Worthington’s designs; in Mayfield, Ardwick, in 1856-7, and in Leaf Street, Hulme, 1858-60 (both demolished). Both had first- and second-class swimming baths for men and Leaf Street had a Turkish bath, the first in a public baths in Manchester. These were followed in 1860 by the Penny Bath (demolished), near Mayfield, built by the company to provide a swimming pool for boys. This was later converted into subscription-only baths for gentlemen in the 1870s, following complaints of boys begging for money to use the facility. In the 1860s the company took over the leases of the two earlier, privately-funded baths. Miller Street in 1862, (closed in 1875 when the building’s owners gave notice to quit) and Sycamore Street, leased in 1864, though the lease was discontinued five years later. In 1877 Manchester Corporation purchased the assets of the Manchester and Salford Baths and Laundries Company. This was not the end of privately sponsored public baths, however. Whitworth Baths, on Ashton Old Road, Openshaw, designed by the Manchester architect J. W. Beaumont were built in 1890 by the executors of the engineering magnate Joseph Whitworth. They were given to the Openshaw Local Board. These and other baths, some built by local boards or urban district councils, were handed over to Manchester Corporation when amalgamation took place. This included baths erected by the Newton Heath UDC and Gorton UDC. 2.2.2 Building, financing, and operating public baths and laundries in Manchester. Public provision of public bath and wash houses in Manchester thus started rather later than in some cities. The Corporation launched a competition for Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 16 the design of a public baths ‘in plain style of architecture and free from any elaborate ornament’ (Building News, 12 October 1877, p. 356). John Johnson of London was selected and the New Islington Baths (demolished) were opened in 1880. Osborne Street Baths on Rochdale Road were opened in 1883. The Corporation went on to build a number of baths, including smaller and cheaper ‘cottage baths’ such as those at Red Bank and Pryme Street Hulme (both demolished). At Philips Park, Bradford, an outdoor pool was established in 1891 and remained in use until 1949. By the early twentieth century the planning, design and technology involved in building public baths facilities was well established. Certain individual architects such as A.H. Tiltman and Alfred Cross had established a specialism in the field, and individual and city architects had a wide number of precedents to draw upon. The essential requirement, established in the 1850s or earlier, was for one or more pool halls with wide span, usually top lit, roofs, an entrance block to control entry, and plant. This often produced designs with low entrance buildings and taller double-height pool halls ranged behind. Where there was a requirement for accommodation for a caretaker or for a superintendent this was usually integrated into the entrance buildings and tended to encourage two-storey frontage buildings. In some cases, as at Victoria Baths, board rooms for official deliberations were included. Additional facilities such as coffee rooms, club rooms and storage could be integrated into the design either as part of entrance blocks or as appendages to the pool halls. Special baths, such as vapour baths and Turkish baths could be integrated in similar manner, or (as at Beverley Road Baths, Hull) placed in a separate building. Segregation by sex was the rule until the twentieth century and this was reflected in the planning of the buildings. Four large indoor establishments erected early in the twentieth century were Moss Side Baths (1906, demolished), Victoria Baths, Chorlton-on-Medlock (1906), Bradford Baths (1909, demolished) and Harpurhey Baths (1910). Harpurhey (listed grade II) and Victoria Baths (listed grade II*) are both Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 17 extant, though they have been closed for a number of years. Withington Baths, Burton Road (also Henry Price) built in 1913 is of interest because it made no distinction between first- and second-class bathing and, in 1914, became the first baths in Manchester where mixed bathing was permitted. Until that point, swimming facilities for women were limited relative to provision for men and boys. Although the earliest public baths featured slipper baths for both men and women, the swimming pools themselves were initially intended only for men, for whom first- and second-class pools were often provided. The first building in the area to provide a pool for women was built by Salford Corporation in 1880, at Blackfriars Street. However, the women’s pool was less than half the length of the men’s. This imbalance was repeated at Manchester Corporation’s Osborne Street Baths (demolished), Miles Platting, opened 1883. Parity was almost achieved at the Victoria Baths, although in this instance the women’s pool was slightly narrower than the men’s. Women also had to be content with a smaller pool than the men at the Levenshulme Baths, opened in 1921. Thereafter mixed bathing, as introduced at Withington in 1914, appears to have become the norm. A Corporation publication noted in 1927: ‘One of the adventures on which the Council embarked in 1914 was the making of arrangements for mixed bathing. That misgiving has now been completely dissipated and the demand for this provision has grown to such an extent that it has been extended in the last twelve months from six to thirteen of the baths.’ (How Manchester is Managed, 1927, p. 20). During the interwar period Manchester Corporation continued to construct baths; the City Architect’s Department generally preferring to adopt an understated Neo-Georgian idiom. By 1934 provision extended to most parts of the city. This amounted to thirty-five swimming pools housed in twentyfive separate establishments. Of these, twenty-three offered baths, while twenty had wash houses. There was a total of 885 slipper baths and four Turkish bath suites. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 18 Levels of usage appear to be high. During the year 1928, 2,148,693 people were recorded as using the city’s nineteen public baths (though this figure presumably includes repeat visits by the same individuals), yielding receipts to the Corporation of £18,022. In the same year 536,214 people used the city’s fifteen public wash houses, yielding receipts of £19,280 (How Manchester is Managed, 1928). Immediately after the Second World War ambitious proposals to build baths in each of the neighbourhood areas identified in the City of Manchester Plan of 1945 were published in the architectural press (Architects and Building News, 3 August 1945, p. 78). These proposed large facilities each with three pools, slipper baths, Turkish, Russian and medicated baths. Children’s pools were to be the ‘shop window’ of the schemes with full-height windows to the street. A prototype design of this nature had already been built, albeit on a more limited scale, at the Broadway Baths, New Moston, in 1932. 2.3. History of Victoria Baths 2.3.1. Planning, design and construction The idea for baths in the Chorlton-on-Medlock area came under consideration by Manchester Corporation Baths and Wash Houses Committee in 1895. At a meeting held on the 17th October it was resolved that baths be erected ‘in St Luke’s Ward’. The decision was later rescinded to allow further consideration of the matter, but by June 1896 the search for a suitable site was started. In August a subcommittee for ‘Baths in Longsight, St Luke’s and Rusholme Wards’ was formed and members visited baths in Leeds and Batley in the autumn of that year. Trips were planned to Birmingham and London, but it is not clear if they took place. Early in 1897 land on the corner of High Street and Clarendon Road was identified as being suitable for the project and attempts were made to buy it. High Street was chosen because it was considered to be the most central site for serving the three wards. Later that Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 19 year it was discovered that restrictive covenants attached to the sale prohibited development for industry or the erection of a steam engine, which meant that it could not be used. Another site on the corner of Upper Brook Street was then considered, but this too was subject to restrictive covenants. This type of covenant was frequently applied to sales of land and was usually aimed at preserving the residential character of areas. A suitable site further east occupied by the Victoria Park Lawn Tennis Club was eventually identified as being suitable and acquisition was recommended on October 26th 1898. The Manchester Corporation General Powers Act of 1899 contained powers for the compulsory purchase of the site, but in December 1899 terms were agreed with the owners and 7,440 square yards of land were purchased for £750, subject to the formation of a new street on the west side of the site, subsequently called Bax Road in honour of Alderman Bax. On 7th January 1900 a Building Subcommittee of the Baths and Washhouses Committee was formed. The chairman was Alderman Bax and other members were Alderman Evans, and Councillors Rothwell, Bishop, Hesketh, Johnson, Langley, Marsden, Milnes, Pritchard, Sutton, Watmough and Wilson. On 31st January 1900 the City Surveyor was instructed to prepare sketch plans for an establishment with three swimming baths, private wash baths, Turkish baths, a public hall and caretaker’s premises. On the 20th February that year the Subcommittee decided to arrange visits to other baths in England and two trips took place. On the first Subcommittee members were accompanied by Mr Meek from the City Surveyor’s Department and Mr Derbyshire, the Corporation’s General Superintendent of Baths and Washhouses. On the second occasion the City Surveyor went with his assistant, Mr Arthur Davies. Baths in Westminster, Shoreditch, Newington and Lambeth, all in London, were visited, as well as facilities in Nottingham and Leicester. It was decided to obtain water for the baths from a borehole, and in August 1900 John Thom was contracted to construct one. Water was not encountered at the expected levels and Professor Boyd Dawkins of Owen’s College Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 20 consulted. He took a pessimistic view, but boring was resumed, ultimately with a successful outcome. Water from this source was said to be cheaper than water from the town supply. In the meantime the City Surveyor’s department had been preparing drawings, and the City Surveyor, Mr T. de Courcy Meade, presented drawings to the Building Subcommittee in September 1900. These were approved, and de Courcy Meade was asked to prepare the necessary drawings and estimates so that an application could be made to the Local Government Board for borrowing powers. The plans show three swimming baths arranged much as they are now, and a large public hall attached by an entrance block to the rear of the first-class pool. A suite of Turkish baths is shown in front of this pool, where the male first-class wash baths were ultimately sited. At the next meeting in October revised plans were submitted and the estimated costs reported to be £57,000 of which £15,000 was the cost of the public hall. This figure was considered to be too high, so the proposed public hall was abandoned and new plans drawn up. These were submitted to the Committee on 16th April 1901 by Mr Meek (almost certainly George Meek, who designed the Free Library on Deansgate, 1882). If elevations were submitted they do not seem to have survived, but it is clear that the general character of the building had been decided by then. The minutes of the Building Subcommittee state that the main façade was to be three storeyed with high-pitched roofs and ornamental gables, surmounted by a clock turret. The minutes record that ‘The ground floor has been raised 4 feet above the street level. This will give the building a more noble appearance.’ The design is described as being Renaissance style ‘and will be faced with Ruabon bright red pressed bricks with mouldings etc. of buff terracotta.’ A detailed proposal appears in the minutes with an estimated cost of £39,998.00. A set of plans dated July 1901 signed by A Davies survive amongst the committee records, and these are probably similar to those considered at the meeting. They show the baths very much as they were finally built, in terms of layout. An application for funds was made to the Local Government Board, which later gave its approval. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 21 In December of that year the Building Subcommittee co-opted Arthur Davies of the City Surveyor’s Department ‘who has prepared the drawings for these buildings.’ The minutes note that he had been a temporary assistant in the Architectural Department from January 1889, and was taken on permanently in March 1900. At the same meeting the committee declared itself ‘exceedingly anxious that the Victoria Baths should proceed without any further delay.’ Quantity surveyors (Hurrell & Taylor) were appointed the following January (1902) and later that year the Corporation appointed Henry Price as its first City Architect. This followed an incident early in 1902 when the chief architectural assistant, a clerk of works, a district building inspector and a measuring assistant in the City Surveyor’s department were all dismissed, or forced to resign from the Council’s service, according to one source for allowing bad workmanship on a new housing estate (probably at Blackley). Over the next two years the roles of the City Surveyor and City Architect were more clearly defined to prevent repetition of the trouble. As part of the reorganisation, the City Architect acted as surveyor for all new building while the City Surveyor remained responsible for drainage and sewerage. By August Price had added to the team working on the project by seconding people from other departments, probably men with design and technical drawing skills. He advised the Subcommittee that quantities could not be estimated accurately without detailed drawings. In October he reported that he had seven assistants working on the drawings, some of them preparing fullsized detail of the terracotta work. This is an indication that Price and his team must have designed the detail of the terracotta, which would include all the lettering and decorative plaques of the exterior. The drawing were finally ready for the quantity surveyors and advertisements inviting tenders for the work were placed in the press during February 1903. It seems that final details had still not been agreed, since Price later reported to Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 22 the Committee that the baths should be constructed of concrete, lined with asphalt and finished with glazed brick. This, according to The Builder (September 9th 1905), was the system used. The system was one recommended by A.H. Tiltman, whom Price described as ‘The greatest authority upon baths in the kingdom.’ Tiltman had published on the subject in 1899 ( ‘Public Baths and Wash-houses’, Royal Institute of British Architects Journal, February 11th 1899, p169-202). Work commenced, but revised estimates of costs reported to the Committee in May 1905 showed that the project was running some £20,000 over budget. It was decided to apply to the Local Government Board to obtain funds to cover the shortfall, and a document, ‘Application for Additional Borrowing Powers for Victoria Baths, High Street, Chorlton-on-Medlock’ was prepared in the spring of 1905. The document gives a summary of how plans for the baths were arrived at. Some of the dates given do not tally with the minute books, though this might reflect technicalities in terms of how approvals were given, or clerical errors. It was explained that the shortfall was due partly to underestimates and partly to additions and alterations to specifications made by the Subcommittee. For example glazed brick was used for cubicle walls rather than pitch pine, terrazzo and marble floors were used instead of Derbyshire spar, and a laundry was proposed. The Local Board eventually sanctioned the additional costs. Meanwhile work was proceeding. Pilkington’s wire-woven glass was installed in the pool roofs, and the engineering contracts completed. Once the extra money had been approved the laundry was built, with machinery and equipment installed under the direction of the General Superintendent of Baths, J. Derbyshire. One last-minute alteration was the insertion of a staircase into the Turkish bath to give access to the basement, where a lower room was utilised as a cool room and decorated, according to The Builder (September 15th 1906) in ‘Oriental style’. Henry Price gave consideration to seating and standing arrangements for the gala pool, noting that such a facility had often been asked for in the past, and the baths were finally opened on the 7th of that month. An account of the baths appeared in the Manchester Evening News that day. It was reported that the in the Turkish and Russian baths featured Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 23 ‘everything that the most fastidious person may require in the way of douches and sprays’. The report noted that the building was equipped with a coffee room, bicycle storage room, and complete system of telephones and electric bells. The provision of footbaths and showers was noted, for use of ‘workpeople going straight from their employment to the baths.’ Ground Floor Plan by the Architectural Department under the control of Henry Price, the first City Architect Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 24 2.3.2 Contractors and suppliers The minutes contain details of various contractors and suppliers for the project. In most cases the firms named undertook the work, but it is possible that there were variations which were unrecorded. In other cases, such as the stained glass, the suppliers are not named. The firm C.H. Normanton was appointed as the main contractor. The subcontractors were: joinery, Hill & Heys of Manchester; stonework John Marshall of Manchester; terracotta and facing bricks, J. Edwards of Ruabon; ironwork, Manchester Iron & Steel Co.; slating Thomas Murthwaite of Ardwick; plumbing, Robert Heyworth & Co. of Manchester and plastering Owen Corrigan of Sale. Mr R. Thomas was appointed clerk of works. All the engineering works were overseen by L. Holme Lewis, the Waterworks Committee’s hydraulic engineer, who was based at the hydraulic pumping station on Whitworth Street. The tenders for engineering contracts were advertised separately and in September 1903 the following firms were appointed: tanks, girders columns pipes etc., R. & J. Dempster. Messrs Galloway Ltd, provision and fixing of Pump House 1906 Lancashire boilers, superheaters, economiser, feed pumps, etc. The air compressors, air lift device, valves, piping, etc. were provided by W.J. Ellison & Co. Rolled steel joists and girders, Dorman Long & Co., Middlesborough. Engineering components were supplied by the following: well pipes, Stewarts & Lloyd, Birmingham; stop valves, Glenfield & Kennedy, Kilmarnock; boiler plates and steam and other pipes, Spencer & Sons, Newburn; furnace fittings (steelite), Ed. Newbold, Gatley & London; fusible Plugs, National Boiler and General Insurance Co., Manchester; economiser and engine, E. Green & Son, Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 25 Manchester and Wakefield; feed Pumps, Clarke Chapman & Co.; injectors, Gresham & Craven, Salford; filters, Rankines Patent Filter Co., Liverpool; steam dryers and steam traps, Royles Ltd, Irlam; mica covering, Mica Boiler Covering Co. Tenders were also obtained for heating the Turkish baths. J. Constantine & Son were chosen after members of the Subcommittee visited the Turkish Baths incorporating Constantine’s system in the Midland Hotel, Manchester, which were considered to be superior to municipal facilities. In October it was decided to substitute Pattesons mosaic and terrazzo for floor coverings of Derbyshire spar. Later the committee inspected samples of tiles and decided on those of Williams & Co., though it is not clear which part of the building the tiles were for. In 1904 the committee reported that it was ‘strongly in favour of adopting a system by which water is pumped from the deep end of the swimming baths to an overhead tank where it is aerated and filtered and then returned’ being reheated on the way back ‘by means of the exhaust steam from the pump used to lift water to the tank’. Royles of Irlam were asked to supply the system. Tenders for a clock and bell were accepted from J.B. Joyce & Co. using a bell cast by Taylors of Loughborough. J B Joyce & Co claims to be the oldest firm of tower clockmakers in the world, originating in 1690. The firm supplied clocks for many churches, public buildings and stations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Taylors was founded in 1839 and is now one of only two bellfounders in England. Thomas Bradford & Co. installed a water chute and diving board in the gala bath. The chute is recorded as being 12ft 6 in from water level. 2.3.3. Decoration and architectural style The building is highly decorative both inside and out, the most elaborate of any of the municipal baths in Manchester. It is not clear who designed the Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 26 details of the exterior scheme as no elevational drawings made prior to Henry Price’s appointment as City Architect have been identified, however the general appearance, architectural style and the exterior materials and colour scheme, had been settled upon by 1901. It is probable that existing designs prepared by the City Surveyor’s Department were worked up by Price and his team. The use of external terracotta became widespread for buildings during the Edwardian period. In big cities like Manchester, where pollution blackened buildings within a few years, terracotta created the opportunity of cleanable colourful display which allowed the buildings to stand out from their neighbours. Other large municipal schemes in Manchester incorporating the material in the early twentieth century include the Municipal College of Technology (UMIST) and the London Road Fire Station. It is clear from council minute books that the terracotta detailing was designed by Henry Price’s team. Although terracotta suppliers did produce catalogues, special commissions with the detailing designed either by in-house specialists or by architects or sculptors were common. Two good local examples are the London Road Fire Station in the centre of Manchester, where the sculpture was designed by the Manchester sculptor J.J. Millsom and the terracotta produced by Burmantofts, and the Regional College of Art (now the Grosvenor Building, Manchester Metropolitan University) where the decorative terracotta by Doultons was designed by the firm’s head of architecture W.J. Neatby. The firm J.C. Edwards of Ruabon was founded in 1870 by Edwards, who has been described as the ‘greatest manufacturer of terracotta in the world’ (quoted in M. Stratton, The Terracotta Revival, 1993, p.20.) He started out as a brick maker and eventually employed around a thousand men in five works near Ruabon in North Wales. The firm would have been experienced in undertaking contracts of the sort required for Victoria Baths. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 27 The architectural detailing is typical of the time. Renaissance styles were very popular in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in many cases freely combining various Front Elevation 1906 European sources. Some of the detailing of the baths has a northern European feel, drawing on English and Low Countries Renaissance sources. The tall shaped gables, in particular are a typical motif. The use of polychromatic finishes had been popular in England from the 1860s and 1870s, drawing on European Gothic precedent. The possibilities offered by bright durable terracotta and hard red brick allowed the designers to create a colourful composition in a style often seen in Edwardian buildings for popular entertainment such as theatres, billiard halls, gin palaces, and a little later, cinemas. The interior decorative schemes are lavish, especially those used for the entrance and staircase hall of the firstclass entrance and the first-class or gala pool. The floor is finished in First Class Entrance 1906 mosaic. It has an exceptionally attractive design of water creatures, including fish, shells, eels and starfish. The pattern is more elaborate in the entrance foyer, with the scheme in the staircase hall employing some slightly different motifs. The maker was probably the Manchester firm of Patteson, who are Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 28 named in the council minutes as suppliers of the floor surfaces. The firm started as stone masons in the early nineteenth century. By the early twentieth century they had branched out into architectural sculpture, tiles, ironwork and mosaic. It is not known who was responsible for the actual design. It could have been an artist at Pattesons, and there would have been in-house expertise as the firm frequently designed sculptural tomb and war memorials. It is quite likely, however, that Henry Price’s team or even Price himself may have done it. The scheme seems to be influenced by Roman mosaic and the design is unlike that of any other mosaic identified in the Manchester area. The minute books mention that tiles by the firm Williams & Co. were approved, but it is not clear if these were tiles for specific areas, or for the whole scheme. It may be that there was a (unrecorded) change in the choice of supplier. In any event research by the Victoria Baths Trust has shown that some of the tiles were supplied by Pilkingtons, and designs produced by F.C. Howells of the firm have been identified as those used for the high dado in the first-class entrance hall. While it was common for terracotta to be produced to specific designs drawn up outside the firm, tiles were usually chosen from catalogues produced by the suppliers. The decorative glass falls into three main categories. Windows evidently designed specifically for the baths show sporting and other themed scenes. Small panes with conventional floral designs are incorporated into doors, screens and so on. It may be that the same firm supplied all the glass, alternatively the glass in the screens and doors may have originated with the firm which provided the joinery. Although it is attractive, with designs of Art Nouveau influence, it is typical of the glass supplied in joinery for use in domestic and public buildings in the Edwardian period. Another type of decorative glass appears in the men’s first-class washing baths area and in the Superintendent’s flat. Designs are picked out in the leading but colour is not used. The detail is suggestive of an interwar date, and may reflect a minor phase of alteration undertaken during the 1920s or 1930s. In addition to this Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 29 the Superintendent’s flat includes coloured glass with designs of helms and heraldry unrelated in design to other glass of the complex. The glass which was almost certainly designed specially for the baths illustrates sporting scenes (though not swimming) in the entrance foyer and pay booth areas. In the Turkish baths there are landscape scenes and a large colourful window with a figure which has been called the ‘angel of purity’. This is a female figure with colourful butterfly wings grasping white lilies and standing on a lily pad in a pool. Much of the glass painting has become faded so that a degree of detail has been lost. This is a feature frequently seen in glass of the Victorian and Edwardian period which is often caused by faulty firing methods or use of impermanent materials. The glass may have been produced by the workshop of William Pointer, who was a glass merchant and stained glass painter (research by Victoria Baths Trust). The firm was established in 1892, and William Pointer (1866-1919), glass stainer, first appeared in the local directories in 1893 as a partner in the firm of Cundiff & Pointer trading in the Ardwick Green area. In 1906 they moved to 118 Grosvenor Street, Chorlton-on-Medlock. At the end of the year the partnership was dissolved and the firm of Frederick Cundiff & Sons was working from a London Road address and William Pointer from Grosvenor Street. William Norman Pointer (1893-1965) took over after his father’s death in 1919. The copper plaque commemorating the opening of the baths was produced by the firm of George Wragge. Wragge’s was a local firm which specialised in the decorative arts in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including stained glass, metalwork and so-on. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 30 2.3.4. Details of structural, decorative, and technical changes Various alterations have been undertaken at different times. The first-class baths have had original stone steps, edging and rails removed and replaced, perhaps for safety reasons. The introduction of textured floor tiles in various places probably reflects similar concerns. The second-class baths have been floored over. Changing cabins and gallery-level baths have been removed. The first-class wash baths have apparently had windows reglazed, possibly in the interwar period or during the 1950s. Doors to the main foyer are replacements. They have been subdivided, the baths removed, and wall surfaces covered with artex or similar. The womens’ entrance foyer and pay booth has been altered with the insertion of a sauna and showers. Subdivisions beneath the women’s stairs and at the south end of the complex were made to provide facilities such as a first aid room. Another intervention in this area was the installation of an Aerotone bath in 1952. The Baths were fitted with a filtering and aeration system probably during the 1930s; certain anomolies with the dating of these changes are covered in Gifford and Partners Ltd Engineering Condition Survey, March 2004. The pool dosing equipment in the basement was added in the 1950/1960s.' 2.3.5. How the bath’s complex was used and how it functioned The baths were open to males and females and strict segregation inherent was in the architectural design. Mixed bathing was introduced in 1922. First class pool 1906 Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 31 Bathers used separate entrances with separate foyers and staircase access to galleries. Interconnecting doors between the galleries were strictly for use by the attendants. There was a sliding scale of charges. The pools all had changing cabins and were equipped with showers, footbaths and lavatories. The males first-class pool was also the gala pool in which events took place, and seating was provided in the gallery for spectators. Wash baths were positioned in the galleries of the female and second-class pool. The baths were of porcelain, and were in individual cubicles. Few ordinary people had separate bathroom at this time, so the Corporation facilities not only offered comfort, as the baths were larger than many available in the home, but also privacy, a precious commodity in crowded working-class dwellings. First-class baths were arranged in a separate block in front of the gala pool, since the gallery area was designated for seating. Turkish baths are based on a system of dry heat, while saunas and Russian baths use steam. Users are exposed to gradually increasing temperature and then pass through rooms of decreasing temperature, and finally to a room where a shampoo and massage is given. The ideal of Turkish baths cutting across class boundaries is given some credibility by oral history research conducted by the Victoria Baths Trust. Users recall a mixture of people from different walks of life and ethnic origins using the baths in an atmosphere of camaraderie. According to research by Malcolm Shifren, the baths were used by all classes and both sexes at different times of the day and week. ‘During the year 191314, when the total population of the baths' catchment area was 97,967, the Turkish baths were used by 4,643 bathers, of whom 3,406 were male and 1,237 were female. By comparison, 163,897 bathers used the swimming pools during the same period. However, in making this comparison, it is important to remember that, as in most other places, only adults were admitted to the Turkish baths.’ (Shifrin, M.R., Victorian www.victorianturkishbath.org March 2004) Turkish Baths Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 32 Swimming and water sports clubs were an important feature of bathing, and some clubs were based at the baths, such as the Longsight Men’s Swimming Club and the Victoria Ladies’ Swimming Club. embers benefited from reduced entrance charges. Water Polo, children’s and schools clubs, swimming instruction, life saving instruction. Competition swimming – large size of gala pool made it useful for training. The relatively large size of this pool made it useful for training and it was used for this swimmers purpose by including Sunny Lowry, who went on to swim the English Channel and the Olympic swimmer John Besford. First Class Pool 1906 Swimming pools were often boarded over during winter months and used for sporting and recreational purposes. Some pools were converted to gymnasia or for indoor bowls, and many to dance halls, including Victoria Baths. 2.3.5. Decline and closure By the time that mixed bathing was the norm the design of nineteenth and twentieth century baths became an anachronism. It was usually the smaller, women’s baths which closed first, and this is a reason for the better state of preservation of the women’s pools at Harpurhey baths as well as Victoria Baths. Improvements in housing meant that houses without bathrooms gradually became a thing of the past and public facilities were no longer required. Similarly, relative cheapness and availability of domestic appliances meant that laundries, too fell into decline. Manchester City Council closed all its laundries in the early 1980s. At Victoria Baths swimming and the Turkish baths remained popular, however, but the building is large, with complex roof Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 33 patterns and parts of it were effectively redundant by the 1980s. The baths were closed by Manchester City Council on 13th March 1993, though the Council continued to own the building. Many local people opposed the closure and the Manchester Victoria Baths Trust, a buildings preservation trust, formed in 1993, started to consider ways in which the baths could be run independently. In 1998 the Trust formed a partnership in with the City Council, CHRC Ltd (a voluntary sector company) and Central Manchester Healthcare Trust (an NHS Trust). The Victoria Baths Partnership made bids from 1999 to 2001 for grant aid from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the New Opportunities Fund towards the restoration costs. These bids were refused in 2002. In 2003 the baths featured in ‘Restoration’, a series of television programmes made by the BBC to highlight the plight of historic buildings at risk in Britain. The public was invited to vote for the most deserving case and the building was subsequently chosen to receive funding towards partial restoration. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 3. SIGNIFICANCE 3.1. Historical and architectural significance 34 Victoria Baths are historically significant as a little-altered example of early 20th century public baths which retain almost all the essentials of plan, including ancillary buildings and a forecourt with walls and gates. They retain a little-altered interior decorative scheme, with a high proportion of fixtures and fittings surviving in little-altered or intact condition. They therefore exhibit a high degree of completeness. In terms of architectural quality the baths are a good example of Edwardian design, which, while adopting features and finishes typical of the date and building type, represents a good, largely intact example. The interior decorative scheme represents a particularly rich ensemble and is a noteworthy example of an Edwardian municipal interior scheme. The baths appear to be one of the most intact and richly decorated surviving example of a municipal baths facility in England in the date range 1880-1915, and a combination of desk-based research and selected visits has failed to identify a comparable or better example in terms of completeness and decorative richness. Desk-based research suggests that there are probably in the region of eight or ten comparable examples (listed below).While there are several examples of baths designed by well-known architects, some of which are arguably of greater architectural merit, it does not appear that these examples display the same high quality of interior decorative schemes and are as intact. Victoria Baths are listed grade II*. Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 states: ‘Grades I and II* identify the outstanding architectural or historic interest of a small proportion (about 6%) of all listed buildings. These buildings are of Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 35 particularly great importance to the nation's built heritage: their significance will generally be beyond dispute.’ In terms of local significance the baths are the most ornate and complete example of a 1880 - 1915 municipal baths facility in Manchester, and as far as can be ascertained, the North West Region. They illustrate the achievements and ambitions of Manchester Corporation in architectural and social terms, since they represent a public facility aimed at ordinary people which enjoyed a very high standard of architecture, technology and decoration. They are one of only a very small number of surviving pre-First World War baths in Manchester, and the richest and most intact of surviving examples. The baths are part of a group of significant public buildings erected by the Corporation in the early twentieth century. Of that group they are the largest and most ornamental example outside the centre. The Fire Station on London Road and the Municipal School of Technology (now University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology) on Whitworth Street are examples in the centre of town. Victoria Baths illustrates late nineteenth and early twentieth century ideas about public facilities and segregation and they are a demonstration of the type of public facilities provided by the Corporation. 3.2. National and regional comparatives A desk-based overview of municipal swimming baths in England has shown that there are in the region of thirty comparable listed examples in the date range 1880-1915. It is possible that the English Heritage information sources are not completely up to date, meaning that examples could have been altered, added or removed from the list, or regraded to a different listing grade. Facilities outside this date range have not been considered and neither have those which were primarily associated with spas or brine baths, or private baths and those built for institutions such as schools or colleges. Building complexes which have lost their pools, or with later replacement pools, have not been included. Examples which have been converted with total or near Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 36 total loss of interior features have also been excluded. Around half of the sample are known to have been wholly or partly converted for another use. Fewer than ten are thought to be relatively intact. In the cases of baths which appeared to be comparable contact was made with the conservation officer of the relevant local authority where possible in order to ascertain the current use and condition of the building. Where the conservation officer could not be contacted, attempts were made to speak to another planning officer. In some cases local architectural historians with knowledge of the buildings were contacted for information. Listed municipal baths which seem to be broadly comparable appear below. Current use has been checked as far as possible with the relevant local authority or local information sources. BATLEY Public Baths, Cambridge Street, Batley. Listed grade II (1993). Designed by Walter Hanstock in 1893. The description suggests that they are Baroque or Renaissance style, and retain some interior features despite alterations and an inserted ceiling in the pool hall, though pictures of the main pool suggest that little original detail survives. In use as baths (2004). BELPER Public Baths, Gibfield lane, Belper. Listed grade II (1979). 1910 for Herbert Strutt (and therefore perhaps not strictly municipal). Stone, Neoclassical or Renaissance, no details of interior. Converted to a club, no longer in use as baths. BIRMINGHAM Balsall Heath Library and Public Baths, Moseley Road, Birmingham. Listed grade II (1982). The baths date from 1907 and were designed by William Hale & Son. They are described as having a ‘lavishly terracotta dressed symmetrical façade, in colour and more conventionally Flemish-Jacobean in Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 37 detail.’ [sic] The interior is not described. These baths were vsited and are described in more detail below. Bournville Baths, Bournville Lane, Birmingham. Listed grade II (1980). The baths are of considerable architectural merit externally. They were designed in 1902-4 by G.H. Lewin, and include a striking attached clock tower and a sculptural panel by Benjamin Cresswell. The interior is reported to be relatively intact but rather utilitarian. Disused, basic repairs of fabric being undertaken. (2004). Small Heath Public Library and Baths, Green Lane, Birmingham. Listed grade II (1982). A large complex of 1893-1902 by J Henry Martin of Martin & Chamberlain. Gothic Jacobean style, and very striking architecturally as a complex, with a prominent clock tower. The interior is described as having ‘cambered iron trusses paired with trefoils and cast iron stiff leaf capitals, columns and shafts. All the windows retain good leaded patterned glazing with some tinted glass’. However it has been converted to a Mosque and it is thought that many of these features may not have survived (2004). Public Baths, Woodcock Street, Birmingham. Listed grade II (1982). Circa 1880. The exterior is screened by a 20th century extension, the interior described as intact with terracotta arches, changing cubicles, a gallery, stained glass and polychrome tiles. The baths are now part of the University of Aston Sports Centre, and a photograph of a pool hall shows similar arched iron roof trusses as those of Balsall Heath Baths. Original cubicles survive. (2004). Two more listed municipal baths in Birmingham appear to be smaller and less lavish. They are Nechells Public Baths on Nechells Park Road, listed grade II, 1910 by Arthur Harrison (converted), and Stirchley Public Baths, Bournville Lane, listed grade II, on which very little information is available. They are reported to have been disused for many years and to be in very poor condition (2004). Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 38 BRIGHTON St Lukes Pool, St Luke’s Terrace, Brighton are listed grade II (1995). By Thomas Simpson in Arts and Crafts Free Style. There is no interior description. In use, interior modernised with inserted ceiling, modern tiles etc. (2004). BRISTOL Bristol North Baths, Gloucester Road, Bristol are listed grade II (1994). 1912, Edwardian Baroque style. The interior includes an ornate entrance hall and a pool hall with many original features. The list description concludes: ‘A complete Public Baths with considerable architectural attention to both the front and inside’. In use 2004. These baths were visited and discussed below. Hotwell Baths, Jacob’s Well Road, Bristol, are listed grade II (1977). 1881-7, designed by Josiah Thomas. Northern Renaissance style, with much elaborate decoration. The pool hall, or one of the two pools, was converted to a dance centre in the 1980s. They are described as ‘A very fine example of their type’. CHESTER Public baths, Union Street, Chester. Listed grade II (1972). Designed by John Douglas, 1898-1901. A complex with two pools, a wash bath wing and a caretaker’s flat. The description suggests that the exterior is executed in timbered C17 style, one Douglas is well-known for. The interior description gives little information other than to report a gallery in the large pool hall which has an iron or steel truss roof. John Douglas was an architect of renown who worked extensively for the Duke of Westminster, and the exterior architectural characteristics are likely to be of high quality, though the interior is reported to be relatively plain. The relatively early date of listing for a building of this type and date suggests the building has particularly good architectural qualities. Disused Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 39 GREATER LONDON Laurie Grove Baths, Laurie Grove, Deptford. Listed grade II (1991). 1895-8 by Thomas Dinwiddy. No full description available, but the baths, according to the list description, have been converted to studios retaining many original interior features. Public Baths, Chelsea Manor Street, Kensington and Chelsea. Listed grade II (1984). Circa 1900, English Renaissance style. No interior description. Part of the old Town Hall complex designed by Leonard Stokes. The Buildings of England volume describes them as: 'Part of the town hall complex; 1877, rebuilt 1907 by Wills & Anderson, with appropriate brick and stone Renaissance front. Converted to a sports centre 1978' These baths were visited and are discussed below. Brentford Baths, Clifden Road, Hounslow. Listed grade II (1980). 1895-6 by the District Surveyor, T. Nowell Parr. Northern Renaissance style, and very distinctive, though relatively small. Interior: ‘ original doors with leaded coloured glass, women’s slipper baths…superintendent’s office, committee room has original fireplace … pool extended at deep end … original wooden gallery … men’s slipper baths converted to gymnasium’. Disused (2004). The English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register 2003 states: ‘Public baths and swimming pool of 1895-96. Closed 1990. Sold by London Borough of Hounslow in November 1998 at auction. Application for re-use as offices and residential refused by Borough, but subsequently approved on appeal in early 2002. Works now in progress’ Haggerston Baths, Whiston Road, Hackney. Listed grade II (1988). List description not available. Described as English Renaissance style, designed by Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 40 Alfred Cross (of Spalding & Cross) a leading public baths designer of the day. Opened in 1904, cost £60,000. One swimming bath, wash baths, laundry. Source: Hackney and Kingsland Gazette, June 27 1904. The baths were closed in 2000. The exterior is fairly elaborate architecturally; photographs suggest the interior is not particularly ornate. Groundwork Trust Offices, Wells Way, Bermondsey. Listed grade II (1972). 1902 by Maurice Adams. The exterior appears to be ornate. Adams was a notable architect who designed a number of public buildings including the Camberwell School of Arts and Crafts. There is no interior description but the building has evidently been altered and part of it at least converted to offices. Public Baths, Manor Place, Bermondsey. Listed grade II (1996). 1895 by E. B. I’Anson. Arts and Crafts and Flemish Renaissance. The interior retains some original features, including a ‘very large bathing hall’ and some tiling and stained glass. I’Anson was an accomplished architect, and the striking design of the building reflects this. Used as a storage depot. Awaiting information from Southwark BC. English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register 2003 reports: ‘Baths, walls, piers and railings built in 1895. Former pool area used for storage of machinery; front offices are unoccupied. Local authority looking at options for reuse. Listed building consent has been granted for the bathing hall.’ Tottenham Public Baths, Town hall Approach, Tottenham. Listed grade II (1988). 1905 by A.S. Taylor & R. Jemmett. Edwardian Baroque, a design of some distinction. Two pools now converted to a community hall. No interior description, but there have evidently been reasonably extensive alterations. St Pancras Public Baths, Prince of Wales Road, Camden. Listed grade II (1974). 1898-1900 by T.W. Aldwinckle, a well-known London architect. Renaissance or Baroque with Art Nouveau detailing and a lavishly decorated exterior with statuary, cartouches, bas relief scenes, etc. No interior Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 41 description. These baths were visited and are discussed below. In use as baths, 2004. Dulwich Leisure Centre, East Dulwich Road, Dulwich. Listed grade II (1993). 1890-2 by Spalding & Cross. Queen Anne style. Converted to a sports hall, but retains interior features such as an elaborate stair, gallery and warm baths with original fittings, according to the listed building description. The architectural practice is well known for its large municipal schemes of this period. Alfred Cross was a leading expert on the design of public baths who published on the subject , and the firm Spalding & Cross was a well-known firm which designed many public buildings. These baths were visited and are discussed below. In use as a baths and leisure centre (2004). Camberwell Public Baths, Artichoke Place, Camberwell. Listed grade II (1993). 1890 by Spalding & Cross. Renaissance/Queen Anne style. The interior has been partially converted but evidently retains a range of features including pools with viewing galleries. The architectural practice is well known for its large municipal schemes of this period. Alfred Cross was a leading expert on the design of public baths who published on the subject. One of his is his earliest surviving bath complexes. These baths were visited and are discussed below. In use as a baths and leisure centre (2004). Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 42 KINGSTON UPON HULL Public Baths, Beverley Road, Hull. Listed grade II (1990). 1903-5 by the City Engineer A. E. White. The description suggests ornate Baroque style. ‘Interior has a sumptuous entrance hall and foyer with extremely fine quality Art Nouveau tiling, which extends to the corridors and baths. Individual bath cubicles retain all their tiling and original baths. 2 swimming baths also survive, with their original roofs, balconies and tiling.’ In use. One of the two pools has been decommissioned and the hall converted for the heating system. A separate vapour baths block is up for sale (2004). These baths were visited and are discussed below. LANCASTER Municipal Baths and Transport depot, Caton Road, Lancaster. Listed grade II (1998). No list description available. This may be identifiable with baths known as Kingsway Baths in Lancaster which are disused and appear to be of low-key design. LEEDS Bramley Baths, Broad Lane, Leeds. Listed grade II (1996). 1904, restored in 1992. Ornate classical exterior. The interior was not inspected at the time of listing, but it is reported to have a very good, ornate interior and remains in use. The baths were visited and are discussed below. LIVERPOOL Picton Sports Centre, Glynn Street, Liverpool. Listed grade II (1985). Probably Early C20 by T Skelmerdine. The description suggests a Baroque style; the interior is not described, but it is thought to be fairly utilitarian. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 43 MANCHESTER Victoria Baths, Hathersage Road, Manchester. Listed grade II* (1983). By Manchester City Surveyor and Architect ‘s Department, 1906. Renaissance style, with an ornate exterior of terracotta and brick. Exceptionally wellpreserved and elaborate interior scheme including a Turkish bath suite. Disused. Harpurhey Baths, Rochdale Road, Manchester. Listed grade II (1994). 190910 by the City Architect, Henry Price. Exterior with Baroque motifs. Interior is fairly ornate, though much less so than Victoria Baths, and partially intact but in very poor condition. Disused. NEWCASTLE Public Baths, Gibson Street, Newcastle upon Tyne. Listed grade II (1987). 1906-7 by F.H. Holford. Renaissance Style. No interior description. Disused SALFORD Swimming Baths, Blackfriars Street, Salford. 1890 by the Borough Surveyors. Renaissance style. Disused. No interior description, but it is thought to be fairly utilitarian. STOKE ON TRENT Public Baths, The Boulevard, Tunstall. Listed grade II. (1993). 1889. Rather plain Jacobean style. No interior description, but thought to be without good decorative schemes. SOUTHPORT Victoria Baths, Promenade, Southport. Listed grade II (1976). The baths look late C19 or early C20 in date, French Renaissance style. No interior description. The baths were converted to a private leisure centre circa 1999. Three pools are said to survive, as well as some original features such as Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 44 changing cubicles. Much of the original interior detailing, particularly that relating to the entrance block, is reported to be greatly altered or lost (2004). WESTON SUPER MARE Public Baths, Knightstone Island. Weston Super Mare (no detailed address). Listed grade II (1991). 1904, Edwardian Baroque style, described as a striking composition. Minimal interior description mentions cast-iron columns, gallery and iron trusses in main pool hall. Disused. A development plan is in preparation (2004). WALLSEND Public Baths, Lawson Street, Wallsend. Listed grade II (1986). Municipal, 1908 by E.F.W. Liddle & P.L. Brown. Baroque style. No interior description. Disused (2004). All the listed, broadly comparable establishments, according to current information, are listed grade II. Baths listed grade II* or grade I are not strictly comparable. Those listed at grade I have Roman origins or relate to ancient and eighteenth century buildings. Apart from part of a Roman bath in Leicester (Jewry Wall) they are all in Bath. Four examples falling into these categories are listed grade I. Grade II* listed baths include private and pithead baths, and as well as spa or hydro establishments. The public baths listed at this grade are not strictly comparable to Victoria Baths in Manchester as they are earlier in date. The two nearest in date, interestingly, are both in the North West. They are the public baths at Ashton-under-Lyne and those on Collier Street in Salford. Both are imposing architecturally, but in both cases the interiors have been severely compromised by alteration, removal of fittings and decay. The following baths appear to have particularly good exteriors, in some cases designed by architects of note. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 45 Bournville Baths, Birmingham Union Street Baths, Chester Manor Place Baths, Bermondsey, London St Pancras Baths, Camden, London Baths, Chelsea Manor Street, Kensington and Chelsea. Unlisted baths include those at Lister Drive, Liverpool, which are in use as a pet shop. These are probably early twentieth century in date and retain some good interior features including tiles designed by C.F. A. Voysey (Victoria Baths Trust research). Tiverton Road Baths, Bournbrook, Selly Oak, Birmingham (in use) are reported to be a reasonably good example, perhaps of borderline quality for listing. The same is true of the baths at Reddish, near Stockport, which are in use. Numerous other unlisted late Victorian and Edwardian Municipal baths exist. It is possible that some examples are of listable quality, but it is unlikely that any comparable to Victoria Baths could have been overlooked. 3.2.1 Baths visited for comparative purposes Balsall Heath Library and Public Baths. This facility is an extremely good and relatively intact example of Edwardian public baths which combines a distinguished exterior with an interior retaining many interior features. It forms part of a memorable and impressive civic scheme, including the adjacent library and former School of Art building opposite The first-class baths are disused but appear to be substantially intact, with galleries with decorative ironwork fronts, elliptical ironwork roof supports and changing cabins. The second-class baths remain in use and retain Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 46 some original features including elliptical ironwork roof supports. Slipper baths also remain in use, but access was not possible at the time of the visit. The entrance hall has original pay booths and decorative terrazzo floors, and much of the original glazed brickwork remains visible, and there is an original stair. This is a very fine example with a good range of original interior features. The interior decorative scheme is not as rich as Victoria Baths, in that it lacks the range of stained glass seen at the latter, and the floor and wall surface treatments are less decorative, of terrazzo and glazed brick rather than mosaic and decorative tiles. This example, however, is the best of those inspected and the only one to approach Victoria Baths in terms of quality and intactness. List Description. The library of 1895 designed by J H Cossins and Peacock with the Baths added to south in 1907 by William Hale and Son. The Library block consists of a large collegiate type hall flanked to north by a prominent entrance tower. Flemish and Renaissance details combined with some Arts and Crafts motifs, all lavishly executed in buff terracotta contrasted with red brick walls. Deep terracotta plinth carried up to level of 3 great hall windows with mullioned and double transomed depressed arch lights (leaded with good decorative work to heads). These windows are contained in terracotta banded pier arcade with inner arch in moulded terracotta, spaced terracotta voussoirs carried into brick outer arch. Above the windows the parapeted wall head is raised in terracotta shaped gables with segmental pedimented aedicule niches. Flemish Renaissance doorway at foot of tower with banded bulbous columns, curvilinear terracotta gable-pediment swept above entablature to relief plaque of city arms. The tower rising above has curved chamfer corners with terracotta banding, the crowning clock stage and dome pinnacled short swept Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 47 spire is entirely terracotta faced with banding, pilasters, cornice and balustraded niches, the spire capped by a miniature cupola. A rich, carefully balanced design, the subtly varied scale within the overall composition highlighted in the small extension with side entrance to the right of the main entrance and in the detailing of the tower. The Baths follow the same idiom, but with more lavishly terracotta dressed symmetrical facade, in colour and more conventionally Flemish-Jacobean in detail. Three bay centre with oriel below aediculed gable. Ogee heads to lights of mullioned windows. The doorways emphasised by octagonal flanking towers, their terracotta cupolas rising from oculi pierced bell stage. The central doorway has its swept-scrolled pediment surmounted by a large polychrome statuary presentation of the City Arms. To the rear north side of the bathe rises a tall cylindrical chimney stack with deep arcaded neck beneath the crown. A commanding group of public buildings in the street picture and epitomising the civic pride of the period. Beverley Road Swimming Centre Kingston Upon Hull The Beverley Road Baths in Hull are a very good example of early C20 public baths in Edwardian Baroque style with a strong Free Style slant and the exterior has suffered relatively little alteration. The interior retains a good entrance sequence although only one of the three main entrances is in use. The foyer and entrance hall retain original decorative tiling on all the walls and there are copper and tile plaques commemorating the opening. Here the floor is in mosaic with the Kingston upon Hull arms. The main entrance hall has terrazzo floors with some decorative features and designs of water creatures. There is a barrel roof. A late C20 pay booth has been installed in this area. Some original doors survive, many with decorative stained glass panels with conventional Art Nouveau motifs. One pool remains in use. This has a roof structure of iron with some decorative motifs. The Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 48 whole of the pool level appears to have been retiled and the pool has been modified to create a separate shallow pool at one end. Late C20 fittings have been installed. The upper level has (probably) original tip-up seats on all sides and decorative balcony railings. The walls here are polychromatic brickwork. A room beneath an arch at one end has been converted into a gymnasium. Stairs up to the galleries are utilitarian in character. The other two baths are no longer in use. The women’s bath has been removed or floored over and the area subdivided and altered for vapour baths, etc. The other men’s bath is now in use for heating and filtration systems and access to it was not possible. Other areas were inaccessible and it is possible that both the pool hall and upper floor accommodation retain original interior schemes. The exterior is a good composition which, while adopting a different architectural style and exterior finishes to Victoria Baths, is certainly on a par in terms of quality. In contrast the interior does not retain the original entrance and circulation arrangements, and has been substantially altered. Although what survives of the original decorative scheme is good, it is essentially less elaborate and complete than that of Victoria Baths. The treatment of the floor surfaces is less elaborate and the stairs are utilitarian. Although there was a vapour bath suite this was in a separate building being offered for sale and it was not possible to inspect it. In conclusion the baths in Hull are a very good example of some architectural distinction with a sequence of entrance spaces with original lavish decoration, fully deserving the grade II listing. It is clear that there have been significant alterations since the building was listed in 1990, including loss of interior Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 49 features in the main pool. The interior is significantly less complete, less elaborate and more altered than the Victoria Baths interior. Listed Building Description. Swimming baths. 1903-05. Designed by AE White, City Engineer. Red brick with ashlar dressings and copper and slate roofs with 2 coped ridge stacks. Chamfered ashlar plinth, sill bands and moulded cornice. Main front has a central square tower, 3 stages, topped with an octagonal cupola with angle scroll brackets and a copper dome with iron weather vane. On the first floor a tall canted bay window with ashlar surround and arched hood. Above it a small circular window under a deep eaves cornice which arches over the window. Below, steps to the main doorway, with Ionic columns supporting an open pediment, and panelled double doors. To the right, a gabled block, 2 storeys, with ashlar flanking buttresses and gable topped with a pediment. 7 small windows with short Ionic pilasters between them, and above, a Venetian window. Beyond, on either side, a slightly recessed bay topped with a segmental pediment, with steps to round-arched ashlar doorway with panelled doors and overlight. To the left, a block, 2 storeys plus attics; 5-window range. Central shallow canted bay window flanked by single wider bay windows, and beyond, single narrow windows. Above again, 2 pedimented dormers with scroll brackets. Below, to left, an entrance with glazed double doors. To its right, a narrow bay window, then a wider bay window and finally a narrow window. At the left corner, a single bay, 2 storeys, topped with an octagonal cupola with copper dome. Left return, to Epworth Street, has 2 facing gables with segmental pediments, and 3 doorways, all with prominent ashlar surrounds with segmental hoods on brackets. Various windows, also with ashlar surrounds. At the rear, a tall panelled chimney stack, formerly with a decorative cap. INTERIOR has sumptuous entrance hall and foyer with extremely fine quality Art Nouveau tiling, which extends to the corridors and baths. Individual bath cubicles retain all their tiling and original baths. 2 swimming baths also survive, with their original roofs, balconies and tiling. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 50 Bramley Baths, Broad Lane, Leeds. This is a good example of the type, smaller in scale than Victoria Baths, but forming a fine ensemble. The exterior is of stone, in typical Edwardian Renaissance style, and there is a good entrance sequence with original doors and a pay booth of timber with decorative stained glass. The floors have been retiled or recovered throughout, as far as it was possible to see. There is a brass plaque commemorating the opening in the entrance hall, and the wall finishes here are of glazed brick. There is only one pool, and this retains original galleries with decorative iron balustrades and coloured glass windows at either end of the pool hall with a design with a landscape, birds, fish etc. The glass is fairly simple in style and loosely Art Deco in inspiration, though close inspection was not possible and it could possibly be late C20 replacement glass. The pool, pool sides and lower walls have been retiled, though the original stone pool edges survive. Changing cabins have been replaced. Original utilitarian iron roof trusses survive. The wash bath hall has been converted to a gymnasium retaining the original decorative cast-iron columns and double roof. The former laundry has been converted to a hall but appears to retain the original roof structure. The corridor leading to the baths from the entrance hall is top lit with decorative glass panels. Russian baths remain in use but have been altered with retiling etc. Bramley Baths are a good example of a baths complex of the period though it is smaller in scale than Victoria Baths. The decorative finishes are neither as Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 51 extensive or elaborate as those of Victoria Baths and there has been loss of detail and original finishes. Listed building description. Public swimming baths. 1904, restored 1992. Coursed gritstone and ashlar, slate roof, part glazed. Corner site with 2-storey, 3-bay entrance block and single-storey baths complex with chimney. Classical style. The entrance block has double doors and fanlight under ornate scrolled hood supported by console brackets; flanking square windows, 4-light mullioned window right, 3 twolight windows to 1st floor; Dutch gable over bays 1 and 2 with Leeds coat of arms and 'PUBLIC BATHS 'in recessed panels; owl and ball finials, hipped roof and corniced end stacks. Moulded strings at 1st-floor level are continued across the single-storey range at window lintel and wall top levels. To right of the entrance: gateway with double wooden gates, square piers with cornice and ball finials; to right again a 2-storey gabled engine-house block with segmental-arched entrance, double wooden doors, wrought-iron scrolled panel in overlight, round-arched window in gable above; to rear the tapered square chimney has moulded stone brackets and deep cornice. The baths complex to left of entrance has 2 two-light windows in ornate pedimented surrounds with aprons below and small moulded round-arched pediment rising above parapet. On left return (Calverley Lane) there are 2 projecting entrance bays with keyed round arches, pediments with scrolled plaques, ball finials and pyramid roofs, 4-light mullioned window with pediment between. The gable of the swimming baths roof rises to rear and has a keyed round window, scrolled kneelers, gable coping, raised triangular pediment over a carved band with central plaque and scrolls. INTERIOR: not inspected but reputed to contain fine stained glass, tiling and decorative features retained during extensive restoration. 8 public baths were built in Leeds during 1899-1904; this is the only complete example surviving. Swimming baths in Bristol and London. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 52 Bristol North Baths were visited and found to have quite a good unaltered exterior, but a relatively workaday interior. Four late C19-early C20 baths complexes were inspected in London; those at Camberwell, Dulwich, Chelsea and Camden. The Camden and Chelsea examples have good exteriors, especially the St Pancras Baths in Camden. The Dulwich and Camberwell examples have substantially complete and little altered but rather plain exteriors. The baths are not described in detail since none has an interior comparable to Victoria Baths or the other examples discussed in more detail. All the interiors were relatively utilitarian, though most had at least some decorative treatment to the main pool hall galleries. All have been fairly substantially altered and although those at Dulwich, for example retain original pay booths, none has any notable stained glass, tiled surfaces, mosaic or other decoration comparable to the examples described in more detail. 3.2.2 Conclusion The desk-based survey sought to review the existing stock of comparable buildings and to place Victoria Baths in a national context with regard to similar establishments in England. The survey identified examples which appeared to be broadly comparable and this was refined again through discussion with those with first-hand knowledge of the buildings. This produced a short list of baths, which were visited. Of the those visited Victoria Baths is the most intact example with the most lavishly decorated interior. This suggests that it is probably the most intact and lavish example of its date and type in the country. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 4.0 53 ISSUES AND POLICIES Introduction The Victoria Baths complex is a Grade II* listed building that is owned by Manchester City Council. The baths were operated by the Council until 1993 when the decision was taken to close the doors to the public. At this time the Manchester Victoria Baths Trust and Friends of Victoria Baths were formed in recognition of the high level of local opposition to closure. Several attempts have been made to raise money to repair the buildings since this date. In 2002 English Heritage assisted the Trust by granting money to undertake emergency repairs. Success in the BBC sponsored series ‘Restoration’ has underlined the need for a number of studies of the baths. This conservation plan is one of those exercises. Conservation Plans research the history of a place, endeavour to understand the nature of the development of the site and gauge significance. The authors then use this information to raise and consider issues and vulnerability that affect the structures and site and suggest policies to assist any development that may take place. The most pressing considerations for Victoria Baths are the maintenance of the listed structure and the assessment of the significance of the elements of the building. This will in turn allow the options appraisal to address the site in an informed manner and to put forward ways to develop it in the least detrimental but most viable way. Inevitably Conservation Plans are unable to offer solutions to often intractable problems. The aim must be to table a series of policies which will aid the decision making process – even if the assistance is in the form of constraint. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 54 For the plan to succeed it is important to ensure that the stakeholders and the wider public are able to give their support. 4.1 Issue – Ownership The Baths are currently owned by Manchester City Council. During the nine years since closure the decline in the building was continuous until the injection of funding from English Heritage for emergency repairs. However, due to rampant dry rot and badly laminated steel sections both joinery, timber structure, steel structure, floors, walls and finishes have been seriously affected and some instances lost. The emergency repairs are a temporary solution in an attempt to stem the water penetration into the building until a future use is found. The aim in 2002 was to safeguard the fabric for a period of 3-5 years. Various ownership hybrids are being debated as part of the options appraisal and it is recognised that ownership of the baths in their current condition may well be seen as a liability. However, one key to the successful future of Victoria Baths is the establishing of a legal entity to be responsible for the safeguarding of the building. Policy – To develop within the options analysis an appropriate method of retaining or transferring legal responsibility to an appropriate body capable of responsible stewardship of this fine listed building. Comment – This is not a straightforward issue and it maybe that any new owner of this would either expect to be given/or be expected to provide a ring fenced fund for future maintenance. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 4.2 55 Issue – The future of the site The future of the baths is at the very centre of the current debate. It is clear that the ideal would be to identify a use (or uses) for the various parts of the complex that imposes minimal impact on the built fabric and remain sympathetic to the original purpose of the site. It is also clear, given the geographical location and nature of the building, that reuse without substantial intervention may be impractical. This dilemma is the major challenge for the design team. Victoria Baths has a national profile as witnessed in the TV programme ‘Restoration’ and by visitors on open days travelling from as far a field as Somerset, Scotland and the Home Counties. Policy – The successful solution to the reuse of this building must incorporate a flexible approach that fully respects the areas of highest significance. Comment – The solution may involve the modification of any proposal to suit the building in the primary areas but should also allow a degree of adaptation of the building to support the new usage in others. 4.3 Issue – New Development and Major Change to Existing Fabric There is an immediate prospect for significant alterations to the Victoria Baths complex. This immediately places the listed structure in a vulnerable position. Policy – The design and construction of any new structure or alterations to Victoria Baths will involve reconciling the new work to the old so that the significance of the old is maintained and not diminished. Any new building work or major alteration within the original site should be of a standard and quality at least commensurate with the historic building. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 56 Alterations and new work should be preceded by an impact assessment and justification statement which sets out: 1) The proposed work. 2) Relevant policy considerations (LBC, Planning, Conservation Plan). 3) The significance of elements affected. 4) The impact upon them. 5) Consideration of alternative options Comment – Professional consultants and contractors appropriately experienced in work to historic buildings should be appointed for any work. 4.4 Issue – Retention of the Elements of the Victoria Baths site that are of greatest significance. The various studies that are underway at present are charged with drawing up a scheme that respects the architectural and historical interest of the site and provides long term economic viability. These two requirements can be seen contradictory and certainly achieving full self-funding is likely to involve compromise with the fabric. Policy – Certain elements of the Victoria Baths must be retained without any destructive modification (High significance). Further areas are slightly less critical but modification would have a detrimental effect on the character of the high significance areas and therefore the Baths complex as a whole (Medium to High significance). Other areas can be seen as less important (Medium significance). Further ancillary spaces may be able to accommodate considerable alteration (Low significance) Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 57 Please refer to the gazetteer for comprehensive plans and significance ratings for each space. Set out below are descriptions and examples of this hierarchical assessment: A. High significance – extremely sensitive elements where justification for any change would need to be very robust. • Hathersage Road elevation and external forecourt (Gazetteer ref EX1 and EX5). • Males First class entrance hall and pay office (Gazetteer ref G1-3) • Male First class pool hall and gallery (Gazetteer ref G4 and G5). • Turkish Bath suite (Gazetteer ref G16-23). • Female pool (Gazetteer ref G14). B. Medium to High significance –sensitive elements which support areas of high significance and contribute to the overall coherence of the complex’s spaces or character, justification for modification would need to be very strong. • Male Second class pool hall and gallery (Gazetteer ref G10 and G11). • Male Second class and Female entrance halls (Gazetteer ref G7, G8, G9 and G13). • Boiler house, pump house and chimney (Gazetteer ref – Boiler House, Pump House) • West elevation (Gazetteer ref EX2). Victoria Baths Conservation Plan C. 58 Medium significance –sensitive elements where justification for change would need to be strong, and particularly shown to contribute to the retention and successful use of areas of higher significance. • North, and East elevations (gazetteer ref EX3 and EX4). • Committee room suite and superintendent’s flat (Gazetteer ref F17, F9, S1-5, S8 and S9). • D. Laundry (Gazetteer ref Laundry) Low significance – areas that are not of overriding importance and where sensitive modifications would be admissible. 4.5 • Club rooms (Gazetteer ref G25, G27 and G29). • Basement store and support rooms (Gazetteer ref B1-8). Issue – Access Victoria Baths, like many buildings of historic interest, was constructed without consideration of access for all. Whilst the ground floor is predominantly at one level the entrances and access to the basement (apart from external ramps), first and second floors is by staircase only. Policy – To determine which areas can accept intervention to allow access for disabled persons whilst accepting that the essence of current legislation lies in ‘reasonable’ levels of accessibility. Victoria Baths is a building of special Architectural and Historic Interest and this interest will need to be balanced against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act and Part M of the Building Regulations. Comment – It is hoped that intervention by insertion of major structure associated with lifts can be limited and carefully located. It must be accepted Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 59 that as part of the process of reuse alterations of this type are essential. However, the constraints which are part of the existing fabric at Victoria Baths should be assessed and gauged. One method of undertaking this assessment is an Access Audit which would lead to an access plan. 4.6 Issue – Resources The problem of funding is well known to the Manchester Victoria Bath Trust and to Manchester City Council alike. However, the resource problem at the baths exists on at least three levels. The current process is aiming for approval from funding authorities to proceed with the complete external overhaul of the front block and reinstatement of the Turkish Bath suite limiting work to the rear of the site to enveloping work only. The subsequent challenge will be to identify the partner with whom to move the project forward to include the pool halls, boiler house and remainder of the site. This work will cover the reinstatement of the pool hall. However, it is well recognised that the work to the rear of the site must be programmed and resourced prior to undertaking the work to the front block. Finally, consideration must be given to ongoing management and maintenance in the expectation that this building will require continuous significant financial support. A prudent provision may be to establish a maintenance fund to be in place to allow further work to the building to be logically programmed around the established use. Policy – To ensure that any funding solution caters for both the immediate securing of the whole external envelope and Turkish Baths complex whilst Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 60 also looking forward to the development of the entire site and support for the fabric in the longer term. Comment – Creation of secured funds for buildings that demand a high level of maintenance with periodical major capital expenditure is a method used successfully elsewhere in similar circumstances. The revenue to cover any operating shortfall is equally difficult but – as established in early Council minutes – the baths required subsidy from the day they were opened. 4.7 Issue – Maintenance Buildings deteriorate rapidly when left to the ravages of nature and the elements. Complicated buildings with complex methods for shedding water from roof to ground tend to deteriorate more rapidly. Victoria Baths has suffered from a regime of limited and expedient maintenance during the 1980s and early 90s followed by little or no structured maintenance until 2002. This building is extremely vulnerable to deterioration and, as was clear by the extent of dry rot attack, be the subject of a detailed regular maintenance programme. Policy – It is essential to have an effective detailed structure wide system for planning, approving and undertaking maintenance and repair work. One authority should be responsible for – and should ensure that – all work is undertaken to an agreed standard that is commensurate with the importance of the building. Comment – This building has suffered from extended indecision about its future. If the building is now, finally being recognised as being of national Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 61 significance a complete change in the approach to safeguarding the baths is essential. The historic fabric must be retained and any work undertaken to any element of the building must identify and be sympathetic with the nature, materials and workmanship of the original construction of the building. 4.8 Issue – Public Safety The Victoria Baths complex is identified by the Trust as a building which is dangerous. This is clearly explained to all visitors at each open day and tours on such occasions are always accompanied (although visitors can also circulate in all areas of the building deemed to be safe). The dereliction of the exterior is less worrying at present as the building has been worked on in the last eighteen months. Internally, however deterioration does continue although it is well monitored and where possible arrested. In the longer term health and safety checks for the building structure will be essential. Policy – The suitability of the site for public access must be assessed on a regular basis whilst the current preparatory process is underway. A straight forward risk assessment undertaken by a structural engineer or building surveyor prior to each public access or opening would be prudent. Beyond the current process a full health and safety audit will be required. Comment – A note of caution must be sounded here. Slipping glazing to the rooflights, extensive (although hopefully arrested) dry rot growth, heavily rusting and laminating sections to floor structures are all present at Victoria Baths. Without overreacting the current condition of the failing elements of the structure must be appraised prior to any public access. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 4.9 62 Issue – Inappropriate Structures There are within the curtilage a number of inappropriate interventions which detract from the site as a whole. Inevitably these structures have all served some purpose and in some ways add to the overall appreciation of the development of the site. However, this development process should give an opportunity to reassess their contribution. The structures include: 1) Sauna 2) Aerotone in current location 3) The concrete sheds in the yard. 4) The wooden garages. 5) The modern changing cubicles. 6) First aid room in female pool entrance area. Policy – In the drawing up of any reorganisation of the site inappropriate structures which hardly relate nor add to the whole should be considered for removal or remodelling. Comment – It would be entirely appropriate to assess the value of the extensions and alterations to this set piece. Largely these modifications have not been undertaken to the exacting standards of the original development. 4.10 Issue – Structurally Weakened Structures (see also 3.4 Retention of Elements) The condition survey has identified that the laundry has failed foundations, above ground structural problems, failed roof and damaged secondary elements such as doors and windows. (See gazetteer entry for laundry). Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 63 Policy – It is clear that a disproportionate cost will be associated with the retention of the laundry building. This building – which is now thought to have been built with the main baths complex – may need to be sacrificed. Comment – This structure, whilst interesting, is a separate, stand alone building which is located centrally in the yard to the rear of the baths. It is thought that the sacrifice of the structurally weak laundry thus opening up the yard is acceptable in the context of the whole. 4.11 Issue – Statutory Considerations Listed Building consent is required for any works that affect the architectural or historic character and special interest of the building. The criteria by which such applications are judged are currently set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (PPG15) and in particular in Annex C of the PPG ‘Guidance on Alterations’. Justification and impact assessment statements are required to support any application to modify the subject building. Listed building consent for private owners is granted by the local planning authority in consultation with English Heritage. Applications for listed building consent lodged by a local planning authority are determined by the regional Government Office with the advice of English Heritage. Planning Permission will also be required to support any material alteration to the building. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 64 Policy – English Heritage and the Council’s Conservation Officer should be consulted at an early stage about any proposals for changes of use, alterations or extensions to the existing buildings. Comment – The heritage status and significance of the building must be taken account of in any interpretation and/or implementation of regulations or requirements. 4.12 Issue – Understanding and Record Keeping The early history of Victoria Baths is fairly well documented and understood in general terms. However, the building has been altered a number of times and there has been deterioration which together have conspired to erode the original clarity of the plan and uniform quality of the interior. The current options analysis may well entail further destruction of the remaining fabric. There is currently no consistent record of work undertaken and fabric destroyed. Policy – Drawn and photographic records should be kept of all alterations to the building. The record should relate to the scale of the work and should be maintained in a single suitable public archive as well as with the building owner. Comment – It is important that a complete record of the significant elements of the existing building be kept to assist in repairs and to inform future proposals for change. 4.13 Issue – Interpretation The understanding of how Victoria Baths functioned and its place in the social history of Manchester at the beginning of the twentieth century is both Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 65 important and fascinating. Furthermore, successive generations are becoming further detached from this municipal solution to the cleanliness and healthiness of the population. For example, the concept of three pools was challenged as early as 1918 (just 12 years after Victoria Baths opened) as women began to share facilities. Poolside changing and public hygiene bathing are now also largely things of the past. Policy – The proposals should allow for the collecting together of all the research work of both this document and the last ten years work of the Trust and the Friends. Accommodation should be made available for a small visual display to enable and encourage the understanding of the Baths in their heyday. Comment – The nation’s fascination with this water palace has been made clear by both the television programme and the number of visitors. In order that the history of the place survives a small ‘shrine’ to the past should be included in the proposals, supported by discreet local boards where appropriate. 4.14 Issue – Vulnerability of site The Victoria Baths site has been exposed to lengthy periods of neglect over the last twenty years. Lack of maintenance has led to the worst of the deterioration but vandalism and security have been issued that arrived on the back of the neglect. The surrounding area is going through change at present. There are major initiatives underway along Plymouth Grove. The local community is involved in the baths and does seem to have a spirit of ownership. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 66 Policy – To continue to engender local support as the current project develops. To ensure that the final scheme offers tangible, accessible benefits to the people who live around the building as well as developing a wider audience. To establish a maintenance programme (see 3.7 maintenance). To ensure that proposals meet current security recommendations both for the safeguarding of the structure and its users. Comment – The identification of a usage for the baths that will allow and encourage local access whilst maintaining a special attraction for those from afar will be a difficult balance to achieve. 4.15 Issue – Building Services The successful introduction of the high levels of comfort and servicing that is now required in building of this nature will be extremely difficult to achieve in the Edwardian Victoria Baths. Policy – The depth of thought and research currently involved in the early stages of this project will need to continue throughout development and construction of the services package. Compromise will have to be accepted but it must be clear that, as with architectural interventions, all alternatives have been considered before any solution is accepted. Comment – There is always a fear with work to historic buildings that the mechanical and electrical servicing does not receive the same level of design attention as the structural interventions. Victoria Baths will be a very highly serviced building and it will be critical that careful route planning for pipework and cabling is undertaken. Victoria Baths Conservation Plan 67 Bibliography Published sources Cunningham, C. and Anderson, J., eds., The Hidden Iceberg of Architectural History, Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, 1998 Manchester Corporation, 1945, City of Manchester Plan Manchester City Council How Manchester is Managed, a record of Municipal Action, annual publication, 1925-1939 Campbell, A, Report on Public Baths and Wash-houses in the United Kingdom, Carnegie United Kingdom Trust (Edinburgh), 1918 T.R. Marr, Housing Conditions in Manchester and Salford, 1904. Stratton, M, The Terracotta Revival, 1993 Taubman, A., Webb, P., and Wetton, J., 1990, Everyone’s A Winner The History of Sport in and Around Manchester Journals Architects and Building News 'Manchester and District Plan', 10 & 17 August 1945 The Builder, September 9th 1905 p282; September 15th 1906, p.328 Building News, 12 October 1877, p. 356 Manchester Evening News September 7th 1906 Royal Institute of British Architects Journal A.H. Tiltman, ‘Public Baths and Washhouses’ February 11th 1899, p169-202 Unpublished Sources Manchester Corporation Baths and Wash-Houses Committee minute books Vols 7-18 Ramsden, S., Baths, Wash-houses, swimming pools and social history: a case for conservation. University of York MA dissertation, 2001 Research files, Manchester Victoria Baths Trust Shifrin, M.R., Victorian Turkish Baths www.victorianturkishbath.org March 2004