16th century cottage

[kaz]

At the moment I’m house hunting and I’m kind of interested in a 16th century cottage, which is way too dinky inside. The location is absolutely perfect though and it sits in about an acre of land. The cottage is long but narrow with a rather problematic layout… and you wouldn’t be able to swing a cat in the kitchen!

The current owners say that the property is not listed and I wonder whether I would come across the normal restrictions regarding planning permission simply because of its age (I’m thinking about doubling the size of the cottage by extending out into the back garden – there aren’t any neighbours as such)?

Without extending, the cottage would be too small so I wouldn’t want to purchase… what should I do next? In the first instance, should I contact the planning department to make an informal enquiry? Should I take a local builder around the cottage to see what its potential is?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

[DaveBrigg]

A 16th century cottage with any sort of original features should be listed, so it might be worth checking with the council conservation dept to be on the safe side. Before involving builders, it may be worth thinking about what attracts you to the cottage in the first place. if the appeal is in owning a historic building, will the appeal still be there if the inside is gutted and modernised, and a brand new 'extension' is added. Old buildings can be extended sympathetically, using traditional materials, but the scale of work you are considering suggests that without care, you will end up living in a 'new' house. In that case, it would probably be cheaper and easier to look for somewhere that better matched your needs to start with.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I completely agree with Dave.

I'm sorry to sound a bit negative, but you want to drastically alter the appearance and character of this building.

What would you need this extension to do? How big? Single or double storey?

I rejected a house last year for the very thing you are seeking to do: although the extension was nicely done and made the cottage much more family-friendly, I couldn't live with it because of the mish-mash of styles and what I felt was fundamentally the ruination of a lovely little thatched house.

Isn't it just better to find a house that's big enough for you? Rather than trying to make one fit? I know they're a lot more expensive but your extension would be pretty costly too.

And by the way, an acre is more than one person can reasonably do - do you have a team of gardeners at your disposal?! A great deal of my acre does not even get visited from one week to the next.

 

[biffvernon]

16th century and not listed? Harummphh.

Just don't, not even for one nanosecond, consider removing any historic fabric. This should be a conservation job.

 

[biffvernon]

And by the way, an acre is more than one person can reasonably do - do you have a team of gardeners at your disposal?! A great deal of my acre does not even get visited from one week to the next.

All the better as the wildlife will remain at peace. We have six acres and no teams of gardeners

 

[robgil]

i always though that once a house reached a certain age it automatically became listed?
i have been wrong all these years.
oh my god , what else have i been wrong about?

eeer , if you have a log burner and no open fire , its ok to put your list for santa in one of the empty milk bottles on the door step, isnt it?

 

[yamin]

"All the better as the wildlife will remain at peace. We have six acres and no teams of gardeners"

How disappointing, I like a nice gardener

 

[JoceAndChris]

Phwoar.

Yamin, it's been too long. :lol:

Now Biff, you neglectful man, surely it would be better to get out there and dostuff for the wildlife rather than just letting it be a scrum down between foxes and rabbits? I want a very large nature pond, personally, and the spinney to be full of owls. That's going to take a bit of work.

 

[yamin]

And Pooh Bear, Tigger, Owl (complete with Wollery) and Piglet??

 

[kaz]

Many thanks for your thoughts on this... I am so confused!!! I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't ever think I could live in a modern build... I much prefer the character and soul of a period property, even though I am constantly kept on my toes maintaining my old home. Anyway... my family are strongly encouraging me to move nearer to them (different county) and they've been looking at 'old homes' for sale in their area. I've seen some lovely listed buildings, but they have all been too remote for me. I'd prefer to live in a village so I can walk to the shops, etc.

So... along comes this quaint little thatched cottage plonked right in a village (and just a few doors away from my sister's house)... but boy is it small inside (although it looks quite large from the street... it's just so narrow). There is an extension already, which isn't great and just continues the 'narrow' trend rather than adding any depth to the rooms (its just another add-on narrow space and I don't think its thatched).

As part of my property search, I saw a listed building that was very tastefully extended. The owner said that the plans were drawn up by the English Heritage (does that sound right?). I was thinking that maybe I could do the same thing. I'm passionate about retaining the very character of an old house (hmmm... sounds like I've got double standards, but the house I'm in has been added to over the centuries, which I think, does it justice - I've not added anything though).

As for the garden... I love gardening. When I first moved here I had half an acre of waist high brambles... things were so bad my father had to use a flame thrower to get rid of them. Over the years I have managed to achieve something that resembles a garden... but its been jolly hard work! (had to sit on my hands to stop myself posting photos!!!) As for an acre... I know I wouldn't be able to cope with the size, so would have to plan / manage a wild area... I only mentioned the size because it means there is room to extend backwards.

Gawd... I've waffled. Scratching my head here, but getting the message from you guys and girls that I should forget this particular house (weep).

Many thanks all... and love the gardener!!!

 

[robgil]

you know in all fairness , if these old cottages were not updated and extended (sympathetically) then no one would really be able to live in them comfortably and they would only end up as holiday lets or crumbling derelicts.
in my view extending an old cottage to accommodate a modern life style shouldn't really be frowned on so much , you can after all extend an old cottage whilst still retaining the original building in tact.
in fact moving/extending the living space might actually lead to the old buildings preservation.
this is of course providing its done sympathetically leaving as much of the old building in tact as is physically possible, which isn't difficult to do really nor does it have to be expensive.

edit = where did you get my photo from?

 

[christianb]

I agree with robgil. After all, many of our finest period homes have, at some time, been altered or extended. The issue here is whether any extension is in keeping with the existing structure.

You sound like you're passionate about old buildings, so I'd say this particular house would be lucky to have you as its new owner!

Christian

 

[JoceAndChris]

Kaz- take no notice of me whatsoever in your decision making process. I'm a person who can't even accept televisions or jeans, never mind sticking an extension on a 16th C cottage.

Christainb and Robgil make some sound points - life moves forwards - houses evolve. I just don't like change very much. Ignore me- but Biff's right, smash up a fragment of the 16th C fabric and we'll all get SPAB to shove you in their secret stocks. ( :wink: - you wouldn't do that anyway)

And what makes you think you coudn't post pics of your garden transformation! Get them up here now! Gardens are an intrinsic part of period properties - I fully intend to bore everyone with my restoration of a 19th C garden project (move over E.H. and Mrs Thurley), going only on the evidence of a couple of old bricks.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Robgil- would you like to come and do my garden?

 

[biffvernon]

There's a cottage near me that dates from 1620, timber framed, mud and stud wall, corrugated iron on thatch roof. It's featured in the current issue of Cornerstones. It is currently being conserved, with removal of all 20th century cement, some 19th century brick extension, repairs to timber frame in hewn green oak, extensive replacement of mud walling and a new thatch roof. And. There will be a large new extension, built using traditional oak framing. I think it is a good example of how a valuable old wreck can be brought into 21st century service without losing historical importance.

Maybe a consultation with SPAB would be in order before plans progress too far.

 

[Hatster]

Well, it sounds like the first thing to check is whether it is listed. Have a check here:
http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk

It's also worth having a chat to the conservation officers - they might, for example, feel that they would be much happier with an extension that is clearly separate from and distinguished from the orignal house.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

That's the way to do it.
:shock:

 

[JoceAndChris]

Whoever did that should be lashed to their own silly cartwheel, then rolled off the top of that stupid roof. :evil:

 

[Penners]

That's the way to do it.

Oh, dear God.....

I thought extensions to period properties were supposed always to be subservient to the original building. That's about as subservient as a bull elephant.

 

[skier-hughes]

Our house looks a bit like that, house 1 built 1400's, house 2 built 1500's house 3 made by joining up houses 1 and 2 and adding on a further extension in 1700's. House 4 made by literally pushing down 2 stories from house 2 as they'd become unsafe in 1902. Current house made by adding a utility, pantry and downstairs loo in the 1970's.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

That's the way to do it.

Oh, dear God.....

I thought extensions to period properties were supposed always to be subservient to the original building. That's about as subservient as a bull elephant.

Well, the overbearing, clashing extension on the right here has, fortunately, been demolished since the photo was taken:
View attachment 2

And hard and fast policies about extensions having to be "subservient", generally interpreted as "a bit lower, and stepped back a bit", tend to draw undue attention to the extensions, as below:
View attachment 1

Whereas I had quite a fight with a planning colleague who was all for refusing this extension for not being "subservient" (in that "planners'" sense):