Am I insane?

[Lime]

Yes, the last few posts are highlighting a feeling I have too, that perhaps this house is not the best choice for someone with no experience and yet with such far reaching plans and which are perhaps not suited to an older property.
Many people buying a listed house for the first time find themselves overwhelmed with what the house demands of them and it may not be sensible to have too many high hopes of great changes before knowing the house thoroughly.
There is also part of me that feels that if a person wishes to transform a house almost beyond recognition then a listed property is not the house to choose either.

 

[middi]

I also feel that you may have "hit the nail on the head" Lime.

 

[skier-hughes]

We lived in ours or a year first before embarking on work. Although not listed, it is 600 years old and demands a certain respect.

 

[Moo]

In today's Torygraph (and, no doubt, in many other papers) there's an article about a millionaire who spent a fortune turning a listed building into his dream house* without consulting the appropriate authorities.
He's now going to have to spend another fortune putting it all back to the way it was.


*ripping out the sash windows, cornicing, internal doors, fireplaces.........

 

[Flyfisher]

Found it here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2676213/Restore-Footballers-Wives-house-to-former-glory-orders-judge.html

Quite apart from the actual damage done the chap must be a complete idiot to embark upon such an investment without planning permission, building control and listed building consent - especially when it had been pointed out by his architect! How did he expect to get away with it?

I do wonder if there is some legal obligation on professionals, such as the architect if not the actual builders, not to embark on such works until they know that permissions have been granted. The report says that the builders twice prevented the local planning officer from visiting the site - are they accomplices to a crime?

 

[shelli]

we talked about this one earlier this year - ghastly man

 

[Penners]

He's now going to have to spend another fortune putting it all back to the way it was.

Good.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

We lived in ours or a year first before embarking on work. Although not listed, it is 600 years old and demands a certain respect.

Ditto - ours (unlisted) is 350-400 yrs old, and we thought it deserved a couple more years before we decided what we wanted. And I'm glad we did so - we now know much more about traditional building techniques than we did when we bought it. I'm sure we're doing a more sympathetic job as a result.

I would echo others' sentiments above - with the greatest respect to the original poster, anyone who wants to modernise a listed property to have ensuites in every bedroom (and all other "mod cons") in order to impress their friends, is probably not suited to a traditional property and will also find a traditional property will probably not be best suited to them either.

The joys of traditional properties is just that - they are not modern properties with all the benefits of modern living. Sure, they are not museums and in order to survive to be passed on to the next "custodian" they need to be functional homes, shops or offices - but equally important is that they are also a living link to a former way of living and building, and present owners need to be able to appreciate the balance of the two.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

<snip> duplicate post </snip>

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I do wonder if there is some legal obligation on professionals, such as the architect if not the actual builders, not to embark on such works until they know that permissions have been granted. The report says that the builders twice prevented the local planning officer from visiting the site - are they accomplices to a crime?

I fund my period property addition by pretending to be an NHS manager during the working week ( 8) ) If any of my surgeons attempted any "repairs" on their patients without the appropriate consent first, they'd be struck off.

Surely the ethics of construction-related professionals should require similar consent first before commencing work, even if their professional registration doesn't?