Clandon House Fire - what a dreadful shame

[d49xc]

Looks to me from the pictures on the web like the house is a total loss.

Had this been a domestic house the insurance decision would be to raze to the ground and rebuild a new house to modern standards
As it is...
Any rebuild based on the existing masonry would be in effect a modern facsimile copy of a 1700's house rather than a restoration of damaged sections.
Then there are the contents - although the smaller stuff would have been saved in reality what could any rebuilt house be filled with?

Uppark cost £20m to repair a fair few years ago, Windsor Castle £35m and I cant see this total wreck as anything less than in the £50m+ bracket and I wonder if the insurance would weather that sort of payout

Its like insuring old aeroplanes - effectively you cannot insure for their rebuild cost as they cannot be replaced if they are totaled in a major prang as modern rules would forbid such a new construction to the standards of that era being given an airworthiness certificate.

So I reckon in the end.....
The place will be pulled down and it will become just NT Parkland/Gardens with some memorial/museum building to the original house.

 

[Flyfisher]

Interesting point about rebuild insurance. I wonder how much damage a building has to sustain before rebuilding in accordance with latest building regulations would be required? No doubt it would depend on the importance of the building, but I would guess that the majority of listed buildings would have inadequate foundations for a start, so it really could be a total rebuild from the ground down as well as up.

 

[malcolm]

Building regs aren't so bad for this sort of thing. There is a "where sensible" clause that avoids the need to dig up the entire building when the building is already there. Also building regs tend to concede to conservation officers so ancient bits can be preserved with their help.

 

[MatthewC]

Its like insuring old aeroplanes - effectively you cannot insure for their rebuild cost as they cannot be replaced if they are totaled in a major prang as modern rules would forbid such a new construction to the standards of that era being given an airworthiness certificate.

Not quite. If it's a Spitfire, the original manufacturer's serial plate will be enough to build a brand new Spitfire around, at a clearly identified cost because there are several companies who can do it. Then they call it a WWII aircraft "which saw actual combat service"...

I think the same would apply to any aircraft but in fact it happens mostly for just Spitfires and Hurricanes as their value post-restoration is so high.

 

[Keith Bowman]

Its like insuring old aeroplanes - effectively you cannot insure for their rebuild cost as they cannot be replaced if they are totaled in a major prang as modern rules would forbid such a new construction to the standards of that era being given an airworthiness certificate.

Not quite. If it's a Spitfire, the original manufacturer's serial plate will be enough to build a brand new Spitfire around, at a clearly identified cost because there are several companies who can do it. Then they call it a WWII aircraft "which saw actual combat service"...

I think the same would apply to any aircraft but in fact it happens mostly for just Spitfires and Hurricanes as their value post-restoration is so high.

I believe the other term for such an item is fake :shock:

The DVLA has finally woken up to what has been happening with valuable old cars and has now gone over the top in the other direction - they say that every component has to be original before they will issue an 'age related' registration number!

 

[Keithj]

It's just like my grandfather's original hammer which I inherited, I suppose.

As MatthewC says, for an aeroplane the serial number plate IS the aeroplane, and there are quite a few Spitfires around where the only 1940s-era part is that plate.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I'd just as happily have a replica as and authentic period item, so long as the replica was equal in quality.

 

[Flyfisher]

As MatthewC says, for an aeroplane the serial number plate IS the aeroplane, and there are quite a few Spitfires around where the only 1940s-era part is that plate.

That's amazing - a real-life example of Trigger's broom :lol: Those serial number plates must be worth a small fortune!

Still, having visited the restoration hangers at Duxford Museum, it's certainly amazing to see what can be restored with enough time, effort and dedication (and no doubt cost!).

It's also good to know that 'Merlin sound' is unlikely to be regulated out of the skies anytime soon.

 

[Keithj]

The serial number plates are relatively low value, but if you painstakingly rebuild the Spitfire round one, then it's a whole different game. Prices go over a million with very little persuasion.

The catch is that it's not a profitable business, on the whole. We "upgraded" the Arrow with £15,000 of avionics equipment, and the conclusion was that the value had increased by about £5,000. I know of homebuilders who spend 2,000 hours and £30,000 building their own aeroplane, to have something worth £40,000 when they're done. It's a labour of love - a bit like doing a proper repair job on a period property

 

[Flyfisher]

I was thinking that even a newly-built spitfire could only ever be certified for flight if it had a genuine serial number plate, but I suppose it works both ways - a plate on its own is never going to fly :wink:

 

[Keithj]

I've not been involved with Spitfires, but I think the same rules would apply whether built round an original serial plate, or built as a "new" aircraft. It's outside the parameters for a Light Aircraft Association "permit to fly" that I know about - too many horsepower for a start - so it would need a CAA permit. I'm sure it wouldn't qualify for a full Certificate of Airworthiness.

 

[MatthewC]

There was an item on the news only a couple of weeks ago about an early Spitfire which crash landed on a beach in Northern France in 1940, stayed in the sand for decades and has now been "restored" for sale. See http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2014/03/26/aviation-news-spitfire-mk-ia-n3200-flies/. No matter what they say, I'd be most surprised if there is anything of significance from the original in the one now flying.

I'm sorry for the apparent thread drift but the question of "how to restore something" can be debated for ages, whether it is an old house, aeroplane or car. At the end of the day, once something original has been severely damaged by accident or deterioration, the restoration will always be just a facsimile of some sort. But that doesn't make my house any less desirable!

 

[plasticpigeon]

The problem for me is when the repair or restoration, particularly in visual terms, is sub standard and doesn't follow the original.

 

[MatthewC]

The problem for me is when the repair or restoration, particularly in visual terms, is sub standard and doesn't follow the original.

Well, the new Spitfires etc have to be absolutely according to the original drawings, but for a house (a) there are usually no drawings and (b) do you restore to the "as new" state or the "as existing" state immediately before the fire? It seems to me that if you are having to do the job from scratch them you might as well do it as new, but the NT tend to favour the "as before the fire" which I don't like.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

At Uppark they didn't have any choice since the insurers for the builders who caused the fire would only pay out for "as before the fire"

 

[88v8]

At Uppark they didn't have any choice since the insurers for the builders who caused the fire would only pay out for "as before the fire"

although I imagine they would be agreeable to elements of 'as new' if the cost were less.

Ivor

 

[malcolm]

The BBC posted a few photos of the inside of Clandon House after the fire. A photo of a room that survived followed by a photo of the remaining shell.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-32621011