Georgian or not so (original) Georgian... help :)

[atlasfever]

Hello,

I am really hoping to get some feedback.

I'm about to complete a purchase of a georgian flat, and I have one 'issue".... there is a rather unattractive wood structure that, to me, does not seem original to the flat. I have uploaded a photo.

Info:
1. Georgian terrace house built 1800
2. Flat on 1st floor, and structure/door is between a front facing 3 window wide room and a front facing, 2 window wide room.
3. I have checked planning permissions by the council and as far back as I can check online (1998), this feature was drawn in the applications as "existing" Of course, the building was an office for years prior, so this structure could have been added at any time.
4. There is a rather small door, with an ugly mirror fixed on.
5. I am planning on doing refurb work on the whole flat (all rather basic, and of course, getting correct planning/listed approvals), and afraid this might be required to be kept.

I would like nothing more than to remove this structure and let it be roughly two doors wide (or even find, if applicable, original type doors to replace).

So... Does this look orginal to you? Anyone?
Thanks so much, A

 

[LadyArowana]

My guess is that the larger opening could be original and might have had "wedding doors" in when built. We have these between the drawing room and withdrawing room on the first floor. It might be easier to judge if you have floorplan to share, there are others here who would know!

 

[atlasfever]

Hello,

Thanks for reply. Here is the portion of the floorplan that relates. I have looked at the earliest listed building application that the council has available online (maybe earlier ones, have asked), in 1977, and this fake door is already exisiting. You can see that the real structural wall stops to allow for a large opening. I too thought large doors would have been original, and in keeping with the Georgian period.
(opening between living room and kitchen)

Feedback most welcome please.

Thanks, A

 

[biffvernon]

Looks daft enough to me to be original. Look at the wood much more closely, especially at vulnerable edges and corners, and consider whether there are 20 or 200 years worth of dents, scratches and general wear, tear, and damage.

 

[Nigel Watts]

The architrave on the wider opening on the kitchen side looks like it could be original. The rest looks very un-Georgian (especially the very clunky architrave on the non-kitchen side) and, as you rightly point out, highly illogical given the wider opening. I has something of a 1980s look about it for me, but you say you have evidence that it earlier.

The method of construction could be another clue. Its difficult to tell from the photos but the panels don't look real. If they have been faked by planting mouldings onto a sheet material such as plywood or mdf that will tell you it is not very old.

Whatever date it is, it would not have been all that cheap to make. Might it have been installed by an upmarket kitchen joinery company when the house was converted into flats?

 

[Nigel Watts]

On further reflection, I think the door could be late Victorian or possibly Edwardian. From the non-kitchen side there are a number of features of the surround which look rather neo-Jacobean, especially the raised, bevelled element on the pilasters and frieze and in the keystone of the arch. The trompe l'oeil effect of the panels (making the door look as if it is at the end of a barrel vaulted corridor) is a baroque feature - Wren used it at St Paul's - which, like neo Jacobean, is highly unlikely to have been used in a normal domestic interior of 1800. If it is Victorian it is very unlikely to have been painted white. A dark wood finish (real or fake, probably oak) would have been more likely. A date from the 1920s to the 1970s seems highly unlikely. The 1980s saw the rise of postmodernism when older and especially classical styles came back into vogue. A further possibility is that the door came from a different building rather than being made for its present location.

 

[Feltwell]

Looks daft enough to me to be original. Look at the wood much more closely, especially at vulnerable edges and corners, and consider whether there are 20 or 200 years worth of dents, scratches and general wear, tear, and damage.

Good point - my door frames & architaves have certainly had plenty of knocks, especially low down. My recently constructed built-in cupboard door frames didn't seem quite "right", despite the frame & architrave being an exact copy of the originals used elsewhere in the house. The reason is simply that they look too good - they haven't had 100 years worth of being knocked and bashed about and being repainted every few years.

I'll let them "mellow in" - I'm not about to start deliberately damaging them to make them look more aged.

In your case, if Nigel's right and this adaptation was done 100 or so years ago this may not prove to be much worth! I agree with you that it's not at all attractive. It does have a rather 1980's look to it. Checking what materials it's made from seems like a good start - if it's MDF or plywood then a chat with the CO sounds like the next logical step.

Why on earth would you want to reduce a nice big doorway like that down to something that looks to be too small to be practical to actually use every day? From one extreme to the other.

 

[atlasfever]

Hello, Thank you for your feedback, already.

I will follow your suggestions -- Tell me, if this is not originally Georgian, but could be Victorian/Edwardian, then does that still qualify as something that needs to be maintained, ie. listed? At what point or year is there a cut off, with respect to what was original and needs to be kept vs. what was later added and still needs to be kept.

Oh dear, I fear I could be stuck with this impractical thing. It's not as though it's as simple as concealing an awkwardly placed fireplace, etc. I'm concerned a conservation officer will naturally focus on the 'fabric of british society' part and not the impracticality -- even if I want to change it to original georgian wedding doors (mind you, they would be new, and only made to look like original, so maybe not so sexy for a conservationist).

Further feedback? Suggestions? Time machine to go back and convince the original door designer to abandon his/her plan?

A.

 

[Feltwell]

There are no hard & fast rules, but broadly the more recent the adaptation then I'd say the more likely you are to get approval to change. The adaptation can be part of the history of the building and even the reason why it's listed, although that's highly unlikely in your case!

It's not impossible to get permission to change - I got LBC once to strip out an old banking counter in a listed town hall, as I was able to show that the counter only dated from the 1960's.

My advice, to which I'm sure that others can add more to, would be:-

- Check it over very carefully to find out what it's made from and how it's constructed. Get your penknife out, scrape a little paint off a panel and pray for MDF! How is it attached to the original frame? If screws can you see where they are? Get your penknife out again, scrape the head clean and hope it's a Pozi or Philips head. Anything you can find that proves that it is modern. How many paint layers has it got on it? It may have been stripped of course, but how does that compare to the original doorframe? Unlikely that one would be stripped and one over-painted. Just because a door was shown in the 1977 LBC application, doesn't necessarily mean it's the one that is there now, especially given that the building sounds like it has been extensively redeveloped. Can you see the edge of any panels, are they ply?

- How does it compare to other floors of the house or neighbouring properties?

- Prepare your case for why you want it to be changed, and what you would change it to. Have some drawings or pictures ready of what you want to put in before you see the CO, doesn't need to be anything fancy. Show that you've considered details such as hinges, handles, mouldings - and invite the CO's opinion, show that you are flexible.

- Try and get the CO round for an informal pre-application meeting, rather than just putting an application in.

Others on here will no doubt have different advice, so pick & choose what suits you! Good luck.

 

[andrew gayton]

Also, have a careful 'scrape' and see if the paint layerings tell a story.

 

[andrew gayton]

whoops. I didnt read the above posting!

 

[Nigel Watts]

Looking more closely at your pictures, there seems to be some quite old door furniture and I find it hard to believe that even an upmarket kitchen fitter would have gone to quite such lengths to put on all those details in the 1980s.

Do you know how the building was used in the past? It looks quite grand - five bays wide, high ceilings. Is it in a rural or urban setting? If it is in an urban setting it is possible it could have been used as an office and that this door was fitted at that time. If it's Victorian and made of oak I would be inclined to strip it back and make a feature of it rather than rip it out.

 

[atlasfever]

Info to your questions:
1. It's downtown London, so urban
2. It was used as an office -- not sure from when, but at least until 10 years ago.
3. Planning permissions (avail via council) shows the door on the floorplan, but true, no photo of it, but seller says he remembers it from when it was being rented out as an office by his father. I've asked him if he can get any more info
4. Truthfully, painted or raw wood, it is impractical.
5. You're right about the door hardware, there's a lot of detail for it to be a 70s creation.

I wonder if it worth anything, I mean, if it could be removed, would it have value?

A.

 

[Nigel Watts]

it is impractical

Welcome to period property ownership.

 

[atlasfever]

So, I'm learning... so I'm learning.

Just to understand something: If it detaches from the wall easily (screws), can it be removed and stored? I almost think it could be a rather interesting headboard for a bed for example, hung nicely.

Ok, I'm just being as imaginative as possible at this point.

 

[Nigel Watts]

I suggest you talk to the conservation officer.

 

[Moo]

That's a really good idea*. You will have plenty of photos to show how it looks now, and you wouldn't be doing anything irreversible, would you? In which case I can't imagine a conservation officer objecting.

We have several COs on the forum, so I'd wait until one of them comes out of his burrow and see what the experts think.


* putting it in store, I mean. Nigel nipped in while I was typing.

 

[Lime]

Looks daft enough to me to be original. Look at the wood much more closely, especially at vulnerable edges and corners, and consider whether there are 20 or 200 years worth of dents, scratches and general wear, tear, and damage.

I agree and the dents and dints may have been filled so will not always be obvious.
Damage is not compulsory and is not always present if the property has been valued throughout its life.

What screams at me is the all-encompassing white paint.
The portal would not have looked like that in the past.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I agree with Nigel, it doesn't look 18th or early 19th to me, it's far too chunky, but yes, it could be Victorian and yes, a little Nitromors will probably reveal the truth. And if I was the CO I'd say you ought to keep it even if it proves to be 1980s; I think it's splendid. I can see the whole room in a gentle slightly olive green, or a light peachy terracotta, and those mouldings in the identical shade in oil, with thin lines of panelling picked out in gilt. The mirror on the door must go though, that's just silly.

 

[MatthewC]

We have several COs on the forum, so I'd wait until one of them comes out of his burrow and see what the experts think.

They live in burrows? Perhaps that goes some way to explaining why I had trouble getting any sense out of mine. Must have been in hibernation...

As regards the door, presumably it is totally out of context with the rest of the house? No similar arches or panelling, that sort of thing? It looks as though the kitchen has a laminate floor - is that laid over a boarded floor like the other room?