Grade I Listed, alterations - opinions appreciated

[Gareth Hughes]

Attached are three photos of a Grade I listed windmill, one taken about 1920, one a couple of years ago and the third quite recently. A retrospective application has been submitted for the removal of the whitewash from the lower part. Do you think this has had an effect on the character and appearance of the listed building, and if so, do you think LBC should be granted for the change?View attachment 2View attachment 1

 

[Feltwell]

Tricky that one.

I'm inclined to say that it does - the slighty patchy appearance of what was presumably limewash on the 1920 picture looks much better than the one taken a couple of years as well. The one taken a couple of years ago looks more like masonry paint, although it is taken at some distance?

If that base was white it would tie in better with the white building next to it, and I believe would be more aesthetically pleasing. But is something that subjective grounds to refuse LBC? Was the base limewashed originally? I presume no one knows.

 

[Hatster]

It certainly has a massive effect on the appearance, and personally, I think it did look better with the limewash (?) in the oldest photo.

BUT at the same time, I can imagine other people genuinely thinking that it looked better with plain brick, and as Feltwell says, if there's no evidence, it seems to be a very subjective decision...

 

[MattW]

I suspect that this isn't relevent to LBC rules, but the removal of the limewash is presumably easily reversible by a future owner and if understand correctly won't affect the structure / fabric of the building? Also while their evidence for what the building looked like in 1920, it is quite possible that it was exposed brick in 1880? Nor is the building is clearly not part of a wider tightly planned scheme, so a change doesn't affect surrounding buildings? As such, I would hope that LBC is granted - I just don't think that the state has justification to intervene on something like this - buildings change character over time and personally I don't think the change to this one is sufficiently detrimental to justify the intrusion on the owners' right to enjoy their property.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Just to add a bit more background (it's a case I'm doing for SPAB), the mill was quite substantially altered in the late 19th century, when the roundhouse was rebuilt. It has certainly been whitewashed ever since that rebuilding, the whitewash is even mentioned in the (otherwise not very good, 1950s) list description, and this photo, taken before the rebuild, shows that it was whitewashed at some time before the rebuild.
I do have strong reasons for asking about this and would appreciate views.

 

[robgil]

surely there is a case to argue that the old masonry paint , if thats what it was , was removed to help the breathability of the wall and the fact that lime wash can be applied at a later date should it become a problem that someone objects to , i.e. should a member of the public suddenly rear up and complain about the exposed brickwork it can always be lime washed again , so no irreversible changes have taken place.

what i mean to say is , if no one objects or complains leave it alone , if they do its no biggie , it can always be lime washed again.

 

[ilona73]

Okay please don't all shoot me but for me this is very simple
The people obviously bought the windmill lime washed...As such it was that character of the building they fell in love with otherwise they probably would never have bought it in the first place.
to then remove the said lime wash to me is a travesty. It effects greatly the character of the Windmill. Before it was striking, now it looks as dull as dishwater not to mention the colour isn't too attractive and like has been said before looks more like cheap masonry paint.
whatever the reasons being for the removal of the lime wash and consequential repaint job for me it totally detracts from the original fabric of the building and i don't think LBC should be granted in fact i would go so far as to say it should be insisted that the limewash be re-instated., controverisal my response might be but i am of the opinion if it ain't broke you don't go fixing it.!
I personally just feel it should be as it always was, limewashed , anything else just wont do.
I appreciate someone owns this but if they really feel they have to tamper with its looks it might be time for them to move on or get a hobby!
Okay you can shoot me now !
I am off to try to strip umpteen layers of old paint off a cast iron fire place

 

[Gareth Hughes]

surely there is a case to argue that the old masonry paint , if thats what it was , was removed to help the breathability of the wall .

That case has not been argued, although I have asked several times whether that was the reason.

I'll just throw in the relevant national policy guidance from PPG15 at this point:

"C.8 Walls: Walls are the main structural fabric of a building. Alterations to wall surfaces are usually the most damaging that can be made to the overall appearance of a historic building. Alterations or repairs to external elevations should respect the existing fabric and match it in materials, texture, quality and colour.
"C.12 Plaster and render: Existing plaster should not be stripped off merely to expose rubble, brick or timber-framed walls that were never intended to be seen.

Oh, Ilona73 - its current state isn's a repaint, that's the brick.

 

[robgil]

are those policy guidelines simply guidelines or unbendable rules?

 

[skier-hughes]

If listing takes into account surrounding buildings as well, is anything being done about the building next door, which has been mentioned would match if the mill was limewashed, but going by the early photograph was wooden.

Aesthetics, doesn't bother me either way, I like it bare brick, I like it limewashed.
If the limewash will help to preserve the longevity of the brick, then I would insist on it being done. If it's neither here nor there on giving it a longer life, then as has been mentioned, I'd let them leave it bare as it can be washed at any furture time.

 

[Flyfisher]

It would certainly be helpful to know what type of 'paint' was removed; if it was a modern non-permeable covering then its removal has probably done the building a good turn.

Aesthetically, I tend to agree with Skier. I could easily live with both of them. I also tend to agree with MattW that the owners should be given the option of limewashing or not because - as I understand it - either finish makes little physical difference to the structure or longevity of the building (if it did then it would be a different matter).

There's also the issue of maintenance. If the powers-that-be are going to insist on it being limewashed for appearance sake, how often will they insist it is re-washed? Every 2/3 years, 5 years, 10 years? Times change and the cheap labour available 100+ years ago to limewash a building every couple of years is now long gone.

 

[MdB]

Ditto Flyfisher and Skier-Hughes. As long as being bare brick is not detrimental to the building, I would be happy with either bare brick or limewash.

 

[Cloudscape]

I prefer it limewashed - aesthetically. The white brick ties in with the white sails. Very nice and simple. The exposed brick is a nice colour, and does work, I suppose, but I get the uneasy feeling the need to expose constructional materials sometimes makes people get carried away. I would make a decision based on whatever is best for the longevity of the building. If either would work health-wise, I would revert to the limewash.

 

[jocelyn plummer]

My immediate reaction was that the second picture shows a modern 'masonary paint ' finish, it is far too sharp to be a limewash finish.

On reading through the thread, I am inclined to agree that the lower bricks were probably cleaned up because ' it did not look right', or hopefully, because the product was not allowing the bricks to breathe. Is there evidence of damage inside?

What is the date of the mill?

In this instance I am of the opinion that the condition and longevity of the bricks, is paramount and that it would be fair to allow either brick or limewash in order to preserve the main structure of the building in the best way possible.

 

[Jon Maine]

The 1920 picture is almost certainly limewash, I would imagine that the limewash was present still under a modern plastic paint if it were over coated with modern paint that is.

The character has been adversely affected without doubt.

I would suggest it needs to be put back into its previously "painted" condition with the appropriate material - limewash.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

A tricky one. Personally I think that the limewash looks better, and appears to be historically more appropriate. However, that is largely a subjective aesthetic issue as I doubt the limewash will significantly alter the longevity of the structure?

I think the bigger issue is that the owners undertook a significant alteration to a Grade 1 Listed building apparently without appropriate prior consent. On that basis, and in order to protect this and other buildings from future harm, the building should be returned its "original" condition with the stipulation that the paint is traditional - ie limewash.

 

[ilona73]

A tricky one. Personally I think that the limewash looks better, and appears to be historically more appropriate. However, that is largely a subjective aesthetic issue as I doubt the limewash will significantly alter the longevity of the structure?

I think the bigger issue is that the owners undertook a significant alteration to a Grade 1 Listed building apparently without appropriate prior consent. On that basis, and in order to protect this and other buildings from future harm, the building should be returned its "original" condition with the stipulation that the paint is traditional - ie limewash.

I quite agree they did it without a second thought for consent first. Maybe because they thought they wouldn't get the consent in the first place i don't know? Whatever the reason for it they should know better to buy something of that nature it to take on ALL of the relevant paperwork and permissions should you wish to do anything to it and on that basis alone it should be returned to how it was before... you cant just do something then act dumb and say "oh yeah i forgot, i know i have already done it but can you give me permission for it anyway?", thats just crazy , how can they then expect someone to side with them after they have done it anyway, they should know better especially as it could be enforced for them to return it to a previous state not to mention the time and expense.

 

[Pford75]

As others have said, I think the aesthethics are largely subjective and there are others with a more trained eye than myself to judge these aspects (although I think both look fine...with neither jarring particularly)

However, this is a Grade I listed building and if the listing status means anything, then I believe it is important that the principle of required consent is upheld. Given that the reversal of the changes is unlikely to prove too onerous or to bankrupt the owners, I would think they should be required to return it to limewash.

Others may disagree, but my view might be different if the refusal of retrospective consent was likely to result in massive costs to the owners for minimal 'gain'

 

[Moo]

One thing that we can't see is the effect that the paint removal may have had on the bricks. If it was masonry paint, and they used something harsh, then limewashing could be more than just an aesthetic issue.

 

[skier-hughes]

FamilyWiggs ahs a very good point, something small this time, what might they do next? What might their neighbours do, thinking that these got away with doing something>