Grade I Listed, alterations - opinions appreciated

[FamilyWiggs]

It's the thin end of the wedge, Graham. Hanging's too good for them! :twisted:

Seriously though, if LBC is not upheld for minor transgressions, then it encourages unscrupulous owners to undertake even bigger transgressions of the the rules.

It'll be interesting to know the outcome - if Gareth is able to tell us.

 

[MattW]

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

That argument taken on its own is a little perverse - if a sensible change that would have been consented to had it been applied for is now to be blocked solely because the application wasn't made now makes LBC appear to be a reward for cooperative owners, rather than a decision taken purely in the building's interests. If people feel that punishment is required, then they should be fined for not applying for LBC, but then the case should be reviewed as if it was a new application (with the consequence of a decision to deny LBC being the requirement to put it back as is).

I get the uneasy feeling the need to expose constructional materials sometimes makes people get carried away.

This I think gets to the nub of this situation. If this was the interior of victorian house we could all say with some confidence that there wouldn't have been any exposed brickwork, and hence exposing it would be 'wrong'. However this is the exterior of an agricultural building - I'm quite willing to be corrected by the experts on this - but I would imagine that there is little evidence to suggest that these types of buildings were all limewashed immediately on construction? Is it not perfectly feasible that the limewashing is a latter addition to the original brickwork? If this is the case, should the conservation officer choose some arbitary date to crystalise the aesthetic at?

This building appears to be well documented so no history has been lost by the paint removal and reversing the change in the future would appear to be easy if a future owner desired. If this is correct, the conservation officer should require that its prior state is recorded (which it is) and leave it at that. While the rules may say otherwise, to me, the social purpose of listing buildings is to ensure that historically important buildings are preserved for future generations and that there should be a strong bias towards accepting cosmetic changes that an owner wishes to make that don't compromise future generations understanding or enjoyment of the structure.

Sorry. Rant over.

 

[Horace]

MattW is spot on. The legilsation quoted only mentions plaster and render not paint in ay event. To go beyond that would appear to be highly subjective and thus very poor legislation. To take Family Wigg's argument to its logical conclusion, you would also need to paint your interior rooms wth the same colour forever if you found a virtually intact coat of distemper under some lining paper. People do seem to like to tell others what to do when its none of their business.

However, personally, I would have kept the limewash but its not my house.

If an Englishman's home really was his castle he be b*gg**red because it would probably be grade 1 listed

 

[DaveBrigg]

MattW is spot on. The legilsation quoted only mentions plaster and render not paint in any event.

Alterations or repairs to external elevations should respect the existing fabric and match it in materials, texture, quality and colour.
The guidelines seem to be pretty clear on this one, but as has been mentioned, if they are only guidelines then that doesn't help a lot.

People do seem to like to tell others what to do when its none of their business.

That seems a little unfair; people here have been specifically asked their opinion indirectly by SPAB, whose business is to deal with issues such as this. If that was a modern, unbreathable paint which was removed, I'd be grateful to know how it was done so effectively.

 

[Manders]

What does the list description say exactly?

I ask as if it was painted at that point other than limewashed it has implications for what can be achieved. If it was painted, then paint is the only thing that can be asked for in return rather than lime wash. But that brings up a further question of whether consent was required to put paint over the original lime wash. I know that it would if the question was asked today, but would it have done prior to PPG15 under 8/87? I don't think that many LPA's would have requested consent back then.

I think that I would base any decision on whether to grant permission or enforce would be what the local tradition at the time of rebuild was locally. If of course, there are other examples? Does the removal affect the character - certainly, so LBC required. Is it detrimental - Depend on why it was washed in the first instance. Local tradition or technical reasons.

At least thats my take.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

OK. An interesting set of conflicting views, for which I am grateful.

It seems that the base may have been whitewashed to keep it (and the grain stored inside) cool, though as similar mills generally have exposed brick roundhouses this may not be the case (equally, some of those other mills may have had the limewash or other paint removed during post-1945 restoration because the brick "looks nice"). Certainly the roundhouse of that particular mill has been white since the 1880s and probably for some time before.

The most recently removed whitening was a modern (ish - probably 1950s) material which had been repainted several times. The applicant has not, however, suggested that this was doing any harm or that potential harm was a reason for removal, as the mill is still in use as such (albeit as a museum piece rather than a commercial mill) and the roundhouse is well-ventilated. It therefore boils down to an issue of traditional use on that particular building (which has been established by the old photographs), and aesthetics.

SPAB's view has been that the change is not necessary and has upset the appearance of the mill itself (white sails, black body, white roundhouse) and in its immediate context of (mostly) white-painted outbuildings. As such we have objected to the retrospective application. The applicant has said something about retaining the "original" appearance of the mill, but without supporting evidence. As it was built in 1665, the "original" appearance would be very difficult to establish and even returning it to the 1880s photo appearance would involve a pretty complete rebuild, for no good reason.

However, my real reason for asking was that, SPAB and the Georgian Group having expressed serious reservations about the change, English Heritage's comments seem to us to be quite bizarre. They have said that, as the white paint is not strictly necessary structurally, or for the function of the mill, its removal is acceptable - ignoring the equally important aesthetic and traditional use arguments completely. The county council's conservation officer has said that, since other mills have exposed brick roundhouses, there is no objection to the paint being removed here, and furthermore that as it is still recognisable as a windmill it doesn't harm the building's character.

I am now trying to find a Grade I or II* listed, painted, building which may not have been painted originally, but where the paint (in my view) contributes to the character of the building, in order to make an LBC application to remove the paint, quoting EH's coments as the authority for allowing what in some cases would be an enormous change. If any of you live opposite, and enjoy the view of, a painted masonry building where the paint is not strictly "structurally or functionally necessary" (which must be most such examples), be warned, you may not be enjoying that view for long...

Householders sometimes get upset with the unreasonable stance EH take. So, sad to say, do other conservationists. :evil:

(edit): and there was also no information about how the paint was removed, so in the long term, we don't know what damage might have been done.

 

[Flyfisher]

Isn't it a bit of a dangerous precedent for EH to support the paint removal because it "is not strictly necessary structurally, or for the function of the mill, its removal is acceptable"? I doubt that the existing windows are structurally necessary and certainly won't affect the function so why not slap in some nice new DG placcy ones as well to help keep the place warm? It'll still be recognisable as a windmill. :roll:

Still, it shows what a minefield this period property lark really is. If the professionals can't agree what chance the poor owners?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

My point exactly, Flyfisher...

 

[MattW]

It therefore boils down to an issue of traditional use on that particular building (which has been established by the old photographs).... As it was built in 1665, the "original" appearance would be very difficult to establish and even returning it to the 1880s photo appearance would involve a pretty complete rebuild, for no good reason.

Sorry Gareth to condense your quote, but aren't you saying that the traditional use can't actually be determined (at least the first two hundred years surely must count to being traditional use?) In which case isn't the LBC right to ignore the point? And in any event, if putting the structure back to 1880 also isn't appropriate, why is selecting one element of it, the paint, appropriate?

Sorry to play devils advocate, but it strikes me that the SPAB argument really rests on Aesthetics. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[Cloudscape]

The county council's conservation officer has said that, since other mills have exposed brick roundhouses, there is no objection to the paint being removed here, and furthermore that as it is still recognisable as a windmill it doesn't harm the building's character.

This is another dodgy precedent, isn't it? Since something's been done to other buildings, there's no problem with it being done to this building. It still looks like a windmill/inn/farmhouse/whatever, so the change doesn't harm the 'character'. It all gets into a very tangled web of subjectivity.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Yes, the argument does, largely (and setting aside the precedent EH have unwittingly created) rest on aesthetics. The mill wouldn't have had a roundhouse at all when it was built, nor would it have had sails of the type it now has (invented in the 1770s), nor would it have had the second pair of millstones and the gear to drive them that it now has. So our argument has been that it should be preserved (for it is a museum piece, an "antique" if you like) looking as it did when last worked seriously, in the years either side of the 1939-45 war. Any other philosophical approach opens a huge can of worms with implications far wider than this one site.

 

[L1zzy]

I agree whole heartedly with Jon Maines response - its looked beautiful with White Lime wash - simple , authentic ,protective and beautiful .

 

[AMc]

My two pennies worth - I don't think it looks substantially better or worse for being limewashed. I is more in keeping with the surrounding outbuildings in white.

However there seems to be photographic evidence that it was more likely than not, white when it was listed - as my understanding is that the condition at the point of listing is considered a static point I can't see any argument for doing anything other than insisting on returning it to white with an appropriate finish.

 

[Horace]

I am confused about the listing legislation. If paint/ limewash is covered by the listing rules, then the type of paint (say, dulux weathershield) on at date of listing and its exact colour (say, brilliant white) must be replicated forever unless listed buildings consent is applied for to change colour and/ or material. Is that not the logical conclusion? If so, I imagine most of the posters on here have probably broken the law.....

Someone enlighten me please.