How to deal with a 1940's extension to a 1750's cottage?

[etxsw]

First timer here so be gentle please!

My wife and I are shortly to complete on a property but are in two minds how to deal with an extension built around 1948 - should we leave it as it is part of the the home's history or should we take the chance to tie it in more accurately to the style of the initial house?

Basics of the house (the plan of the house is rectangle with the bottom left quarter taken away):

3 terraced cottages that, a very long time ago, were knocked into making just 2 properties.

Both cottages were, a long time ago, extended backwards with double storey extensions (essentially just mirroring what was already there) using same walling, roofing materials etc.

To the side of the extension is an extension built in 1940s - slate roof but walls that are rendered with lines in to look like stone blocks (but it doesn't look like stone at all obviously).

The previous owners have had a quote to take this render down and face this extension with original stonework. My wife and I are attracted to this in the sense of it will make the extension blend in rather than fight against the oldest part of the property but we wonder whether it is the right thing to do or shoudl we preserve the 'story' of the house even if it makes it look a big ugly from that side?

House is not listed but is in a conservation area.

Opinions welcome!

 

[JoceAndChris]

Hello and welcome to the forum. Good luck with completion, the house sounds lovely and I hope you get it!

You are talking about a fundamental split in conservation ethics really. I'd say leave well alone, but pics would enable us to see what you mean a lot better. Is your house exposed stone in the main? I've got the same situation going on here, but the entire house has been caked in cement render so looks more unified. I also have to decide what to do, I'm picking the cement render off to let the house breathe, if I leave it all exposed I'll have a non-matching brick extension. It's tricky.

I don't understand what "face this extension with original stonework" means -could you explain a bit more? Is there a difference between horrific stone cladding and this?

Welcome to a whole world of frying your brain in these kinds of problems!

 

[kevmiles1]

Difficult to comment without seeing pictures but one possible way to make the extension look more period and match in more sympathetically as well as allowing the building to breathe would be to lime render and limewash it in a sympathetic colour to the rest of the building

 

[etxsw]

We live around 200 miles away currently so can't do a picture quickly but will take one and upload after our next visit.

We hadn't really thought about doing anything until we had sight of a quote, during negociations over the purchase price, for some other work on the property (the garage is a wreck!).

On the bottom was a quote for refacing the 1940's extension with real stone. When we inquired further it appears that the company will take old stone, slice it in half and face the building with this. I've never heard of this but the current owners say that they checked out some similar work by the same company and it's fabulous. We've got those addresses and will visit.

It's quite pricy and certainly out of our budget for a little while but I was more interested in the philosophical debate about whether it was the right thing to do.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Cloudscape]

the company will take old stone, slice it in half and face the building with this. I've never heard of this but the current owners say that they checked out some similar work by the same company and it's fabulous.

Gosh that sounds great... a bit like the work of a company who advertises their services on PPUK. It does sound like stone cladding, since that's what it is, I suppose - cladding the exterior with stone. :|

To me, this would be the very last resort. All you'd have as a result is a fake 'period' extension. It's a bit like screwing planks on your ceiling, painting them black, and calling it "tudor".

There are other surface treatments, including colour and the use of plants that could do a lot to hide an ugly facade. The style of the doors and windows - do they tie in with the main house? If not, they could.

 

[etxsw]

Yeah windows have all been done to tie in well.

Looking forward to moving in so these debates in my head can move from theoretical to actual!

 

[Cloudscape]

If you intend to be there any length of time, I'd say... live in the house for a while to get used to it. There were things about my house that I thought I couldn't live with, but this kind of re-shuffles as you go along. Different things take priority.

About your extension... apart from being possibly disappointing, and not the same as the rest of the house, is it otherwise healthy? Could you not just cosmetically* improve the look of it, and keep some contrast going?

*(Some way other than glueing stone onto it)

 

[Lime]

The problem I have with stone cladding is that it was often used to cover up faults and used on buildings that were either spoilt and damaged by it and/or stopped the building "breathing" trapping water in the walls.
Sometimes the appearance was ok.
There is also euphemistic stone cladding and real stone cladding of course.

In this case I'd be tempted to replicate the rest of the house if the original look of the "new" build is poor in comparison.
However the stone must not cover a DPC and not be applied to a wall that needs to breath.

 

[Penners]

Welcome etxsw. Could you help me to pronounce your name? :wink:

I hope your first visit here hasn't been too off-putting, but I'm afraid I dislike the sound of "facing with original stonework", too. It's essentially a contradiction in terms, and I think you run the risk of ending up with a pastiche, rather than an honest (and much more interesting) building that isn't ashamed of its development over the centuries.

Personally, I'd much rather be able to see how a building has grown and developed, rather than any attempt to turn it cosmetically into a homogenous whole.

You also shouldn't ignore Lime's technical warning.

However - for all that, it's your house (or soon will be), and you should do whatever you want to make it the building that you want (within the limitations of any required consents such as Listed Building or building regs).

Good luck with the purchase - do keep us in touch with progress.

 

[etxsw]

etxsw is my old university username (in the very early days of e-mail) with each letter meaning something - E for engineering, T for Theoretical Mechanics Dept, X for post grad and SW my initials. I often still use it for usernames!

Hadn't really considered doing anything about the look of the 'new' bit of the building until I saw the quote for facing the buiding in old stone - it is a house we hope to make a long term home so there is no rush at all to do anything - the house is basically structurally sound (a little bit of tidying up slates on the roof to do according to the surveyor and an issue with the purlins deflecting beyond current standards in the oldest bit of the house - we have a quote for sorting these if need be but intend to look into this further - afterall the purlins have survived 250 years already!) so we an live in the house and see where we are in a year or 2.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Good decision, you might even like it in a couple of years! If not, there's always wisteria.

The argument about which era to be true to reoccurs very frequently on this forum, it's a key one and it's always interesting to read people's views.

I think most people here feel that whilst we all want/need electricity, somewhere to put the car etc, it becomes ethically dodgy if you start mucking about with work done in the 20s/30s/40s in order to fake bits of the property to look older, or ripping out old stuff because you prefer something modern.

This in itself becomes highly subjective and problematic, as you can imagine. For example, if I told the forum I was about to rip out my 1985 bathroom I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. But if I said I was going to rip out all the 30s wood panelling in the bathroom as part of the process I would imagine there might be some clicking of tongues. And yet why is one more precious than the other? They've been together for twenty odd years, and if we believe in conservation surely some of us should conserve our 80s bathrooms?

It comes down to taste, I suppose, and reverence. And whether things have worn out or not.

A lot of people say that the building tells the story of its evolving life, and though these stories can be far from ideal we have to treasure them for what they are, and not try to make them something they aren't. This can be maddening, it can equate to you being a saint and putting up with everyone else's sh*te ideas over the last hundred years and not being allowed to have any of your own!

For me, the term "honest repair" is particularly irksome. :evil:

With your building, if a bomb had hit that bit I doubt many would object to you building it up again to match the rest. You could do it with all the right materials, it would be fab. But if you start slathering it over with some kind of fakery there will always be those who find it destructive (which it could literally be if it stops the building from breathing) or pretentious.

If I were you I'd spend that stone cladding money on stocking up your wine cellar instead - it eases the eyesores! :wink:

 

[Stephen]

so we an live in the house and see where we are in a year or 2.

This is certainly the best idea - even six months will give you a better idea of how you use the house and what you like/dislike about it. This can then inform any decision to change.

As for the extension as the building is not listed no formal consent is needed (if it is in a conservation area this might not be so). The decision on what to do may largely be down to your personal preferences. There is no right or wrong as such.

Even if the building is listed there is nothing that says you cannot make changes or even demolish part of the building. The main issue would be however that you would need to be able to justify whatever you argue for.

There is an argument that says any past alteration is a valid part of the building's history and should be left alone. Whilst the first half of the sentence is correct the second is not. Each part of the building must be considered and assessed with regard to its historic and/or architectural merit. There will be ocassions when extensions and alterations to an historic building are of no merit and perhaps detrimental to the building (aesthetically and/or in terms of 'reading' its history). In such instances removal of such may be a good thing. In conservation we now have to prepare statements of significance and all this is really is an assessment of the building (in its entirety and its constituent parts) and assess what significance (if any) should be applied. This then informs us whether there are parts of the building that should (for whatever reason) be regarded as sacrosanct and others that could be regarded as sacrifical (could stay or go - doesn't really matter) and those that may be positively harmful in some way and should in fact be removed.


As you can see it is not as simple as saying that because it is a part of the building and therefore part of its history it should remain. A critical assessment has to be made.

Turning back to your property it may be that such an extensive approach is rather excessive. Nonetheless, in simple terms you must assess this extension and consider its merits (or otherwise). Once done you can then consider your options: leave alone, change its appearance, demolish and replace. If you can justify your decisions in terms of conservation there is no right or wrong. This does not mean to say that everyone will agree with you!

The other consideration in these times of concern about environment and energy is simply whether it is so bad that it really has to be changed regardless of environment and energy issues.

This is not an answer to your question but I hope it helps you in you thinking through the options.

 

[Cloudscape]

according to the surveyor and an issue with the purlins deflecting beyond current standards in the oldest bit of the house

I'd remind the surveyor that he might be deflecting after 250 years. :wink: The application of 'current standards' to period properties is another can of worms - glazing, insulation, energy consumption, building regs etc.

We have purlins like bananas, but they're not so bad that the roof doesn't do its job. In my last house, one purlin had sagged (and the roof dished) so badly that the last few rows of slates were almost lying horizontal. The water collected on this part of the roof, and whole downpours would try to enter the central two feet of a long gutter. We had to do some serious remedial work.

The last house was Victorian and the saggy roof also looked pretty awful. Conversely, our current saggy roof looks 'right'. Straightening it up would probably remove a lot of character.

 

[Flyfisher]

The application of 'current standards' to period properties is another can of worms - glazing, insulation, energy consumption, building regs etc.

So true - even to the extent that our CO recommended not getting building control involved with our minor changes. I wonder if there has ever been an update to a 'standard' that has resulted in something being relaxed?

 

[Penners]

This is not an answer to your question but I hope it helps you in you thinking through the options.

I disagree - it's a very full answer. Perhaps not to the precise text of the question, but it's excellent general advice on the whole fraught business of what should and/or should not be valued in an old building.

 

[bigdoozer]

I would visit youtube they have artizans all over, and can copy any stones onto any surface.
they have a web site but not sure if I cam nention that here.

Hope this helps

 

[FamilyWiggs]

You know you can't advertise your horrible stone cladding on here. :evil: :roll:

"Artizans" - oh that made me laugh! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[robgil]

we have got a 1940/50 extension grafted onto the side of our 16c cottage.
the purists may not want to hear this but we are very much thinking about tearing it down and putting up a timber framed one instead.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I like to hear it, but an not a purist!

Keep us posted...

 

[robgil]

will do F.W. tons of work to do first but its still fairly high on our list.