Lovely house for sale

[plasticpigeon]

Now this place needs a saviour. Not because it needs changing, but because it needs protecting from change! I have no idea why the suggested price is so low, but someone with a few quid could be very happy here I think.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-59899948.html

 

[malcolm]

Nice spot PP. It is surrounded by a housing estate, but the owners felt there were just not enough rabbit hutch houses.

2011

THE owner of a Grade Two* listed Midland manor fears he will have to sell the historic property – owned by his family for 160 years – if councillors turn down plans for a housing development in its grounds.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/owner-of-1757-wordsley-manor-may-have-to-sell-145961

2013 Planning approved - here's the site layout:
http://planningdocuments.dudley.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00180989.pdf

2017
Looks like the roof still needs fixing despite all the new houses. Another heartwarming period property story. Cash only means it is not mortageable which tends to half the realistic value. Even so it seems cheap for what it is.

 

[Minkeycat]

That's lovely! Someone's going to get a beautiful property. I think if I bought it it'd just make it structurally sound and waterproof if needed, update the electrics behind the scenes, get some heating sorted, fill in most of the cracks and clean it and polish it then just live in it. But it won't be mine coz I haven't even started on this place yet! Thanks for posting though. It gave me a great nose around!

 

[kreyszig]

Wow, that is stunning. Oh to have 350K in my back pocket!

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Minkeycat is right, just roofing, electrics etc and a very large feather duster, I d love the place just as it is------ its fabulous

 

[d49xc]

I guess it is structurally unsound
So the roof etc might be the least of your worries.
Probably that is why it is un-mortgageable so hence the cash only requirement.
...and you'd probably need that level of cash on top again even to start fixing it.
Then if/when you have fixed it you run into the problem that it is a magnificent house surrounded by a housing estate rather than in 20+ acres....so again unsellable as a fully fixed property with price to match.
Is there any mining subisdence issues in that area?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Nice spot PP. It is surrounded by a housing estate, but the owners felt there were just not enough rabbit hutch houses.

2011

THE owner of a Grade Two* listed Midland manor fears he will have to sell the historic property – owned by his family for 160 years – if councillors turn down plans for a housing development in its grounds.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/owner-of-1757-wordsley-manor-may-have-to-sell-145961

2013 Planning approved - here's the site layout:
http://planningdocuments.dudley.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00180989.pdf

2017
Looks like the roof still needs fixing despite all the new houses. Another heartwarming period property story. Cash only means it is not mortageable which tends to half the realistic value. Even so it seems cheap for what it is.

Indeed - looking at the planning approval it appears that the local authority neglected to tie the grant of permission to any commitment to repair the house. Despite the fact that that was the sole justification for the application.

 

[Flyfisher]

Even if PP was conditional on repairing the house, how could that be enforced in practice? Indeed, isn't it already the case that listed property owners are legally obliged not to allow their properties to decay, yet how often do the authorities actually get involved in enforcing such obligations? If it was that easy then surely there would be no listed buildings in need of repairs.

Sadly, I think d49xc's analysis is probably correct.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Even if PP was conditional on repairing the house, how could that be enforced in practice?

Normally, by imposing a condition that (some of) the new houses couldn't be occupied until the works to the listed building had begun under a contract that had been approved by the local authority. That simply doesn't seem to have been done here, even though it's clear from, for example, English Heritage's comments on the application that that was being used as the raison d'etre.

 

[Flyfisher]

But even then, that sounds a bit like the standard PP condition that work must begin within three years - so a BC file is opened, foundations are dug and then if nothing happens the council has little or no power to force any progress. Couldn't the same thing happen in this case? Start the council-approved contract, all the houses are sold off, building works stop and the owner goes off on a world cruise with the proceeds. I'm not condoning it for one minute, but a lot of these laws and regulations seem to lack any real power of implementation and I wonder how often repair enforcement actions are taken by councils and if they are ever successful. Seems to me that the whole concept of listed buildings relies on the responsibility and commitment (and money!) of the owners, and such laws are not necessary for those people, only for the irresponsible ones - who don't care about the law in the first place! All very sad.

 

[parkview094]

Ah.. I think I've found the catch...

The Birmingham Mail (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/owner-of-1757-wordsley-manor-may-have-to-sell-145961) reports:

The main body of the house has 20 rooms, including a cinema installed in the 1930s, and there are two wings.

A council report states that the wings were “in a state of serious dilapidation or near collapse” while the main house needed “extensive preventative intervention”.

Interestingly, the "Wings" don't feature at all on the rightmove listing, but you can just make out the right hand wing attached to the house in the front photo and the left hand wing on the rear photo.

The 'wings' are included in the listing https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1228358

So I suspect the main house (as detailed by Rightmove) is probably reasonably habitable. What's the position if the perspective owner preserves the house, but allows the wings to collapse I wonder?

 

[paulc]

Judging by the aerial view from Google Earth, the roof on the west wing appears to have partially collapsed.

 

[parkview094]

Oh yes, I'm not there's even any roof left on part of the east wing..

What's the scoop with the responsibility for listed property owners. Could you allow the east and west wings to crumble away unmaintained? Would it likely be sufficient to maintain them in their current state (i.e allow them to get no worse) or would the owner be liable to return them to some form of improved state (dry?)

 

[88v8]

http://www.wreckoftheweek.co.uk/