Our house

[JoceAndChris]

The "messiness" of old buildings is only a problem if you have a fanatical obsession with respectable "tidiness". In which case you should go for a tidy new Barratt or Wimpey house on a tidy new estate where you can be like everyone else.

So, to clarify, when people come on here moaning that this and that don't match (and I'm guilty of this, I was brought up to match shoes to gloves) you think the above? You think that uniformity and matchingness is b*llocks when it comes to houses? But you like the Georgian period? :? :? :? Nice, honest answer please - I won't fight with you, and simply wish to unknot my own confused perceptions.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I've expressed my opinion before - they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Every old house should be listed. It's not right that that kind of taste should be inflicted on everyone else.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The "messiness" of old buildings is only a problem if you have a fanatical obsession with respectable "tidiness". In which case you should go for a tidy new Barratt or Wimpey house on a tidy new estate where you can be like everyone else.

So, to clarify, when people come on here moaning that this and that don't match (and I'm guilty of this, I was brought up to match shoes to gloves) you think the above? You think that uniformity and matchingness is b*llocks when it comes to houses? But you like the Georgian period? :? :? :? Nice, honest answer please - I won't fight with you, and simply wish to unknot my own confused perceptions.

No, I think that when what you've been given (or bought) to work with is characterised by a degree of messy informality, and carries evidence of various alterations though its life, such that the "original" form is essentially irrecoverable (and its recovery would involve the destruction of much of what gives the building its interest or charm), then the aim should be to conserve that messy informality.

Where you have a splendid Georgian house that is characterised by its tidy formality, tidy formality is the result one should expect from any works, unless a later alteration that would have to be undone to achieve that is of sufficient interest in its own right to merit preservation, at which point there has to be a careful balancing act. Most Georgian townscape (Bath, Edinburgh and Bloomsbury being the major exceptions) has very little that "matches" from building to building.

What I find so uncomfortable about the house being discussed in this thread is that the end result looks very little like what the current owners started with, nor does it look like the real Lincolnshire cottage it presumably once was, and a lot of what gave it its distinctiveness and interest has been thrown out in a mistaken belief that the end result is more authentic than the situation in 1983.

It's a bit like scraping all the plaster off the walls / stripping your pine doors in the belief that that is what's authentically old, when you're actually creating a completely inauthentic modern interior by doing so. I can't do anything to stop it being done (beyond listed buildings or conservation areas) except to say that it's wrong to think of it as genuine and hope a few people take the point.

If it's merely a matter of rebuilding a house to suit a particular current fashion, then what's been done to Jill's cottage is fine (though if it was being proposed as a new house I'd still be concerned about the bulkiness and rather poor detailing of the end result). It is not, however, conservation or restoration in any way, shape or form, nor should it be viewed as some sort of return to "former glory".

 

[JoceAndChris]

An excellent clear reply, many thanks. I can see that a house that has a bit of his and a bit of that over the centuries is unutterably charming, and attempts should not usually be made to revert it to its original state or usage. And your thinking appears to give room for such things as reinstating windows, in the right case, and knocking down abominable 80s extensions, which to my mind is good. But also that you can't undo, say, the Georgian alterations to an Elizabethan house, which is also good. I agree we shouldn't be meddling with the precious work of the past, and imposing trendy ideas of what a period property should be that have nothing to do with anything that ever really happened. I agree with what you have to say about Jill's house, but also with Penners that most people out there would not find it repellant. Education refines taste.

The problem I still have, though, is if, for example, (as in my case) something has perished - what do you replace it with? Especially if you are not entirely clear about what was there in the beginning? I think my lean to on the north end with the plastic roof would look great if was made into a proper room to be symmetrical with the 40s extension on the south end. This would involve a little extension. The house was symmetrical until they stuck that 40s extension on. But I like the 40s extension and don't want to knock it down. I can't stick with the lean to as it is, it's a complete bodge, and every time it's windy I think the plastic roof is going to finally take off. Also, I can't get up there, only cats can enter.So it's never been cleaned. Something must be done with it, but what? If I make it a mirror image of the hexagonal music room on the other side, and recreate a symmetrical house, some may say that's not in the honest spirit of conservation. If I make it a startlingly obvious 21st C addition it will kill the look of the house.

These kinds of decisions are very hard, and need to be guided by a clever, kind Conservation Officer- if you haven't got one the chances are you'll make terrible mistakes. So I go back to my former point that a lot more stringent listing should be going on.

 

[JoceAndChris]

If anyone is still confused about Jill's story and what happened to these houses her first posts are very helpful in untangling it.

"Hi, I just thought I'd introduce myself as I only discovered the site yesterday. I'm Jill and my partner Paul and I purchased the cottage next door to ours in March 2005. The house is made of stone and we believe was originally one, we have deeds dating back to 1735, but do not know when it was split into 2. Paul renovated one half 20 years ago but it was always the dream to buy the other side and convert it back to one detached property. That is the stage that we are at - living the dream. We did nothing for 6 months then set to last September knocking a hole in the wall between the two front rooms. (Not as simple as it reads) The acro props are now part of the furniture as we decide exactly what we want to do in regards to room positions and decide the best way to go about it. Finding this site I am sure will be valuable to us as there are loads of questions we want to ask so we don't make a complete mess of things. Where possible we want to do as much as we can and are definetely in no rush. First step is to get some plans drawn up as we want to raise the roof, will need to remove some of the beams and remove some more internal walls. Any advice on which professionals we should get in to give us advice before we splash out on an architect?


Thanks for your quick replys, the building is not listed nor is it in a conservation area. Paul, steam in and rush do not go together. He only starts work after numerous coffees and fags. He is quite pleased I have discovered this site as it keeps me quiet while he is watching the telly.
I wouldn't say it is a nice period cottage, bit of a mess really, it just happened to be next to the one Paul already had, to us it is just four walls. Some work has been done but not very sympathetically at all, silicon sealer and bodge it was the previous owners solutions. The roofs are at two different levels and a rather large RSJ has been put in the front room and covered in render and faked to look like wood. It is disgusting. I'll attach some photos one day when I work out how. When Paul renovated the first half I don't think building regs allowed him to do everything that he wanted and money was a lot tighter - he was young and in experienced but had alot of help from builders in the family. We are in Kirton-Lindsey."

I think the line "to us it is just four walls" really says it all, and why poor Jill has had no luck with this forum - it pains me to say it but with that attitude, she was never going to win many friends on a conservation forum. In that post, Biff and Middi are very clear that her attitude is alarming to say the least, and that she ought to join SPAB and do a bit more research. And she posts very little in the intervening years, only to tell us all that she's done it now, what we didn't want her to do. I am sorry if I appear harsh and judgemental on this occasion but it's a bit like turning up on a Francophile forum and rubbishing foie gras.

 

[Penners]

Well, that explains this then :roll:

Indeed it does. And that example definitely makes me shudder. But I don't think it necessarily negates what I've said above. We neither of us know what the owners of those semis feel about the appearance of their building, however misguided we may consider them to be (the ones on the right, anyway!).

A Conservation Officer has every right and duty to apply aesthetic (and other) principles to all attempts to carry out work on listed buildings. And I'm completely in favour of that. But when it comes to the great mass of unlisted vernacular buildings, we have all to permit owners to carry out whatever works they see fit - within the limitations of planning and building regs law, of course - whether those works meets our aesthetic standards or not.

If we're going to change that principle, then we'll need an Act of Parliament, and hell of a lot more supervisory civil servants.

 

[Penners]

it's a bit like turning up on a Francophile forum and rubbishing foie gras.

:lol: :lol:

Charmingly put!

 

[Jill]

All i can say is I have never come across so many rude people. I could say plenty more but I would not want to lower myself to the same standard.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

All i can say is I have never come across so many rude people. I could say plenty more but I would not want to lower myself to the same standard.

What constitutes rudeness? As for "so many", I think 3 or 4 of us have been critical to some extent.
I'm sorry, but I, and some others here, cannot praise what you have done, (listed, conservation area or not). It appears from the summary of your earlier posts here that you did originally come looking for advice (good for you) but for some reason haven't followed that through.
Did you post your photographs here expecting just to get a nice warm glow from all the "oh, what a splendid job you've done" posts?
Or did you want an honest opinion? (or range of opinions)
Or did you not want any feedback? (in which case, why bother posting at all?)

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Jill,

Whilst I can perfectly understand you not being too chipper about the responses you have received on here, I feel compelled to point out that you came looking for advice orginally, don't appear to have followed any of it, and then posted your "after" pics which implicitly and explicity invites a response.

I don't think the range of responses you have received are therefore rude - they are just not what you would have wished to hear. Had we all driven past your house and knocked the door and, uninvited by you, begun to rubbish it, then you would have been right to call us all rude.

As it is you have found a group of people who aren't too keen on your changes to an old (albeit unsymapthetically treated) house. I'm sorry that upsets you.

Pax.

Robin

 

[FamilyWiggs]

it's a bit like turning up on a Francophile forum and rubbishing foie gras.

:shock: Given the richness of potential material I can't believe anyone would need to rubbish foie gras on a Francophile forum !

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Well, that explains this then :roll:

Indeed it does. And that example definitely makes me shudder. But I don't think it necessarily negates what I've said above. We neither of us know what the owners of those semis feel about the appearance of their building, however misguided we may consider them to be (the ones on the right, anyway!).

A Conservation Officer has every right and duty to apply aesthetic (and other) principles to all attempts to carry out work on listed buildings. And I'm completely in favour of that. But when it comes to the great mass of unlisted vernacular buildings, we have all to permit owners to carry out whatever works they see fit - within the limitations of planning and building regs law, of course - whether those works meets our aesthetic standards or not.

If we're going to change that principle, then we'll need an Act of Parliament, and hell of a lot more supervisory civil servants.

No, just the current version of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1, which applies to all planning matters, and does, indeed, unleash the army of civil servants needed to police it.

http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/designatappeal.pdf

Design is a legitimate and important consideration in planning decisions. Planning policy statement 1 (PPS1) now tells us that ‘design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted’. This means that rather than refusing only poor schemes as the old planning policy guidance note 1 (PPG1) instructed, planners should be rejecting everything that fails to meet these new requirements. This raising ofthe bar in favour of quality will be a key test within planning appeals.Design is about how places look and work. By Design, the companion guide to PPS1, sets out the core principles of good design. Planning decisions on design issues should refer to these and the physical characteristics of the proposal in termsof how they will, or will not, produce well designed results.It is interesting to compare PPS1’s stance on design with old versions of PPG1 that may still be influencing behaviour, despite no longer being in force. The 1992 version instructed authorities ‘not to seek tocontrol the detailed design of buildings unless the sensitive character of the setting for the development justifies it’. The 1988 version ofPPG1 was even more stringent, saying: ‘Matters of detailed design have long been an unnecessary source of contention and delay in the planning system.’ ‘Where a refusal of permission is based simply on a preference for a different external appearance, there may be grounds for an award of costs in an inquiry appeal’. Things have moved on and these out of date policies no longer apply.We have come a long way since then and PPS1 should be seen as a clear endorsement of the relevance of design, explaining, as it does, that: ‘Good design is indivisible from good planning.’

Obviously, I'll believe it when I see it, and my experience is that in most cases you still might as well toss a coin. But the legislative and guidance background does exist and is in some ways more stringent (if one follows the letter) than the rather diluted controls in conservation areas. Of course, planning committees and planning inspectors then tend to get swayed by other considerations...

(I wouldn't, by the way, uphold most of the illustrations in that document being shining examples that bear out the text)

 

[Schoolmarm]

All i can say is I have never come across so many rude people. I could say plenty more but I would not want to lower myself to the same standard.

Oooh if you think those replies were rude, you should see the reply I resisted posting. I sent it to myself as a PM to read and re-consider :lol:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I see Jill has now removed her photographs, which rather spoils this discussion. How rude.

 

[Schoolmarm]

:roll:

 

[LadyArowana]

Can we cut this person some slack? There might be some disagreement about what's best for a house, but I wouldn't like to think that straying onto PPUK was like walking into the lions' den.

Insightful. Inner city school lunch room rather than lions den though. Some of the replies here do no credit to the worthy spirit behind their posters passion for the subject of building preservation. What has been achieved by this thread ? Is the house in question any different to what it was a week ago ? Have any passing newcomers looking for advice been convinced that this is the place to come and ask for it ? Would they even have been converted to the side of conserve with sympathy rather than replace with pastiche ?
The forum is seen by many many more people than ever post. I thought the "if I shout very loudly people will be convinced of my way of thinking" approach had been banished about 9 months ago along with it's major proponent, so I finally signed up. Delivering a good message in such a way that an observer comes away missing the point is not a victory. Satisfaction that Jill is now wise to her supposed mistakes should be tempered by the fact that other nameless visitors will leave without comment or enlightenment. "Do no harm" is a wise motto, the fact that the harm is neither immediately visible or even directly attributable does not excuse it. Uncivilised exchanges in the virtual world do not result in progress IRL.

 

[Tom]

What has been achieved by this thread ?

Well, for a start, we have ascertained that there is little point in asking for advice, completely ignoring it, doing the exact opposite and then resounding triumphantly 'Haven't I done a good job?!' whilst expecting everyone to agree with you. It's just never going to happen!

Jaqy

 

[Nigel Watts]

I seriously upset our absent friend on at least a couple of occasions, (but I hope she did not regard me as her nemesis - I am in fact a huge fan).

The straight answer, when a more tactful one would have been better, not to mention the quick unthinking repost, the irresisable cutting remark, the temptation to show off to the audience - I have done all these things. If I did this at work my ex-boss used to send round the house psychologist. After one particularly bad row with colleagues I agreed to subject myself to a "360 degree emotional intelligence audit". I broke his record for the lowest ever score. We had a good laugh about it, and then he told me that the fact I could brush it off so easily was proof of the result.

What makes electronic communication so much more dangerous for people like me is that you cant see the effect it is having the other end of the wire until it is too late, and as often as not one ends up digging an even deeper hole. Not that I am having a go at anyone here (whoops! have I done it again?)

 

[JoceAndChris]

Insightful. Inner city school lunch room rather than lions den though.

Having taught in an inner city school, I really don't see that as a good analogy. No-one cussed anyone's mum, got punched or had their privies groped. It's been pretty well-reasoned debate, as far as I can see.

But, it's a pity that since Nemesis was forced out you have not seen fit to make any remark apart from this one criticism, Lady A- as what you have written is very interesting and well written. I'm sure your contributions to our many debates would be very enlivening.

 

[Cloudscape]

Something did go wrong in this thread. It's preyed in my mind. I bite my lip and eventually come out with some kind of amateur moderator's remark. I see so much potential for good on the internet, that when anything goes awry, I just can't keep my fingers off the keyboard. It's partly just about me. As I go through life, I'd like to feel I tried to do the right thing.

Whatever the heck the right thing is...

Lady A is right in that many more people will see this thread, than actually participated in it.

It's partly about cliques again. It wasn't exactly a good test case. The house 'renovation' was almost calculated to be a red rag to a bull on PPUK. But there's an element of... 'you can say what you want, because you know you'll get back-up'.

"Do no harm"

That's something I'll carry around today and think about.