Our house

[Flyfisher]

While I agree with the sentiments of Lady A's post, I'm not sure I'd categorise this thread as "uncivilised", certainly not in comparison with some of the arguments in the past. I also hope it won't dissuade Lady A from posting more in the future. Cloudscape probably has a point about cliques so the more new contributors the better.

It's always going to be difficult when someone comes here asking for advice, disappears for a few years while they remodel their property against all/most of that advice and then reappear asking what people think of the final result - especially when, presumably, they are very pleased with the results and, understandably, have that proud feeling about a long hard job finally finished. To then have their bubble burst by opinions not aligned with their own is obviously going to be a bit of a disappointment, shock even. But things are what they are, not what we might want them to be.

Gareth's post, I thought, described the situation very fairly, acknowledging both ways of looking at the work, but on a forum largely populated by people interested in conserving period features, their elimination was never going to receive much approval.

Penners was, of course, right about the futility of debating matters of taste and, in that respect, I hope Jill is very happy with her new home. Fortunately, people are largely free to do what they wish with their own homes, and I wouldn't want to change that. The price of that freedom is that some people will make changes that other people don't like, but the world would be a bland place if everyone had the same taste (although I suppose everyone would also be happy with everything). The loss of such freedom would be a far greater worry, to me at least.

 

[Penners]

I'll believe it when I see it

My sentiments entirely.

The problem with planning law is that it can only be applied when Planning Permission is sought. In cases where a planning application is not required, or not sought (even though technically required), we're in aesthetic bandit country.

So the legislators can legislate until they're blue in the face, but I suspect that, in the real world, the majority of building design modifications will be made by Joe Public on the basis of his aesthetic judgement, and his alone.

 

[Penners]

The loss of such freedom would be a far greater worry, to me at least.

Seconded.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The alterations which have been the subject of this thread did require (and received) planning permission.

:roll:

I'd also just note that the planning drawings show the new pantiles are concrete, not clay, and offer a choice of stained hardwood windows or brown upvc.

 

[Tom]

If what Jane Burgermeister says is true, few people will care whether the tiles are clay or concrete or whether the windows are wood or plastic.

Maybe it's us who are fools for trying to preserve our heritage for a world which is doomed. Bird flu, swine flu, climate change etc. Maybe in the future people will just be glad to be alive! Or maybe not.....

 

[Nigel Watts]

In cases where a planning application is not required, or not sought (even though technically required), we're in aesthetic bandit country.

Not entirely true I think. Conservation areas have rules.

These are well meaning but not always very logical. I was told I had to paint my reinstated railings black, but there is plenty of evidence that houses of my date used other colours - e.g. pale green in imitation of weathered bronze, like at Apsley House. The brochure advising householders in my neighbourhood had pictures to illustrate good practice. All had white exterior woodwork - completely inauthentic for the early 19th century.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I suspect that might be down to making a fairly reasonable compromise, or best of a bad job, on the basis that

"We know, of course we know, we are architectural historians etc, but if we give leeway then they will paint in all manner of unsuitable colours. So we just give them a limited choice and at least it looks all OK."

 

[Nigel Watts]

I seriously upset our absent friend on at least a couple of occasions

I am pleased to be able to put the record straight, and would like to pass on this message:

"Nigel, I do feel I should point out that (re Another Post Another Place) you have never upset me, not ever, I'm not such a delicate flower, although I do find it amusing that people who have never met me think they know me.

They don't. My bite is far, far worse than my bark. "

See my blog http://fitzwalter.blogspot.com/2009/10/rediscovering-family-portrait.html#comments for more...

 

[Penners]

In cases where a planning application is not required, or not sought (even though technically required), we're in aesthetic bandit country.

Not entirely true I think. Conservation areas have rules.

Of course, but don't they fall into the category which requires a planning application for external changes to the building?

My statement above was intended only to refer to cases where such an application is not required (or not sought).

 

[Penners]

The alterations which have been the subject of this thread did require (and received) planning permission.

Which amply illustrates what a minefield this business of aesthetic judgement is - even where the professionals are involved. Obviously those alterations were regarded as acceptable by one planning authority, whereas another (which shall remain un-named) would clearly have rejected them.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Listed building consent and consents required to comply with conservation areas rules are not strictly the same as planning permission I think, and they follow a rather different process (but correct me if I am wrong).

What is sometimes very frustrating is the reluctance of planning authorities to grant conservation area status. My mother still lives in the house where I grew up which is in what was a very picturesque garden surburb, built mainly in the 1920s. Individual buildings did not merit listing but the overall effect was certainly worth preserving. In spite of lobbying the status was never granted. The road has become a magnet for the nouveaux riches whose appetite for extending their houses, replacing leaded lights with PVC, ripping out mature yew hedges to make way for vast garages and paving over front gardens with concrete bricks to display their unnecessarily powerful and expensive automobiles seems to know no bounds. It is such a shame.

 

[Jill]

To put the record straight I did not come on here with the purpose of just showing off what we had done. The first two photos were just to see if I could post them. The house is no way finished, even externally. What I was going to do was post photos of what we had being doing one step at a time, showing the bad things we had discovered more as encouragement for others and also ask for advice and give it if needed on converting two properties into one. The interior is no way finished, half of the house is currently in darkness and it is because of this that I am able to post before the electricity goes on and I get back to the hard work, cleaning beams waxing them etc - you all know what I mean. Afraid they aren't oak but we have used the original oak in a number of places.

The reason for my abscence was due to family circumstances - serious illness which I do not need to go into here. Having the house to do has given me something to focus on. When we got the plans passed in February this year we did not know we were going to get a builder so quick, you could say the recession has worked in our favour as their have been no delays but it has been non stop since then. The house will take a lot more effort before it is as we like.

I know we have not retained the charcter that some of you think should be, but honestly if you had seen the state of some of it then you would understand why it had to be removed, could you honestly say you would retain 300 year old beams that had been coated in some resin sort of stuff to hide the decay, which had been made to look bigger with plaster, which were along side bits of straight 2 x 4. And sit below a floor with 6 inches of concrete on it.

My comments regarding the rudeness were specifically about 2 comments that Joce made - apologies for naming you - can't remember words exactly but saying that if I hadn't spent so much time watching tv programmes I would have more of a clue, and something else about education. You have no idea how much research I have done - Period Property isn't the only place to get advice. It was because of the comments that I decided in a huff to remove the photos. Hormones you know.

By some of the comments made it appears that other people have been upset on this forum. I haven't been upset in the slightest. If I had I wouldn't have come back to look at the comments, find it rather interesting really. My posting some photos has clearly set off quite a discussion, I just hope that some good comes out of it. Probably this forum wasn't the best place for me to come in hindsight but at the time I didn't realise how strict some peoples views were on old properties. Best wishes to all.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Jill

Keep going. It's a journey. I am on my third house now and I still have lots to learn. Most of my best "learning experiences" resulted from taking a wrong turn. And don't be afraid of experimenting. Experimenting means taking risks which sometimes don't pay off, but when they do it is so satisfying.

I have had some quite derogatory remarks from my neighbours about the way I have treated my house, one of whom is an architect, but I am sticking by my guns.

Nigel

 

[FamilyWiggs]

could you honestly say you would retain 300 year old beams that had been coated in some resin sort of stuff to hide the decay, which had been made to look bigger with plaster, which were along side bits of straight 2 x 4. And sit below a floor with 6 inches of concrete on it.

Jill, One of the great things about PPUK is that some of us could have advised how you might have been able to retain those beams. I have restored beams covered in gunk and plaster painted brown in this place. It was literally dozensof hours per beam, but it is possible and it really is worth trying. And you'd be surprised at how good the most worm eaten and painted piece of junk can look when cleaned up.

Despite this thread, if any of us can help or share some of our previous experiences with you, I know we all will.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I have had some quite derogatory remarks from my neighbours about the way I have treated my house, one of whom is an architect, but I am sticking by my guns.

Nigel

Good grief Nigel - surely no need to shoot the buggers? :shock:

 

[Tom]

I have had some quite derogatory remarks from my neighbours about the way I have treated my house, one of whom is an architect, but I am sticking by my guns.

Nigel

Good grief Nigel - surely no need to shoot the buggers? :shock:

Some of 'em need shooting !! :evil:

Jaqy

 

[Penners]

My comments regarding the rudeness were specifically about 2 comments that Joce made - apologies for naming you - can't remember words exactly but saying that if I hadn't spent so much time watching tv programmes I would have more of a clue

Jill - we all poke fun at one another on this forum. Don't take it so much to heart.

I think I called Joce a hussy on one occasion!

Come to think of it, she didn't deny it. :wink:

 

[yamin]

- (From below blog, NOT Nigels words)

See my blog http://fitzwalter.blogspot.com/2009/10/rediscovering-family-portrait.html#comments for more...

"But PPUKE is a total irrelevance, in the wider scheme of conservation, and the self-important airs some give themselves by being able to post there highly amusing. There's no entry qualification, folks, it's open to all, wise and foolish alike. Sadly, a number of the latter post but it's a free-ish country."
:roll: :roll: Shame someones lack of interest about this forum doesn't prevent her from having a dig!!

 

[yamin]

could you honestly say you would retain 300 year old beams that had been coated in some resin sort of stuff to hide the decay, which had been made to look bigger with plaster, which were along side bits of straight 2 x 4. And sit below a floor with 6 inches of concrete on it.

Jill, One of the great things about PPUK is that some of us could have advised how you might have been able to retain those beams. I have restored beams covered in gunk and plaster painted brown in this place. It was literally dozensof hours per beam, but it is possible and it really is worth trying. And you'd be surprised at how good the most worm eaten and painted piece of junk can look when cleaned up.

Despite this thread, if any of us can help or share some of our previous experiences with you, I know we all will.

Great post Mr Wiggs! I completely agree and have found this forum to be invaluable in showing me a way that I might be able to repair where before I might have caved in to all the modernist (in loose definition of the word) pressure to replace. My proudly lime plastered playroom wall for a start! More significantly for Jilll and any other new posters who step in, I think this kind of response says as much but is MUCH more diplomatic than earlier replies Jill received,which I do think were harsh to say the least. Whatever feedback she asked for, I'm not sure she deserved such untempered criticism.........I like to think manners can be maintained even on the internet. Hell, I've been guilty of losing the manners myself at times on here - do I feel a group hug coming on....????? :roll:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Abi - HUG!

One further comment - Joce is a lovely person and so indefatigably enthusiastic about other people's efforts. I'm sure she will be mortified if she thought Jill had been offended by her ribbing. Sometimes we are all guilty of taking things a bit too seriously; which is quite understandable when period property and conservation of our precious heritage is our passion (and for some their profession too).