Period Extensions - Again

[Flyfisher]

I would just need more light to offset the impact of the external wall, particularly if the timbers remain dark. In addition one also needs to consider the loss of light to the existing building which, in many cases with these old houses, is already limited.

The timber are currently a lovely weathered silver/grey and the wall is mainly white, so not too dark really. We have no plans to do anything to the timbers (apart from a bit of a wash and brush-up) until the extension is built and we've lived with them for a while. Even then, the only other thing I can envisage doing is to limewash them.

Hopefully, loss of light to the existing building won't be an issue. Of the two ground floor rooms, one has no rear facing windows anyway (historically it did but the C17-ish chimney stack blocked them up!) and the other one has a large front facing sash and two large windows in the gable plus some light from the stairs outshot.

Although we'll be enclosing the window to the left of the stairs outshot (it will be removed for access to the kitchen) I think there will still be plenty of light spilling through from the kitchen rooflights and the new external window which is quite large (4m x 1.4m).

 

[Flyfisher]

Although FF in characteristic eloquent form has had a really good stab at explaining the context and the plan, having visited I can safely say his drawing indicates a lot of the old charm of the building will be obliterated, whereas it won't be. FF, please post pics of the ( huge) sections where the kitchen extension won't be seen. The interior, also, is so special I can really understand that you wouldn't want to go smashing and pipe laying for the necessaries. Also he modestly refrains from saying that this is a seriously huge house ( 14 bedrooms if you used the roof space?) with currently a very small simple little kitchen, not what you'd expect in such a property at all.

Thanks Joce, it's difficult to explain the whole context of things without writing a book about it. Perhaps it would help if I mentioned that the kitchen extension adds less than 10% to the floor area of the house, so it's really not as imposing as it might seem from the drawings I posted. It is a large house, but it's effectively two 4-bedroom houses joined together, plus a large attic space that is divided into three areas that could be bedrooms (so only 11, not 14 ) - but only if we eventually go to the trouble and expense of installing a new floor because the existing floorboards are quite decayed and weak from years of water ingress through the roof. We can only go up there at all because we have loose sheets of MDF covering the floor that were needed for safely working on the roof repairs.

Your point about the existing small kitchen is an interesting one and illustrates how family life has evolved over the years. You're absolutely right that it is completely out of keeping with what is expected these days but I'd say that's because we no longer (sadly :wink: ) have domestic staff to do the cooking and cleaning and gardening (well, we don't anyway), so the modern kitchen has evolved to become a centre of the family home rather than something failrly minimal and tucked away for the use of the staff and where the owners would hardly ever visit.

This is one of the reasons why I'm confortable with a new and more extensive kitchen being put into a new space, rather than trying to carve up the layout and function of the original rooms. Yes, it's a modern addition, but if we didn't do such things to keep pace with modern living then these old houses would be generally regarded as uninhabitable these days. I agree it's a dilemma and involves compromise, but at least it'll be reversible if future owners wish, which is more that can be said for many of the changes the house has seen over the centuries.

 

[Flyfisher]

Thanks for all the comments. They've been generally less critical than I think I was expecting, but I probably tend to agonise too much about these things. I'll sort out some photos later.

 

[tobydog]

Waiting and living with the extension to see how you feel always makes sense. The possible limewashing of the silver / grey timbers would create that great ghostly affect similar to the Lavenham Guildhall. Now internally that would look really good and would also provide a more intriguing view through the roof lights.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's taken us about five years to get to this stage so there's little risk of us rushing into things. :lol:

 

[LadyArowana]

Congratulations on getting the LBC. Making the house function well for modern living whilst retaining the original fabric makes it more likely it will still be around in the future. Looks like a very sensible way to solve the problem, will be excited to see real pictures as and when.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Fascinating, and thanks to Joce for helping explain the context too.

FWIW (not much!) I think I approve... but am just a little concerned that the windows will jar a bit and detract from the building. But then hard to tell from these mock-ups.

Has anyone asked for some pics? :wink:

Thanks for sharing. The house sounds marvellous. In terms of scale - how does it compare to Jon Maine's

 

[Flyfisher]

I presume you mean the roof lights? We'll have to wait and see. The new windows and door will be oak with substantial mullion sections and we plan to leave them to weather to a natural silver/grey, so hopefully these won't detract from the rest of the house.

It's much less 'grand' than Jon's Merchant House and completely different in style and layout so it's difficult to compare with having actual measurements, but I'd guess it's on the smaller side of similar, if that makes sense.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I think FF's is bigger, haven't been to Jon's ( and won't now, after all the trouble on FB) but I spent a long while looking at all his pics. FF still being modest, some of the rooms are the size of nearly the whole ground floor of BC. Also, I think FF's is sitting in a good acreage (8? 10?) which as we all know would suck every second out of you if you let it, whereas Jon has a town house. FF has 2 or 3 very large ponds and a meandering river and the ponds need landscaping into one lake, and then there's a sweeping driveway and road to maintain, not to mention the extensive gardens drifting into pretty duck-filled meadows. And there's a hatchery, and other interesting outbuildings.

Mm, I think Jon's was built for a merchant so wealthy middle class, whereas FF 's would have been a proper country seat for noblemen. Taking it on is extraordinary proof of his strength of character, calm ability to get things done and general mellowness about living a) alongside parents - though his parents seem a lot easier to live alongside than is often found b) living with ceilings falling in, a roof he had to replace himself and floors that in places are challengingly wonky and decaying, as well as not much in the way of heating.

I hope you don't mind me saying all that FF but the case you're talking about really isn't like sticking a glass ( or otherwise ) box on a normal timber framed house.

 

[88v8]

The existing backage looks lovely.

I like the way you've broken the line of the extension back wall instead of running straight across. Are you hoping to find reclaim tiles to match existing?

However.... dislike the roof lights. I always dislike roof lights, they look modern and imho are always a blot on an old house. Can see the merit of making the existing backage more visible, but to me the ugliness outweighs this, so for light I would have gone for dormers.

I also fear that the new windows will look, well, new, unless they are going to be single-skin genuine lead lights in crown glass, another big blot.

As the existing backage is so attractive, would not have covered it all in extension which, inevitably, will lack waviness/wonkiness in both walls and roof, and appears to be devoid of quirks. In fact, with 14 bedrooms, would have looked to convert one/two rather than cover the back at all, although your point about not hacking the interior is well made.

Alas, I am biased, as extensions and the introduction of 'mod cons' in general, put us off buying so many houses over two years before we moved here, and made me very conscious how few period houses are still in any sort of period condition.

Easy to criticise of course, especially when I'm not living in it.

Ivor

 

[JoceAndChris]

You couldn't climb ricketty ancient G2* stairs up to a kitchen. The kitchen would have to go into reception rooms - formal rooms - with lovely period features.

 

[AMc]

I presume you mean the roof lights? We'll have to wait and see.

I'll bore on briefly about our vinery again. We couldn't save the original timber structure so we rebuilt in timber with dg. I wanted to have opening roof lights - as the structure is a glass house I knew it would get hot - that being the original idea when you're growing grapes in Norfolk - I spent a lot of time and energy trying to source powered windows that would open and close on thermostatic control and in the event of rain.
I went all around the houses, but unless you want a standard size from Velux et al then you end up at Vent Engineering in Poole. http://www.vent.co.uk/main/index.htm. They supplied all the posh conservatory makers I spoke to.
They produced a pair of bespoke frames to my exact sizes (powder coated ali) supplied the motors and control panel which my electrician fitted - all reasonably priced. Even if you have the frames made elsewhere then you may want to buy the control gear and motors from them. We have a velux in another part of the house which I should definitely have motorised when I had the chance to do it easily, but I skimped which was a mistake. No affiliation other than a happy customer.

If you're going to have those roof lights opening (and I would unless its north facing) then I would get a brochure and spend a bit of time thinking about where you'd put the control panel and thermostat (inside) and the rain sensor outside. They were also very helpful on the phone, but the South West team were better - as that's where the factory is based.

BTW I think the extension looks good. Buildings evolve and if you do good quality work with care and respect, then there's nothing wrong with that IMHO.

 

[Flyfisher]

Mm, I think Jon's was built for a merchant so wealthy middle class, whereas FF 's would have been a proper country seat for noblemen.

Yes, two very different houses. As for a 'noble' history, we're still researching the details and Mrs FF has found the owners going back to the 1700s but most of our web-based research leads us to references to the paper archives held in Norwich. However, from 1929 to 1959 is was owned by a family whose son was the private secretary to the Queen and whose grandson was private secretary to Prince Charles and later Princess Diana. At that time it was a 'proper' country estate running into hundreds of acres with tenant farmers, shooting and fishing, but we're down to just a few acres around the house now and although we border the river, we have no fishing rights from our land.

Taking it on is extraordinary proof of his strength of character, calm ability to get things done and general mellowness about living a) alongside parents - though his parents seem a lot easier to live alongside than is often found b) living with ceilings falling in, a roof he had to replace himself and floors that in places are challengingly wonky and decaying, as well as not much in the way of heating.

I'm sure that makes it sound worse than it really is, although it's a slightly scary how quickly it's possible to adapt to such conditions and not really notice - until I see visitor's faces drop as I cheerfully show them around. :lol: I'd say the key to living with parents (and in-laws in MrsFF's case) is to not actually live with them at all, if you see what I mean, which is fairly easy here. There are days when we literally don't see each other and it seems to still be working after the past 5 years or so. I should just say that their part of the house is not the building site that Joce accurately describes for our part!

 

[Flyfisher]

I like the way you've broken the line of the extension back wall instead of running straight across. Are you hoping to find reclaim tiles to match existing?

We specifically wanted to distinguish between the original stairs outshot (even though it has to be rebuilt) and the new addition so as to preserve the evolution of the house. The other step back is a nod to the 'lesser status' of the services room.

However.... dislike the roof lights. I always dislike roof lights, they look modern and imho are always a blot on an old house. Can see the merit of making the existing backage more visible, but to me the ugliness outweighs this, so for light I would have gone for dormers.

We did consider inverted dormers for the upstairs windows but didn't really like the appearance because of the disruption to the roof line - a 'catslide' roof is, after all, a common historical design whereas I believe inverted dormers are much less traditional. I take your point about rooflights looking modern, but then this is a modern extension.

I also fear that the new windows will look, well, new, unless they are going to be single-skin genuine lead lights in crown glass, another big blot.

Again, it's a new extension so I think we need to be careful to avoid creating a pastiche, quite apart from the fact that we shall have to meet the full rigours of building control for the new works. Also, the house already has so many different styles of window that it's not really a case of having to find an exact match (although for the front of the house the windows would have to be Georgian style sash windows to fit in).

As the existing backage is so attractive, would not have covered it all in extension which, inevitably, will lack waviness/wonkiness in both walls and roof, and appears to be devoid of quirks. In fact, with 14 bedrooms, would have looked to convert one/two rather than cover the back at all, although your point about not hacking the interior is well made.

11 bedrooms, 3 of which are really just attic space, but even so, an upstairs kitchen would, I think, have been entirely inappropriate. 'Hacking the interior' was becoming increasingly likely as we pursued the original idea to relocate the kitchen. Joce's description of the formality of the reception room is a good one and it became increasingly clear that while our original idea of moving the 'centre of gravity' of living to this end of the house would benefit its future, our execution was turning out to be far from ideal and was beginning to involve too many compromises. If ever there was an example of why people should live with a house for a few years before diving in and rushing all the changes through within a few months, this is certainly it. It's also a textbook example of how a knowledgeable and accessible CO can be a great asset - I'd have to check my diary to count up the number of CO visits but I'm sure it must be into double figures by now.

Alas, I am biased, as extensions and the introduction of 'mod cons' in general, put us off buying so many houses over two years before we moved here, and made me very conscious how few period houses are still in any sort of period condition.

No need for the 'alas' or for being biased, this is the challenge we all face with old houses. However, 'period condition' is an interesting phrase and I'm not sure what sort of 'period condition' the house could reasonably be judged to fall within. The original timber frame has been seriously abused by the insertion of 'inappropriate' Georgian style sash windows and the entire front facade has been transformed - albeit sometime in the 17th century, we believe. The addition of the rear chimney was particularly insensitive, blocking up at least one rear window, and the insertion of a large marble fireplace even more so. Then someone built a rubble-wall extension, which is not entirely appropriate when butted onto a timber-framed house. Nor was the later 18 century (we believe) chalk-block addition. If listing had been in place in those times I doubt the house would even exist today in its current form. Instead, it is a wonderful example of how these houses evolved over time. Hopefully, in 100 years or more, people will regard this relatively small addition as just another part of its evolution as well as an interesting example of building methods in the early 21st century. They may even be able to read this thread for an explanation! At least they'll know who is to blame. :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

I'll bore on briefly about our vinery again. . . . .

I'm glad you did. We do plan on installing opening rooflights (the rear of the house faces west) but haven't got very far with the details yet, so I shall definitely be calling the company you mentioned.

BTW I think the extension looks good. Buildings evolve and if you do good quality work with care and respect, then there's nothing wrong with that IMHO.

Thank you - that's certainly our aim.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I'm not too keen on the look of the proposed addition personally, but I'm sure it will work very well, and make your house more practical, and if it is the method of getting what you want while preserving as much of the rest of the house as possible it has to be the best solution. Definitely better than carving up the interior in my opinion.

 

[Flyfisher]

Did someone ask for photos? :wink:

Here's the rear of the house from about the same perspective as the previous drawings:



The main roof is finished but the outshot roof was not completed because the entire outshot structure needs to be rebuilt. Someone (Ivor?) asked about using reclaimed tiles for the extension, which is what we intend to do and the effect can be seen in this photo where about 20% of the tiles had to be replaced but the reclaimed ones blend in perfectly. Fortunately, reclaimed pantiles are easy to source in East Anglia.

This photo is from inside the room with the window to the left of the outshot. I have removed some of the plasterboard to see what was underneath and the answer was very little, apart from the original timbers. All of the (presumably) wattle and daub infill has been lost and I suspect this would have been when the cement render was applied, which I believe was in the 1930s.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Alas, I am biased, as extensions and the introduction of 'mod cons' in general, put us off buying so many houses over two years before we moved here, and made me very conscious how few period houses are still in any sort of period condition.

Ivor

Maybe what Ivor means is that very few houses are consistently of one period, and very few houses are unspoiled by hideous blots like dominant, inappropriate extensions, (which doesn't describe this one,in my opinion) UPVC, wrong doors, concrete roof tiles in place of slate, drives in place of gardens etc etc I must say that after visiting FF's beautiful, though challenging house I felt glad my little cottage doesn't present these hard choices. It's plainly, consistently Georgian in execution and design and if you were to put on a little extension (which I'd love to do, for a bathroom!) it would be as plain as the nose on your face that it should entirely match and mirror the protruding bay at the other side, as the dominant, pleasing characteristic of the building is symmetry. FF's is much more a rambling, ancient building that has a bit of this and bit of that, I felt you moved from century to century as you walked about - and yes his parents' side is very comfy and lovely and all done up - it's all a fascinating blend and I think this will add to the building as I said earlier. The back is lovely, yes a bit of a pity to cover it up, but you lot haven't seen the front yet!

As for the attic, if it had been bought up as a yoga retreat or a school the attic would divide up into super bedrooms, generously proportioned and so appealing with all the wonky wood, but I can see there's no need for such labours at this stage!

Just out of interest Flyfisher, why is an extension not possible to the right of the dog leg staircase? I'm having difficulty remembering the layout.

 

[Flyfisher]

This photo shows the interior of the stairwell. The piece of wood is bracing the side beam and preventing it from moving sideways and allowing the entire side wall to collapse.



This photo shows the "Fine C17 dog's leg stair with shaped board balusters". We understand that this is the main reason for the 'star' on our listing. I believe it's not so much the 'fine' workmanship as its survival, because the balusters themselves are actually fairly crude and were therefore frequently later replaced with turned balusters. So perhaps neglect has its place. :wink:

 

[Flyfisher]

The back is lovely, yes a bit of a pity to cover it up, but you lot haven't seen the front yet!

We''re definitely sympathetic to the 'bit of a pity' sentiment, but think it's far outweighed by the postitive aspects - plus, we're not covering it up from an indoor perspective. As for the front, I'll find a photo to post.

Just out of interest Flyfisher, why is an extension not possible to the right of the dog leg staircase? I'm having difficulty remembering the layout.

Funny you should mention that, but extending the outshot to the right in order to house the new services was an early consideration, but we felt it would be too out of place and would impose too much on the gable end. I suppose it might have been possible to build something beyond the whole gable wall, but that would feel like we were really enlarging the house, which it really doesn't need!

But probably the main reservation would have been having the kitchen more isolated, which would have been at odds with the concept of a new 'centre of gravity' for the house, if that makes sense. Also, if you look at the rear photo, you can just see some overgrown walling, which is part of an enclosed terrace and kitchen garden area that has been long-neglected. Part of the idea is to restore this and provide easy access from the new kitchen, because we feel the whole place is very much an 'outdoor' house (thought that could be due to the fact that the garden is currently more comfortable than indoors in many respects :lol: )