Restoration or Glory?

[Anonymous]

Lime and oak got a good look in tonight. Did you notice the 'wrong' paint came out of a Farrow and Ball tin (with the label turned away from camera)?

Hands up who's got a downlighter in their house?

 

[Anonymous]

Only one - in the bathroom! And eventually it will go. Lighting is difficult, but I agreed they didn't look too sympathetic in that house. The Farrows isn't vinyl, although as all colours are available in distemper I couldn't understand the colours argument.

Strange programme - spent too much time wittering about decorative taste really. Much of what was done, given that there was nothing there left of much merit, was fine.

At least they did mention about retaining historic fabric, although then showed a great deal of stuff being junked without really expanding on the finer points of that.

The 'throwing a party so we must have it done' part is becoming a bit of a cliche...

I wonder what they heated the place with? I don't recall being shown that apart from log fires.

 

[Anonymous]

That's the trouble with TV. It is all amazingly dumbed down. You only realise this when you see a programme about a subject that you happen to know something about. Still, they did get a few good points over.

Such a shame they had to bake their own lobster pie.

 

[Anonymous]

I know. Such sacrifice. One's heart went out to them.

More baked beans, anyone?

 

[Anonymous]

I have many downlighters in my house: in my modern extension and in my basement - a space which originally would have been used by servants which we remodelled into a modern kitchen dining room. This room had already lost its original lime plaster celings and many other features. I did preserve carefully those few original features which had survived, apart from a bit of wall dividing the two rooms which I knocked into one.

However I removed some downlighters which a previous owner had installed in the hall and landing as these were very out of keeping.

The downside of the basement downlighters is the amount of light which, despite their name, they project upwards. If the downlighters are on in the basement corridor you can see light coming up between the boards in the hall, which doesn't look right,even though the downlighters have had the proper fireproof bags attached to the back. Where I have been able to get access (in my main ground floor rooms for example) I have done some work to block the upward projection of light by fixing a piece of hardboard between the joists just below the floorboards.

 

[Anonymous]

Biff, I know this isn't really the context in which you meant
"That's the trouble with TV. It is all amazingly dumbed down.",
but on Monday we went up to Rochdale to visit the in-laws and as usual the TV was switched on not long after we had arrived (I find that so rude!).

Not having a TV at home I find that I can't keep my attention from being pulled to it. A show came on which was called 'The Paul O'Grady Show' (I think that's what it was called anyway). I was amazed at the complete and utter#####that this programme considered entertaining.

If that is the level of mainstream viewing these days we have no hope of educating owners of period buildings to take the time and care needed to restore them properly. Everything has to be in bite sized chunks or they will loose interest.

I couldn't wait to get out of the flat and on route home to the peace and quite of a good book.

Sue

 

[Anonymous]

I inherited downlights in my kitchen, the ceiling is much lower in there as they fitted a false ceilling to contain these horrible lights! After Christmas I am going to have great delight in taking them and the ceiling down - I live in a cottage with ceilings downstairs and this adds to the problem!!!

Am I the only one who thought the original hall with characterful latch door and stair case (which was supposed to be 1930s but looked more lie a nice Victorian one to me) was better before? The grandiose oak staircase just looked so 2005 and out of keeping with this hall.

 

[Anonymous]

Feel need to confess that we have downlighters in our bathroom. Also that we have said bathroom and use it! These experts are very unrealistic to expect complete historic accuracy in every aspect of an old house. Am I expected to remove all the internal walls from our four bedrooms and live in our hall house as originally intended, one upper room, no chimney, open ceiling to roof etc? But it was good to see more careful use of lime and real care for the structure this week. Apart from the staircase which seemed too hefty, I thought it looked lovely so far!

 

[Anonymous]

Couldn't agree more with most of your sentiments. It's nice (and encouraging) to see a project done with sympathy and style for a change. The staircase may have been a bit big - but what a statement! Our house was given a complete new facade in 1712 and no doubt some people then thought it was wrong to modernise. It also got mains sewerage, electricity, water and oil over the years - and frankly I like living with these modernisations - even the downlighters which seem to me the best way to light most kitchens.

 

[Anonymous]

I liked the cannon ball holes/dents!
Must have been a huge place....
Why didn't they pump the water from the troth?
Wonder if they got the go ahead for that tower?

 

[Anonymous]

Much check and see what Grade it's listed at. I have no doubt permission for the tower will come, but it's not something you can rush really - needs to be done properly.


http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk

 

[Anonymous]

It looked like it was about to collapes
When they said they have a budget of £200,000
I thought na..no way... you can double that.....
Bl**dy great place like that and all the oak stone etc
I can't remember how much the stonemason charged for the window?

 

[Anonymous]

It's grade II* though the description from 1951 is, as we saw on the programme, substantially wrong. I may be mistaken but was the tower not included under the 'Ancient Monument' category along with the ruin, though this is a bit academic as the farmhouse is more ancient than the Old Hall.

What does the 'Ancient Monument' status mean?

From Images of England:
SJ 86 SE Biddulph Old Hall 3/1 13.4.51 II* Farmhouse attached to ruins of Biddulph Old Hall (A.M.). Late C17, but incorporating parts of Hall of 1580's; C18 and late C19 additions and alterations. Coursed and dressed sandstone; stone slate roof; verge parapets and massive side stacks. House forms roughly an 'L' plan, backed up against the Old Hall to the south. Entrance front: irregular composition with screen walls and octagonal and domed tower of Old Hall incorporated into roof to left, with 3-storey link block. Two storeys and attic, approximately 30m long, broken in centre by massive projecting stone stack, pitched reductions to right, capped by brick shafts and with further stone stack adjacent to right; range of 2-light windows to right; cyma recta reveals and chamfered mullions; 3 windows to left of stacks; similar with 3 lights: one to ground floor and 2 to first; the left-hand set in slight break with pilaster mullions, probably re-used. Further 3-light window above set in link block. Mid-C19 single-storey lean-to porch set between stacks and left-hand break; round-arched entry, corbelled imposts with flanking carved memorial devices; boarded door. Projecting C19 gabled wing of one bay to extreme left and in line with A.M. frontage: incorporating much re-used material. Garden front: to west. Blind gabled projecting 3-storey C18 bay to left and A.M. to right flanking rear of C17 house with labelled 4-light (round section) mullion and transom hall window packed into angle to left; king mullion to left suggests this was formerly of 6 lights; mullioned windows to first floor of 3 and 2 lights. North front: C17 gable to left with a range of three 3-light mullioned windows; C18 wing flush to right with a range of 3-light casements and entrance to left. Biddulph Old Hall was actually brought down by 'Roaring Meg', the Parliamentarian's cannon, in 1643, ending a seige of attrition, where Brereton faced Brereton in command on both sides. The farmhouse of a single range and simple link was built on to these ruins some time later by the newly impoverished Biddulph family, who added the modest later wings to both sides. Entrance axes have vacillated from the grand avenue of the 1580's to the south, C17 to the east, C18 to the north and C19 from the east again.

 

[Anonymous]

Scheduled Ancient Monument - it's one very few appear to be clear about! If you have a ferret around on the IoE site it will explain a little more. Really I think it's a method devised to protect things of worth but which don't always meet the listing criteria!

The Heritage Review which is still under discussion would put all these various categories together and make one list for the country, with a unified consent regime. I do need the read the pile of gov documents about it all however, when I get time to get my head around it all.

You are right - I forgot about the SAM status, which would probably mean another layer of application, consultation and complexity for any proposed works. These things can't be rushed!

 

[Anonymous]

The Scheduled Ancient Monument legislation is actually the heritage senior service, and is generally more exacting than listed building consent - for instance, you need scheduled monument consent from DCMS (advised by EH) for like-for-like repairs to a scheduled Ancient Monument, which normally wouldn't need listed building consent on a Listed Building. Anyone asleep yet?.... But all this will change c2010 - look out for the Heritage White Paper early next year.

So what's wrong with downlighters? They disrupt the integrity of the building, make it look a lie. Best to keep lighting as furnishing, I reckon - it's so short life compared with the building, and so other. We are new creatures in old shells....

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I can't wait for the White Paper - zzzz - there's the Commons Select Committee to think about first though.

I'm making lists in the middle of the night...

 

[Anonymous]

I think the tower issue showed the system in poor light myself. The tower was obviously at extreme risk and something should have been done quickly to enable it to be made safe.

I know of several projects where people have ended up, after months and months of deliberation and endless reports and surveys, throwing their hands in the air and saying 'sod it, let the bloody building fall down of that's what they want'. And on a couple of occasions that's exactly what happened.

 

[Anonymous]

It's a difficult line to tread I agree, and some of the problem is of course lack of time and resources on behalf of those who have to be consulted. Also, surveying and deciding on the best course of action for a long term future is something really which shouldn't be rushed. I consider some of the things even EH has done in the past to buildings which are now proving to be not good and further damage is happening.

The tower was at least scaffolded and hopefully made safe temporarily.

 

[Anonymous]

The tower business showed the big problem with the Scheduled Ancient Monument legislation. As originally invented in 1882, it was a way of protecting things that (more or less) would look after themselves if not deliberately disturbed - Stonehenge was the first SAM and generally it's applied to below-ground archaeological sites where the proper policy is to leave well alone.

The problem is that when protection of historic standing buildings became a cause celebre, Scheduling was the only mechanism available (at the time) to legally protect a building, and so a system that was born of archaeological and antiquarian concerns, rather than architectural and structural engineering ones, was pressed into service for a function it didn't originally have and was far from tailor-made to suit.

Hence, for example, the scheduling of the ruined parts (including the tower) of Biddulph Old Hall. Scheduled Monument consent is still dealt with by archaeologists at EH rather than their architctural staff, with the result that the archaeological system of non-intervention (fine if it's all below ground) has been applied to standing remains which need regular maintenance.

Scheduling takes precedence over listing, so the archaeologists get first dibs at buildings that have both types of protection.

A friend of mine owned a listed and scheduled 1750s postmill. EH's archaeologists gave him hell over necessary replacement of timber, and couldn't grasp the concept of "repair" (or even maintenance) being something you do to stop a building falling over.

Oh, and scheduling has no mechanism for enforcing maintenance, so an owner can leave a SAM to rot in a way that would (should) be unthinkable for a listed building.

And there is a great reluctance to sort the problem out (by de-scheduling and giving buildings over to the listing system instead), while the wholesale scheduling of great swathes of land in the middle of some historic cities (Lincoln being a prime example) following 1960s slum clearances, on little more than the off-chance that there might be something of archaeological interest there, (in the case of Lincoln there isn't, almost everything had been destroyed by the cellars of the 19th century houses which were slum cleared) has been a great obstacle to sensible development, because despite the lack of any archaeology, EH don't like to admit they were wrong.

 

[Anonymous]

I think legialation such as SAM status has its place to protect those things which can't be listed under the current regime - listing becomes more bizarre and difficult by the year, and the proposed changes are not going to make it any better. Ruins, no matter how valuable to the nation's heritage, are really not very listable...

EH and changing minds - too right. No matter how much you point out the flaws in past decisions, no matter how many eminent architectural historians say they wuz wrong, they dig in heels (and hopefully shoot themselves in the foot for the long term...) and refuse to budge.

Makes em look very flaky...