Which era to be true to?

[Penners]

It's only virtual ink, Middi. No harmful chemicals were used in its manufacture. :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

Yes - like the wind, we are just passing. :wink:

A fine illustration of the importance of English punctuation. Some folk do not pay attention to the comma.

 

[Pford75]

I agree with everyone who advises that you should speak with the CO and they really have the only say on the matter....but in the interests of the discussion...........

1. I think the wide variation by CO's in interpretation is interesting (not bad...not good...just interesting). Some CO's would have a guiding principle of keeping all of the historical developments in a property, some would prefer to see low quality additions removed and others would go entirely on a case by case basis). So the answer to the OP's question could be determined by postcode lottery and the perception of one person (the CO).

2. I have some sympathy with the issue of insensitive alterations. Our house was built in 1780 and (I think) is a good example of what many would regard as a classical Georgian country house. The previous owners however (whose family built the original house) obviously came into some money in the 1920's/1930's and there was a degree of 'modernisation' at that time. Much of it was clearly not done with the skill and artistry or design thought of the original builders....meaning that some of the additions are ugly or simply impractical (eg. brick porch which cuts across a typical Georgian fanlight on the front of the house...looks as though it was built in lego :evil: ) We haven't yet reached the stage of considering these items or discussing them with our CO...but it does seem rather strange that these 'bodges' are now protected by the listing...when clearly anything of a similar nature would simply not be allowed now. But I can see that the 'history' of a house is richer because of these changes/alterations....I guess it's a question on whether you are more interested in the 'historical' aspect or the 'architectural'.

3. Finally, there are some vagaries of the listing system....eg. properties being listed with plastic guttering in place, which then assumes the same level of protection as the georgian cornice or the victorian grate. Most CO's would allow the replacement of plastic guttering (I think), yet playing devils advocate.....why is this 'historical addition' any less relevant or valuable than the others......?


I don't agree with 'ripping out' or stripping everything back.....but I do think there is an interesting issue at the heart of this debate....what is more important, historical integrity or architectural integrity. I think there is room for both.

 

[ljn]

Id's second that, Pford75 ! I was feeling a bit on my own on this one
The 'historical' aspect Vs the 'architectural' can be conflicting interests as can the appreciation of a state of decay Vs the perfectly restored/maintained is somehow connected.

 

[middi]

Pford75 observations and comments highlights the difficulty and the rather high degree of skill required from CO's to interpret what is or what is not worthy of conservation from an historical or architectural point of view.

If historical buildings had NEVER been tempered with there would be no need for them to make decisions. Interpreting guidelines on restoration should be the perfect ground for friendly constructive discussions between interested parties in order to reach an acceptable solution. The unfortunate CO's ultimately are the one left holding "the baby". Like anything else in life there is good and bad "babysitters".

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Just to remind you all, the law requires that consent be granted for works which affect the character of a listed building "as a building of architectural or historic importance"
The interpretation of "importance" may, to some degree, be subjective, but the view that all previous changes are of equal value (or that they are all equaly protected by listing) is not, in fact, supported by the law.
Equally however, it is not the case that you should be able automatically to change something just because you, personally, don't happen to like it, or because a straw poll of typical members of the public would find that 99% of them don't like it either.

 

[Gervase]

Good points - and remember that the CO is open to argument, so the better you marshall your thoughts and reasons, the more likely you are to have him/her listen sympathetically to your plans.
I speak as someone who has just taken up a post as conservation officer (not full time, because the local authority is too skint!); if someone is prepared to argue cogently why they want to follow a particular course, I'm prepared to listen. I think it is wrong to be absolutely dogmatic when it comes to individual issues, as each building is different.
Certainly features like late 19th century stud walls intercepting windows, though 'quaint', wouldn't figure highly on my 'mustn't touch' list! But, as Middi says, it's a difficult call, and in the end it's down to the CO to make the right decision - based on all the information. Thus the more research you can provide on the building the better.
It has to be said that ultimately, however, it's the building that comes first, notwithstanding the owner's grand plans.

 

[Nemesis]

Certainly features like late 19th century stud walls intercepting windows, though 'quaint'

Historic precedent of course, many a mansion built with exterior not matching up with interior, in order that the exterior could have regular fenestration.

 

[Penners]

I speak as someone who has just taken up a post as conservation officer.

Oh, well done, Gervase. The local authority may not have much money, but clearly they've got good sense.

 

[shelli]

Good points - and remember that the CO is open to argument, so the better you marshall your thoughts and reasons, the more likely you are to have him/her listen sympathetically to your plans.

I think that's what Beka is doing - thought marshalling in advance of inevitable discussion with CO. - it is daunting task taking on a renov/restoration and worth talking to others who have done the same - dont deride her for wanting discussion and Beka - starting with a list of "ideally I would like to live in a house with ..." and then working backwards sounds okay to me.

NB Well done taking up the gauntlet there Gervase - perhaps before too long you will be able to answer the ever present question Why is there this fear of CO's ? - do let us know if you notice any horns, scales or similar starting to grow, wont you?

 

[Nemesis]

I think that Beka may have bought the (listed) house, looking back at previous threads, with a view of what she wanted to do, rather than what may be best for the house.

In that case, it's often better to leave it for someone else who might love it, perceived warts and all.

http://www.spab.org.uk/html/publications/look-before-you-leap/

 

[biffvernon]

I speak as someone who has just taken up a post as conservation officer.

Oh dear, gone the image of the lone lime pointer inching across a gable, or the smearer of cow muck up a chimney. He's got a suit and an office now.

 

[Penners]

Why is there this fear of CO's ?

I'm sure this isn't true of PPUK regulars, but I suspect that the only people who fear CO's are those who have inappropriate plans for their listed buildings.

 

[Penners]

I speak as someone who has just taken up a post as conservation officer.

Oh dear, gone the image of the lone lime pointer inching across a gable, or the smearer of cow muck up a chimney. He's got a suit and an office now.

But I bet there'll still be a bucket of lime putty maturing in the corner.

 

[Gervase]

Oh dear, gone the image of the lone lime pointer inching across a gable, or the smearer of cow muck up a chimney. He's got a suit and an office now.

Only for two days a week. The rest of the week I'll still be freezing my nadgers off on some windswept pile. It'll be interesting to see things from the other point of view, however. The downside is that it will involve a fair bit of mileage, as ethically I couldn't be a CO on my home turf where I also tender for work. I've had to agree to a form of self-denying ordinance as it is, because in the past I've done some work on the patch I'll be looking after.
The nice thing about the job is that it comes alongside a wheelbarrow full of EU grant aid for projects (and responsibility for the allocation of same), so two particular conservation areas are going to benefit hugely.

 

[Nemesis]

As long as you don't have to get involved in appeals and call-ins about decisions you made... and residents demanding uPVC as it's green, etc etc...

Yiu might rapidly decide that a lone ladder and a bucket of lime on some windswept hillside is preferable to trying to get the unconverted on board!

 

[Gervase]

Believe me, I have few illusions, and know that it won't be entirely a bed of roses.
Well, there will be a fair few pr!cks around...

 

[Nemesis]

Yes you couldn't be worse than this one: :wink:

Speaking at the planning committee meeting last night (Wednesday), Ray Rogers, urban design and conservation manager for Hackney, expressed his support for the scheme saying it followed in the square’s tradition for eclectic architecture.


“This is probably the one place in Shoreditch where you can do a building of this type. Overall we think that there’s an opportunity here to make a valuable contribution to Hoxton Square,” he said.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3129205

How I hope he has to justify that at an inquiry.

 

[Penners]

The nice thing about the job is that it comes alongside a wheelbarrow full of EU grant aid

An interesting choice of currency unit - obviously carefully selected to indicate less than a lorryload but more than a thimblefull.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It'll be interesting to see things from the other point of view, however. The downside is that it will involve a fair bit of mileage, as ethically I couldn't be a CO on my home turf where I also tender for work. I've had to agree to a form of self-denying ordinance as it is, because in the past I've done some work on the patch I'll be looking after.

Funny, that doesn't seem to apply to some CO's in areas I'm familiar with - they even get advertised on their employer's websites. (No, I'm just bitter because the same restriction that applies to you also applies to me, but it's funny how different local authorities apply very differnet standards).