Which era to be true to?

[OLDCOLLIER]

Ah well, time for bed now children. :twisted:

 

[Nemesis]

Go on then. We grown ups will stay up and chill.

 

[OLDCOLLIER]

Oooh, nasty. A lot of years ago (you were probably sitting your Domestic Science O-Levels then) I was involved in a discussion about an outburst from a certain Yorkshire cricketer-turned-pundit and a journalist friend (a Londoner who I'd met when I worked on the renovation of his second-home country cottage), who had once interviewed him, said: "If you poke a Northerner hard enough to puncture it, be prepared to stand aside to avoid the blast of hot air that escapes." Perhaps, Greek goddess, you ought to welcome those incomers you deride so much for their four-by-fours and green wellies, because if they start to marry into the community their fresh gene pool might reverse the effects of centuries of inbreeding. Not everything is about you, mate. Grow up.

Anyway, I’m out of here for good, heading back to the big boy’s forums where people go for facts and experienced-based advice from people who earn their living doing the work.

Gone!

 

[Nemesis]

Maybe, or maybe I was doing my Master's. And working with period buildings.

But whatever, I have you marked as an arrogant self-opinionated *rse who I cannot be bothered to take remotely seriously.

If you want to rant, rant at someone else. I have better things to do. So have many others.

Here's that 'big boys' forum, no doubt others will wish to seek your pearls of wisdom there, although I would suggest that those in the know will stick with this one, as some people here do actually walk the walk.

http://www.ebuild.co.uk/forums/messages/777/3400.html?1229514716

 

[MdB]

Nemesis, that is another person you have scared off this forum unnecessarily. Having different points of view is a good thing as it gives an insight into what is important and what ideas have a consensus and which do not. For a non expert like myself this is very useful. What is not useful is getting into a slanging match.

As a result of your previous rant, I put you onto my block list. I thought you had settled down a bit so I took you off as you do have some useful things to say. I have had enough though now and you are going back onto my block list and will be staying there. Goodbye.

 

[Nemesis]

Really? I rather thought he was uneccessarily rude, sexist and patronising to me, actually. But it seems that's OK to some, I'm supposed to just take it. As indeed you have now been in your 'rant'. Possibly if you took the trouble to read back you might see I have been trying not to get this thread into being a slanging match. He may have an axe to grind about CO's, which may or may not have another side to it, we haven't the complete story, only one 'version' of it, but I don't think this thread was the place to air it. As we continually point out - the person to ask is the CO, not because they are always infallible but because they are the people to make the decisons, not members of this forum. (Athough please note an experienced CO with major expertise in mills posted in the thread.)

Clearly you hadn't the plot, and still don't have the plot. But another thread which makes those with genuine conservation expertise (as opposed to those who maybe don't...) reluctant to stick head above the parapet and post here. I'm not interested in 'shoot the CO' arguments here, and I would suggest anyone with any sense wouldn't be either. And I spend too much time in that 'real' world having to argue at a level I think you haven't a clue about conservation issues, and really can't any longer be bothered to do it here, just for the sake of it.

As for putting me on your 'blocked' list - oh for heaven's sake. Am I supposed to be worried? Don't be so daft. I advise you to settle down a bit.

(I note that a certain user's profile has vanished from that other site, which was joined very recently, by the way. Shooting 'stars' - soon burn out?)

 

[Nemesis]

Oddly, a poster called Joiner (joined Dec 20th, about when Oldcollier's details vanished...) has posted this now on that 'big boys' site:

Posted on Tuesday, 23 December, 2008 - 09:03 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any unwary person approaching the forum on the periodproperty site should enter it with caution. There are some serious nutters there who are totally up their own arses. Stick with this forum for good, solid, PRACTICAL advice and guidance. And for god's sake don't even THINK about going onto that other place to ask where you can get reclaimed materials from. However, if you really want a good laugh post a thread that asks for the location of your nearest architectural salvage yard.

Well, I've read some of the stuff on that other site and all I can say is - approach with caution. Some serious nutters out there folks :lol:

And as for good advice, don't try waterproofing with lime and turps. That's my tip of the day.

Big boys? Not really.

 

[Lime]

Well, if you wanted to kill off a forum you're going the right way about it.

Anyone can be rude but it does not have to be reciprocated.

 

[Nemesis]

No, but it can be laughed at... which a number of us have done today about it. I thought it deserved a wider audience though - must be my (and a few others) sense of the ridiculous. Anyhow - if a post appears asking about reclamation yards - forewarned is forearmed.

(Is this Oldcollier/Joiner related to Phil the Joiner of old?)

The 'killing off ' is a far, far more complex issue.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Here we go again :roll:

Indeed. :roll: A shame, since Collier IMHO made some informed comments, and if he has worked for forty years on old buildings that must make him one of the most experienced people to have visited this forum. What makes it worse is that there didn't seem to be much of a difference in opinions, summed up in the first sentence below.
"It's that very subjectivity that is the root of so many complaints against COs and the legislation that gives them so much power. For the record, I am personal friends with both my COs, having established a working relationship based on mutual respect,"
Some of the problems described by Collier can be laid at the door of the council who appointed someone without either checking that they were suitably qualified, or offering the training which would have made their job easier. I have heard rumours of a council who just appoint someone in the Building Control dept to be CO, which doesn't seem fair on the person involved, or on those CO's who have put a lot of time and effort into learning their trade.
Sometimes, more open policy statements and guidelines would help, again a thing the council could improve. I've discussed our house with a lot of people over the last couple of years, and haven't yet met someone who had an accurate idea of what role the CO plays. There are comments like 'are you allowed to hang pictures?', 'I bet they won't let you put heating in', 'What problems have you had with the CO?', 'Just do what you want, they'll never notice'. All completely ridiculous, since our CO has been absolutely brilliant, giving free advice, dating the historic materials and techniques and helping with a grant application.
I work in teaching. When people complain about a teacher I know that there are two sides to every story, and that sometimes problems are caused by a lack of communication. There are some poor teachers out there though, and we all make mistakes, so when one is being criticised I don't take it as a complaint against the entire profession. Sometimes I even make a mental note not to make a similar mistake myself.

 

[Nemesis]

Really Dave Brigg? I have 'worked' on and with buildings for longer, in various ways - and length of working doesn't always mean that everything you do or say is right. I note on another site he is giving some very odd advice indeed. He may be a good joiner, he may be not.

I've also got friends who have worked in various forms of conservation at a very high level for many, many years to whom I used to turn to to give advice, and pass on here, although these days I tend not to bother so much.

And as far as the rest - really, so you believe everything you read is correct? I could put a great deal in perspective, but honestly - is it worth the effort? As one former and very expert poster said to me recently - I have deleted the site from my links, and won't bother again.

Yes of course there are problems with local authorities - it's not news to anyone with the remotest idea of conservation, they don't actually have to employ any CO at all, and many of them don't. The role of CO is a relatively new one and qualifications are something which are evolving. There is no one 'Conservation Officer' qualification. There are many different backgrounds. However, this sort of 'knock the CO' post and, indeed, other aspects of conservation means that this site has lost a great deal of expertise and goodwill and I can't see it picking it up again in a hurry. There are also many problems with people who don't care about the buildings, or don't understand many aspects of conservation. I am sure many CO's have horror stories to tell too.

Some of us PM people to give advice at times, far easier than running the gauntlet here.

Do stop treating us like year 7 Dave. Some of are a long way past that. We are rather more sophisticated and experienced than you could possibly imagine.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmcumeds/821/82106.htm

Local authority skills and training

22. Our inquiry in 2006 into protecting and preserving heritage found that over 90% of the task of managing and improving the UK's built and archaeological heritage is borne by local authorities.[42] Most local authorities employ one or more conservation officers with specific responsibility for this task. However, our earlier inquiry found that not all local authorities do so, nor are all authorities able to draw upon specialist heritage skills. Indeed, there is a wide discrepancy between local authorities with large heritage teams such as Westminster and those with little or no core provision. The CLBA told us that "even where there are skilled and experienced conservation staff, they are usually overworked, often demotivated because conservation has low status in most local planning authorities, and do not have the time needed to get properly involved in every case".[43]

23. The CLBA also argues that "there are few things more valuable to heritage (or its owners) than a really good conservation officer".[44] They typically have responsibility for the day-to-day management of listed buildings, conservation areas, historic parks and gardens and other heritage assets within the local authority area. This leads the National Trust to conclude that the role of conservation officers in local authorities is "crucial to the success" of the new legislation.[45]

24. The Bill would lead to new measures to train existing conservation officers in local authorities, a move welcomed by the sector. The Impact Assessment states that "English Heritage is in the process of planning its programme of training, support and capacity building for local authorities".[46] However, the evidence from this inquiry, and our earlier heritage inquiry, indicates that there are grave concerns that there will not be sufficient conservation officers in place to implement the reforms that the Bill will introduce. Asked to comment on the provision for training made within the Bill, Mike Brown, a Trustee of IHBC, responded: "I think the question is: are the conservation officers there in the first place to train?"[47] The LGA reports that the recruitment and retention of conservation officers is a persistent problem.[48] John Preston, Historic Environment Manager for Cambridge City Council and Education Secretary for IHBC, goes as far as to say the current shortage has reached "near crisis proportions".[49]

25. Due to a skewed age profile, the LGA and IHBC expect a large number of conservation officers to retire in the next five years.[50] 55.4% of conservation officers affiliated with the IHBC are aged 50 and over, while 79.1% are aged 40 and over.[51] Meanwhile, the stream of new officers is drying up: undergraduate courses on architectural/building conservation at the Universities of Derby, Huddersfield, Northumbria, Glamorgan and Preston have all recently been discontinued. The IHBC reports that "there are no longer any degree level courses in conservation left in the country".[52]

26. Despite this evidence, and the fact that the IHBC's data came in part from research commissioned by English Heritage, DCMS and English Heritage denied that a problem exists. The Minister said that "it is not a bad age profile[…]it looks as if we will be alright for 20 years on the age profile we have got".[53] The Chief Executive of English Heritage insisted that "it does not look as if there is going to be a great exodus in the next few years".[54]

27. We find the comments by DCMS and English Heritage that there is unlikely to be a shortage of conservation officers in local government in future years astonishing. There is already a shortage of conservation officers in the country and, aside from English Heritage, the sector appears united in its recognition that there will be not be the staff with the necessary skills to replace existing conservation officers once they retire. The statistics provided by the IHBC would seem to support this finding. We urge the Government and English Heritage to reconsider their approach to this matter. Conservation officers, in sufficient numbers and with adequate training, will be critical to the successful implementation of the Bill. We recommend that the Government sets out a strategy for maintaining sufficient numbers of conservation officers with the necessary skills.

28. Proponents of the reforms, particularly English Heritage, have emphasised the need to treat the historic environment holistically.[55] Training needs will therefore extend well beyond the legislative reforms themselves, and beyond merely the specialists in the sector. In addition to training conservation officers, it will be necessary to train councillors, planning officers, administrators and other specialist professionals who have a role to play in the implementation of the legislation. It is unclear from the Impact Assessment whether allowance has been made for training of these non-specialists or whether the costs identified in the impact assessment extend only to the heritage protection reforms, rather than the identified needs of the full range of heritage services. We recommend that the Impact Assessment is revised to provide greater clarity on who will receive training, and by whom, as part of the reforms to be introduced by the Bill.

Thw Bill has been dumped.

The issue was raised in 2006:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmcumeds/912/6021402.htm

Commons Select Committees - always interesting.

 

[Pford75]

Trouble is...when it happens once, it can be deemed unfortunate, twice seems careless, multiple times seems like an issue with one individual.

Or maybe the rest of the world is mad :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

Halfway through this thread, I sent an e-mail to Rob and suggested he locked it. He didn't. I could see the way it was going, and it did. But naturally you had to have your two pennyworth, instead of having the wit to keep quiet. Maybe you are part of the problem with this site, and not the solution? :wink: But no, that couldn't be the case, could it? Now, line up the usual suspects... a bit more backstabbing to be done, surely? Then you can go and feel smug, well, safety in numbers, hey?

Beka - if you are still reading this, you've had some nuggets of good advice if you sift through the dross. Whether you take the good advice or not is up to you. What you can and you can't do with your house is really not a lot to do with anyone who posts here, unless SPAB Mills or the VIc Soc (those 'civilians' referred to earlier) get involved, as consultees, as may the Town Council, and of course as part of the planning process there may be public consultation, and there are processes you will have to go through to seek consent. It may or may not have to go before the planning committee. You may or may not like that, but it's national policy that these things happen. Whatever you may have been told about your CO, remember that you have not the full story, and he no doubt has his own tales he could tell about those who are happy to bad mouth him. Maybe he has more skills and knowledge and an overview than they give him credit for.

This part of a CO report on an application in what I think is your area:

Design and Conservation Officer - This listed former house of c1870 with c1930 and later alterations has long been a shop and a distinctive feature of the north side of xxxxx There have been a number of tentative proposals for the premises and site as a whole since the relocation of xxxx but the present scheme, which retains the commercial ground floor frontage, is probably the most satisfactory in retaining both the fundamental external character and the spatial arrangements of the historic building. Beyond the frontage building, the existing outbuildings are a mixture of the interestingly and attractively detailed traditional and some rather horrible basic working buildings. Like the proposed frontage treatment, that proposed for the primary rear buildings makes the most of the remaining historic features with generally satisfactory alterations/additions. Subject to the usual requirements for appropriate and satisfactory detailing, the alterations to the listed building are generally acceptable with nothing of really great significance being lost, though there is a marginal re-organisation in the stairway which will slightly distort the historic spatial arrangements. I cannot see any visual reason for refusing the remaining proposals which should enhance the conservation area where they are at all viewable from out of site locations.

That's part of a longer report; doesn't sound too loony to me; there is a planning case officer who wrote the rest, taking into account a number of other policies and representations, not all of which have to do with the fact it's a listed building. The detailing is something which is important, and which will need discussions. That's where a good architect can be useful too.

I also think your building is in the Conservation Area, and that brings additional controls to external works.

My view, fwiw:

It's not a mill, it hasn't been a mill for a very long time, it's been a worker's cottage, and only a portion of the former mill. As Gareth and I have suggested - the 'character' is really that of a 19th century cottage, not an open floored textile mill, and that is probably what is worth preserving. What is and isn't worth keeping from the past will have to be discussed with the CO, and you will have to justify the changes you wish to make. If you want bare walls, it wasn't likely that it ever had them, even in its textile mill days. Plaster gives some insulation, and you might be disappointed with the stone anyhow - probably very random rubble, rather dusty and in need of a serious amount of pointing. Moving a kitchen may not be easy, consider how you will get water in and out, without spoiling the exterior of the row. I would also suggest that some of the 'blocking up' is an important part of the history of the building, and reversal isn't always a good thing. Removal of chimneys isn't something to be entered into lightly, as that also is part of the history of the alterations, and it's not an easy job to remove large amounts of masonry and prop up the external stack, and your neighbours may well not be happy - party wall act and all that. They could be considered 'historic fabric' in their own right now anyhow. Your local authority may also have some policies for how it wants the character of the area preserved, and large glass extensions might not be considered suitable either. You'll need a good architect, and one who has conservation expertise.

When it was a mill, it wouldn't have had a kitchen, a bathroom, heating beyond possibly an open fire at each end in winter, it would have been noisy, dirty and dangerous, with little or no sanitation; there may have been an outside midden, or one just off the workrooms for women, but there was no requirement in law to provide any facilities at all. I'd certainly keep it simple, it was never a grand mansion. Insertion of modern amenities takes care and thought, and as little disruption to the building as possible.

As for double glazing - you may be allowed to have it, you may not. Depends on many factors, but look carefully at the existing windows - they may have lovely old glass, and draughtproofing or secondary glazing may the answer.

 

[Nemesis]

Joiner (formerly Old Collier) Posted on Monday, 22 December, 2008 - 04:19 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could I ask Pandora's Box to post this thread on the Period Property site because there are a few real nutters on there I'd like to see have a painful end with a really nasty heart attack!

(He's in Ludlow I believe.)


http://www.ebuild.co.uk/forums/messages/3413/17577.html?1230124575

Full of period charm, eh?

 

[ljn]

Pandora's Box could try getting Mc Dowel involved: http://www.mcdowasc.com/site/gem.html
The question then would be "which county to be true to".

 

[beka]

OK, well I'd like to thank the people who have tried to give advice and support. Its very intimidating to come on board a new forum and feel that you can't ask simple questions because all the old lags have gone past 'conservation 101'. (great way to encourage newbies btw)

I'd really really like to ask those who think they've identified the building to stop making even more pointed allusions to its location - yes I MAY have given away clues inadvertantly but as I specifally didn't state the location (even the county in question) I think it was pretty obviuos I DIDN'T want strangers to know where I was living. OK I may have erred by giving away clues but please - dont' put me and my toddler at risk by publically giving MORE clues to a property that is about to be unnoccupied for long periods of time and which may have building materials/tools on site.

I'd like to respond in more detail to the other points people have raised however I'm sorry to say I no longer feel at all secure posting on here if my questions are met with responses such as this. I will be asking the site moderator to remove the thread due to the issues of personal privacy/security.