Would someone like to rescue this house?

[Pford75]

I too know very little about the houses in question, but I think the point is that if someone who lives opposite the house and has a keen interest in saving it doesn't have up to date information, then the bodies involved have surely failed. I would have expected them to want to involve the local community, help them understand the challenges and seek their support. But too often (and in one situation I have personal experience of), these groups allow themselves to become aloof or create the impression of 'superiority' to the peasants (those of us in the local community). I applaud the hard work (and as Nemesis points out correctly, the funds they donate)...but it doesn't make them unaccountable. If it had been a private developer I am sure many on this board would have been quick to criticise.

Oh...and....

Re: Would someone like to rescue this house?
by bea2 on Thu 10th Jul, 2008 4:19 pm

Do you normally speak to people like your last post who have a differing point of view or who may question something?

Yes...most definately

 

[plumbers mate]

Bids put in after March 08 are going to find it harder to attract money - those put in last year were more likely to be approved.
Money is tight now. Even from what used to be seen as the bottomless pit of HLF.

 

[Nemesis]

PFord75 - That's one of the most depressing, distressing and arrogant posts I have ever read. And as for the person who lives opposite - this is becoming a regular whine, but I wonder from whom she has her information?

If the local community wishes to get involved after all this time, then yes of course that would be welcome. Vast amount of hard work, disappointments, heartache, and having mud slung by the ignorant comes along with it, of course. Also of course, at times some things have to remain confidential, but I suppose that hasn't occurred to you either. At times, situations are sensitive.

Sadly, the 'local' support seems to evaporate when there's the harsh reality to face.

No you don't have any idea, none at all. But keen enough to join in I note.

But hey, if you want to put some money where yer gob is... then do send me a PM... I can pass it on...

Frankly, after accusing some of us here of sending you racist e-mails etc, without any proof at all, I can't think you have any fingers to point.

Your arrogance, ignorance of so much and plain rudeness is breathtaking. I find you offensive, and I think now it is deliberate.

 

[Nemesis]

Money is tight now. Even from what used to be seen as the bottomless pit of HLF.

It is - and it's not available at all for many projects. There seems to a a great deal of ignorance altogether about funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund, what it's given for.

Additionally, getting together match funding can be a nghtmare, especially as some potential funders can't hold funds over from one year to another.

Have a look at that list I posted of those turned down in the last round - hugely worthy causes, so much hard work over many, many years, and eventual heartache.

You might recall this one from Restoration:

http://www.newbridgememo.com/index.asp

and indeed this:

http://www.victoriabaths.org.uk/

 

[skier-hughes]

but I wonder from whom she has her information?

This is Pford's point if you read the post

but I think the point is that if someone who lives opposite the house and has a keen interest in saving it doesn't have up to date information, then the bodies involved have surely failed.[/b] I would have expected them to want to involve the local community, help them understand the challenges and seek their support.

Graham

 

[Nemesis]

But possibly some people are making mischief? Not considered that? Maybe mine was wry comment?

I have told her who to call. It hasn't altered from last time. I additionally point out that at times some information is sensitive and confidential. Those involved in this are people of the highest integrity, doing all they can to save, and give a future to, a building which all think is important. They additionally have quite a track record in this.


Maybe the bodies involved know far more than PFord75 does, and maybe they are constrained by the best interests of the building from splashing things all over the internet, too. Accountabilty? Yes, that can mean a number of things.

Anyone with a keen interest in a massive fundraising effort, and doing a whole load of voluntary work, over a number of years, to further the future of the building - then I can put them in touch with those who own the building, in trust.

 

[Lime]

My advice to any poster who doesn't wish to be attacked is to use the forums friend/foe system.

Since I did use the system, visits to this forum have now become always a pleasure.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, it depends doesn't it on what you describe as an 'attack'. It seems to me that can simply make for more 'hit and run' postings. Can't see the usefulness.

But maybe some people simply enjoy stirring things, without any idea of any of the details of which they stir. :?

Anyhow, it must make reading threads a little peculiar and one sided.

Here's a report from Today's 'Scotland on Sunday':

Rescue plan to halt Kinloch Castle decline

Published Date: 20 July 2008
By Jeremy Watson
THE historic holiday home of a rich playboy industrialist who owned a Scottish island may be saved for the nation by an ambitious rescue plan.

Scottish Natural Heritage, which inherited Edwardian fantasy house Kinloch Castle when it took over Rum, has been accused of letting the 108-year-old building deteriorate.

It is now proposing to sell off surplus property assets to fund an emergency rescue, although the plan has to be approved by the Scottish Government.

The agency hopes to raise up to £2m with a newly set-up Kinloch Castle Trust raising an equivalent amount towards the total £10m cost of the project.

SNH officials will this week meet with one of its Trust partners – Prince Charles' Regeneration Trust, a committed supporter of the sandstone building, to discuss the plan. Other supporters include Griff Rhys Jones, comedian and TV presenter, who featured the castle on his BBC Restoration programme.

A report prepared for the SNH board says the agency has "struggled" to find sufficient funding to keep up with the advancing rate of deterioration of the building.

"A point has been reached where structures and materials are at the end of their lives," it says. "Emergency works valued at approximately £0.5m are required to protect the basic structure and £6m is estimated to be necessary to cover essential repairs.

"If a solution is not found SNH will be faced with the responsibility of owning and managing a category A-listed building in a rapidly advancing state of decline."

The report adds that the Scottish Government is considering a proposal from SNH to allow funds from the sale of surplus agency property to be used by the Castle Trust to allow a phased restoration. "If acceptable, this could allow up to £2m of funding to be awarded to the Trust which would enable it to raise match funding from other public and private sources."

The total cost of restoration and improving the castle's accommodation and educational facilities is estimated at £10.6m.

The PRT is to meet with Environment Minister Michael Russell in September to agree on a way forward. Russell said: "SNH itself admits that it is ill-equipped to be the long-term custodian of Kinloch not least because it is neither funded or suitably skilled to undertake the massive restoration required for a sandstone building, which has had to withstand more than a century of Hebridean weather.

"So what has to happen is the transfer of the castle to an independent body which can implement the exciting plans drawn up the Prince's Regeneration Trust. Tight public finance in Scotland following a poor Westminster spending settlement has not diminished the will within Government to collaborate on the urgent restoration of the castle."

Rhys Jones, who is now president of the Civic Trust in England, said: "SNH is responsible for parts of the castle falling into disrepair and so it is good that it has come up with an imaginative way to get the restoration started. What we now need is the Government to make sure that it happens quickly.

"Kinloch Castle is a wonderful building and it's time its future was secured once and for all."

The Castle was built for Sir George Bullough, a textile tycoon from Lancashire, whose father bought Rum to use as his summer residence.



Last Updated: 19 July 2008 7:15 PM
Source: Scotland On Sunday
Location: Scotland

http://www.isleofrum.com/kinlochcastle-bu.html

http://www.kinlochcastlefriendsassiociation.com/report.html

http://www.kinlochcastlefriendsassiociation.com/appraisal.html

That was another Restoration contender, 2003. So many still struggling.


In fact, there has been a considerable amount of consolidation work, but it's situated in such a remote spot a re-use is going to be difficult.

http://www.ffhb.org.uk/

http://www.puppetcentre.org.uk/animationsonline/aotwenty/cuts.html

Those cuts are wide ranging indeed.

 

[plumbers mate]

"That was another Restoration contender, 2003. So many still struggling "

Restoration seems to have been a bit of an all talk, no action thing in the long term.
So many people put so much effort in and no-one seems to have really "won".

 

[Nemesis]

The prize money, too, was illusory - it depended on a successful bid for Lottery funding, in the main, with a top up from phone votes.

I think though the programmes possibly did some good, in bringing the plight of certain buildings to the attention of the public, and arousing interest in historic architecture, but it possibly also gave many a false impression that rescue was a simple matter of filling in the forms and untold riches would appear.

Not so. It was, and is, at times a terrible struggle. Even hugely important places like Dumfries House are a tad hit and miss. The furniture was actually in the van...

http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/sbh_achievements_dumfrieshouse.html

 

[Nemesis]

However - high risk is all part of it:

6 Palace Street, Caernarfon

You would have thought that a grade II listed building, which is in a conservation area and part of a UNESCO World Heritage site, is worth saving. Clearly not in the eyes of Arfon Borough Council of 1994 (now a part of Gwynedd County Council). In their opinion, No. 6 Palace Street, a much neglected building was not only unsightly and dangerous but also the cause of public concern. According to an article in a local newspaper, The Daily Post, they believed that its demolition would induce a reaction of public cheer and contribute to the festive spirit of Christmas '94: 'Shoppers in Caernarfon will have an extra cause for celebration in the New Year when a dilapidated building in Palace Street is finally demolished.' Call us party-poopers, but SAVE intended to put a quick stop to these predicted celebrations because of the dubious legality of the planning and listed building consents

No. 6 Palace Street in 1995 before restoration It transpired that far from there being a unanimous feeling of relief to see it go, a number of national and local conservation groups were strongly opposed to the action. Not only was number 6 Palace Street thought to be one of the oldest building in Caernarfon after the castle, but it also had a number of unique features that made it a site of great importance. Under all the scaffolding, the rather unassuming building held secrets that passers-by could never have guessed. A survey showed it contained medieval timberwork dating from the fifteenth-century and roof timbers that showed signs of being part of a medieval solar cross wing to a lost hall. Additionally, the layout of the site denoted a double burgher's plot, which is the only original site laid out in medieval times in Caernarfon. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that there was an outcry against its demolition amongst serious conservation bodies. Enthusiasm to save number 6 was further fuelled by the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings who claimed that the house was not yet so dangerous as to collapse. They felt, like SAVE, it could still be rescued and restored, so rescued and restored it should be, setting an example for Welsh conservation projects then and now.

The building was due to be demolished immediately after Christmas on 2 January 1995. There was no time to spare and action had to be taken quickly if Number 6 was to be saved. The only hope was to seek an injunction against Arfon Borough Council from the High Court before the end of the year. On New Year's Eve Marcus Binney and Emma Philips (the then SAVE secretary) went to court to battle it out in the last case of the day. At the final hour they succeeded in obtaining an injunction preventing any action, pending further agreements. It was time for a well-deserved drink to celebrate on New Year's Eve. The bulldozers had been stopped just in time. Or had they?

After the success at court, SAVE needed to phone the local authority to inform it of the legal situation. But there was no answer from the Council. After numerous attempts to both their fax and phone the situation became an emergency. As a last resort, Marcus Binney phoned the demolition contractor directly. With persuasion, they informed him that they wouldn't get round to it for another week! The news finally made its way to the district surveyor. Although SAVE was obviously delighted with the recent events, others were less amused. However, after extensive correspondence between the council solicitor and David Roberts, further progress looked hopeful and SAVE undertook to purchase and restore the building for new use.

6 Palace Street during restoration

6 Palace Street, upper floor after restoration
In record time, SAVE established the a building preservation trust, Ymddiriedolaeth Treftadaeth Caernarfon (Caernarfon Heritage Trust). There were a number of sources that lent their support, including the Prince of Wales who opened the building in 1996. Financial aid came from grants received by CADW (£32,000) and The Lottery Fund (£55,000) as well as a loan from the Architectural Heritage Fund (£75,000). However, although funding was generous, there were unseen expenses that had to be negotiated. Part of the agreement with the council was that the building had to be under 24-hour surveillance for public safety, the cost for which had been estimated at £6,000 a week. After a mild panic and lots of research, SAVE managed to find a freelance security man that agreed to take the job for £500 a week. One dilemma was solved but, as usual, more were yet to come.

Only local builders, approved by the council, could be used. Unsurprisingly, due to the grim appearance of the derelict building and the past difficulties with the council, SAVE were worried that no one would be willing to take it on. Thankfully, after a couple of quotes, one of which recommended demolition, they were wrong. The local builders Henry Jones Ltd, with the direction of Huw Thomas (a respected conservation architect), rose to the challenge. At this stage, SAVE did not actually own the building. To start work on Number 6, therefore, was a huge risk but in the time-honoured fashion of SAVE campaigns, the risk was taken and work started in April under license. As soon as work commenced, the architects and builders were constantly surprised to discover details which confirmed the age of the building (between 1400 and 1450) and its completeness. A number of features were uncovered, such as a range of fireplaces, rare sections of 'wattle and daub' and enough timber framing to explain how the building once looked. It appeared that Number 6 Palace Street was of far greater importance than had been previously revealed.
The basic philosophy adopted for its restoration was to keep as much of the building as possible whilst repairing and slightly reordering the interior so as to provide more space. Shop and office space with stores to the rear was the agreed planning permission, including the need for public access - a term imposed by grant aid. This would enable the upper solar to be opened for public view as an upstairs shop space. That was the ideal plan, but needless to say, some things proved unsalvageable and although most features were saved, some were lost. The stone stack connected to the kitchen's brick chimney, for example, had no foundations and sank, tilting backwards on to the supporting scaffolding. There was no alternative to demolition, and it had to be taken down as quickly as possible for safety reasons. As the building was a mesh of medieval timberwork and later eighteenth and nineteenth century editions, some of the derelict nineteenth century features were not essential conservation items and considered too expensive to repair. Apart from these exceptions the architect kept to the agreed conservation philosophy and even when things had to be dismantled (such as the roof), they kept as many of the raw materials as possible for reconstruction in other areas. After eighteen months of hard work Number 6 was finally completed, and very handsome the building looked too.

6 Palace Street after restoration In December 1998, 6 Palace Street was sold to its present owner who runs a tearoom and antique shop - ideal uses for the building which allow all year round public access. But there is more to this story than just a happy ending for one building. Its transformation has helped reinvigorate the whole of Castle Street, which is now hardly recognisable from the run down condition it was in when SAVE began their battle back in 1994. It sparked off a regeneration of Caernarfon's old town which will help to bring back visitors to a delightful and historic place.

This project stands out from the rest as one of the most dangerous and rash SAVE have ever undertaken, on a par with Barlaston Hall. It shows how SAVE puts itself on the line like no other charitable organisation. It is this kind of drive and passion that will continue to fuel future campaigns and (fingers crossed) enable SAVE to be able to tell many more success stories like that of Number 6 Palace Street.

(Text written by Sophie Jones, 2003)

 

[Nemesis]

Barlaston Hall

If someone offered you an eighteenth century country house for one pound, would you take it? I would too. But, then again, it's not likely to happen is it? If you were to read of such an event, you would be excused if you put it down to yet another sensationalised story engineered to wow its reader. But on this occasion you'd be wrong.

On the morning of 29 September 1981, in the state of Georgia, Marcus Binney, President and one of the original Founders, received a phone call from Sophie Andreae (the then secretary) telling him that Barlaston Hall had been offered to SAVE for one pound. Although a pound for a building sounds like a bargain, there are definitely easier purchases to be made for a pound. Barlaston's condition was serious. It was in a state of decay, having been left to rot for over twenty years. No repairs or maintenance had been carried out for a long time and water had begun to pour though the roof. Although this sounds bad enough, the real problem was subsidence. Barlaston stands above one of the richest coalfields in Europe. If mining had continued as planned, there was a possibility of the whole village of Barlaston sinking up to 40 feet in the process. To add to the list of problems, (just when you thought it couldn't get any worse) Barlaston was sat astride a fault. For the non-geographically minded amongst us, a fault is the junction of two different types of substrata. If a gap opens up at this junction, then any settlement that lies over the top would probably tilt. The result of this unfortunate location meant that the settlement was likely to be uneven. To anyone's standards, this was a huge restoration task. Surely you'd have to be mad to take it on? Marcus rose to the challenge and bought the house.

The deal took place at a public inquiry when Wedgwood, the owner of Barlaston Hall, was applying for a second time for consent to demolish. SAVE, with the help of Kit Martin, the architect Bob Weighton and the engineers Peter Dann and Parners, managed to draw up a scheme in Barlaston's defence that showed how the house could be both protected from the effects of coal mining subsidence and restored. The terms were simple. SAVE had to complete the restoration within five years. If they didn't meet this deadline, Wedgwood would have the option to buy the building back for a pound. Simple? Perhaps it was on paper but in practice the challenge that lay ahead would prove to be complex and costly.

The scale of such a project became apparent when Marcus first visited Barlaston on 9 October: 'All the floorboards had been removed, and the ceilings and plasterwork had crashed down into the basement with the weight of water pouring through the roof. The main staircase had collapsed long ago, only the upper flight remained, hanging precariously in space. The back staircase collapsed a few weeks later.' (Marcus: 'Our Vanishing Heritage')
Most people would view this situation as one close to desperation. Marcus, however, looked upon it with optimism and excitement. He managed to see a beauty beyond the ruins. He described the Palladian-style house as an example of a building built by an architect (Sir Robert Taylor) who placed elegance before richness and valued simplicity over elaboration. Additionally, from an archaeological angle, he saw the house's derelict condition as a way in which its history could be revealed. Everything that was normally concealed behind plasterwork was open up for all to see, making it an important (or 'outstanding' in the words of Michael Heseltine) archaeological document.

The first step in restoring Barlaston was to set up an independent trust to repair the building and to get a secure roof so that it could begin to dry out over the spring. Over the next four years, with the help of Historic Building Council grants and the support of the Manifold Trust, the whole of the exterior was successfully restored. The remarkable octagonal windows (a hallmark of Sir Robert Taylor's work in the 1750s) were also repaired or replaced, making Barlaston one of the few remaining examples of Taylor's work to keep its octagonal sashes. Things were going to plan and good progress was being made. But then things started to go wrong.

Problems had developed with the National Coal Board. At the inquiry they had stated that, if the Secretary of State decided the house should be preserved, they would pay not only for past subsidence damage but also for preventative works, in the form of a raft underneath the building, which could be jacked up to correct the effect of any subsidence. Now, however, the Coal Board took the view that as the secretary of State had never formally ruled on the consent to demolish after the inquiry, they were not obliged to honour their undertaking. Instead, SAVE were directed to a clause in the Coal Act which enabled the Coal Board to offer minimal compensation for a building in a very derelict state.

According to the Act, three conditions had to be met if the Coal Board was to pay for the repair and stabilisation of the building. The Secretary of State had first to rule that the building was of outstanding architectural interest, which Michael Heseltine had already done. In addition, he had to certify that restoration was both practicable and in the public interest. Unfortunately, where Michael Heseltine (as Secretary of State for the Environment) had been decisive, his successors procrastinated and failed to provide the last two assurances. One problem led to another and SAVE was warned that the Act was so confused that there was little chance of winning in court. Things looked bad. Then they got worse.

Sensing the dilemma, the Coal Board then refused to carry out the preventative works and offered a mere £25,00 towards past damage, which had been estimated at £100,000. This undeniably unfair move enabled SAVE to seek leave for judicial review. It was time to fight back.

The writ named the Secretary of State for the Environment as the first party for failing to provide the necessary certificates, with the Coal Board conjoined as second party. Being cast as the number one villain didn't go down well with the Department of the Environment. Needless to say, the certificate came through the post the next day.

Now it was the Coal Board's turn. Feeling exposed and isolated, they agreed to come to the negotiating table. Eventually, the Coal Board agreed to pay some £120,000 in compensation, and to fund preventative works as well as the legal fees. To add to the good news, the time limit originally set by Wedgwood of five years was extended by three years in recognition of the work SAVE had done. With the help of grants from English Heritage and a loan from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, work recommenced.

Barlaston is one of, if not the, biggest success stories in English heritage. It is a landmark case in the history of preservation and serves to illustrate how perseverance can win over overwhelming odds. As Marcus so rightly pointed out: 'If Barlaston can be saved, no other major country house need be forsaken.' After eight years of struggle, Barlaston is now lived in again as a family house. The owners have a passionate interest in their home and have worked incredibly hard to complete the restoration of the interior to the highest standard. Now the house is back in safe hands, all that hard work has been rewarded.

Pics on the SAVE website. I visited a couple of years' ago, work is still ongoimg, but it's magnificent.

 

[Nemesis]

This one has finally been given the cash to put the correct slate roofing on:

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/TV-star-Loyd-Grossman-pays.4158647.jp

All Souls

Even before it was declared redundant in 1977, All Souls looked a lost cause. Gilbert Scott had said the it was 'on the whole, my finest church' but Colonel Akroyd, who had built it as the centre piece of his remarkable village of Akroyd, had never sufficiently endowed it. The church was vast, with a tower and spire of cathedral proportions, and far beyond the resources of a small congregation.

An engineer's report had condemned the spire as dangerous and said that it must be dismantled. Once the church lost its dominant feature, the case for saving the church would evaporate altogether.

All Souls was a church of such outstanding quality, with magnificent fittings of every kind, that it was essential to preserve it intact. The Church Commissioners, however, had always been reluctant to vest urban churches in the Redundant Churches Fund and made it absolutely clear that they considered All Souls would impose an impossible burden on the resources of the fund. Attempts had been made to find alternative uses, but it as evident that nothing suitable was forthcoming.

The likelyhood loomed that there would be a major public enquiry, that a Dangerous Structures Notice would be served on the spire, that the spire would then be truncated and the church mutilated, and that rain would start pouring through the roof, resulting in a massive out break of dry rot. Even if we were ultimately victorious at a public inquiry, the church would have suffered so grievously during the waiting period that a large part of the artistic quality and integrity would have been lost.

SAVE therefore decided the only way forward was to establish a new independent trust to take on the task of urgent major repairs. The sums involved were colossal: over £0.5M for the spire and the roof.

Thanks to enthusiastic support from Jennifer Jenkins, the then chairman of the Historic Building Council, we were offered a very high level of grant toward the roof. As a result of nail sickness, the heavy Westmorland slates were regularly coming loose and crashing down with such force that they sliced through the lead gutters below. All Souls suffered like many Victorian churches from high, inaccessible valley gutters, which became clogged and allowed damp to seep into the building. Our architect, the appropriately name Donald Buttress, devised an ingenious means of resolving the problem. All Souls was given a new roof oversailing the upper parapets, throwing water directly on to the lower aisle roofs. We could not afford to retile the roof with Westmorland slates, but the sheer urgency of making the church watertight ruled this out anyway.

Donald Buttress' solution was to tile the roof with ridged composition tiles of a greenish grey hue, which from below looked remarkably similar to slates and blend very well with the stonework.

The main challenge was the stabilisation of the spire. We applied for a grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund on the basis that its support alone could support the church. There was heated debate, but by the casting vote of the chairman we got our grant. Working with Arups as engineers, Donald Buttress designed an ingenious means of strengthening the spire in situ. The problem was that the spire was just a little too tall and too thin for its own good. The diocese's surveyors had said that 100-mph winds could topple it. We waited anxiously as reports came in of 97-mph gales in the Pennines but thankfully the spire remained firm.

The solution was to strengthen the spire from within by inserting a single skin of new brickwork all the way up to the top, and bolting the brick and stone together with stainless steel pins that would be invisible from the ground.

The work progressed well until it was discovered that the original iron braces inserted into the stonework by Scott had rusted very badly and expanded several inches, forcing the stonework upwards. Once the rusted ironwork was removed, the danger was that the tower would topple over. Arups worked out a method of cutting out the rusted iron in very small sections and strengthening it as they went along. Fears that the spire would have to be dismantled after all were allayed.

The All Souls Trust had taken a seven year lease on the church and virtually the whole of this time was spent on the repairs to the spire and the roof. At this point the trustees decided that the future of the church would best be secured by vesting it in the redundant churches fund. After some initial hesitation, the Church Commissioners agreed. The rest of the repairs, principally to the stone work were carried out on a rolling program over the next few years.

Had All Souls been lost, the Church authorities would undoubtedly have used it as precedent for arguing that that there were some churches which, however important, were simply too difficult or expensive to save. By setting up a trust for All Souls and carrying out the essential repairs, SAVE has demonstrated that even the most problematic redundant churches in the most difficult locations need not be a lost cause.

The Redundant Churches Fund is now called The Churches Conservation Trust.

Pictures of these here:

http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/achieve.htm

http://www.simonjones.co.uk/meanwhile/extras/pictures/images/barlastonhall.html

http://www.architecture.com/WhatsOn/Exhibitions/AtTheVictoriaAndAlbertMuseum/Room128a/2006/SAVE/BarlastanHallStaffordshire/BarlastonHallLibrary.aspx

http://www.visitchurches.org.uk/uploads/publications/66.pdf

 

[Nemesis]

And as far as Castle House is concerned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/a ... ture.shtml

including a radio interview.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/realmedia/2007/03/adam_wilkinson.ram





[Open Image] [Hosted by PhotoGalaxy.com]

 

[Pford75]

My point was broader than one specific house.

With so many buildings in need of conservation, funds and time....there is surely some progress to be made by the conservation bodies in reaching out to those with funds and time. We are all here on this forum because we already love period buildings....but there are many, many more yet to be converted. I tried to put it politely, but my contention remains that many of these bodies are not as 'accessible' and lay-person friendly as they could be. In fact, some seem to strive for the reverse.

My issue was that for any building, without the support and involvement of the local community and general populace, it will be a long hard slog....(although many buildings are still saved by the great work of the conservation bodies alone). But with the support and involvement of the local community, things are much easier.......I was simply saying that perhaps some of these bodies ought to try harder to win this support.

One way of doing that might be to avoid dismissing as 'ignorant' anyone who dares to criticise the progress of the conservation bodies. As I see it, the local community is a 'customer' of the conservation groups, since the buildings they save will ultimately reside there......I never claimed that the local community are always right (or indeed well informed) and I include myself in that group.....but I believe I have a right to question what occurs in my community and that any body involved should be keen to communicate in an open, non-aggressive manner and seek my input.

You might not agree, but that doesn't make you right. I think your follow-up post proved my point

Re: Would someone like to rescue this house?
by bea2 on Thu 10th Jul, 2008 4:19 pm

Do you normally speak to people like your last post who have a differing point of view or who may question something?

I guess you also missed the credit that I gave you (and others like you) in my last post. I have never indulged in abusive attacks on this forum and has been reiterated many, many times the racist abuse I received was reported to the police (so hardly without 'evidence' as you put it). Everyone else has moved on....why do you keep raising this point?

 

[Nemesis]

Oh but you see - I think you are abusive. And because you don't agree with me, doesn't make you right. Or in this case, well informed. But keen to leap in with both feet, with a spot of misplaced sanctimony.

Maybe Lime has the right idea.

I do wonder how much involvement you have had with 'conservation' bodies I have to say. And indeed, with building rescue. Not a lot by the sounds of it.

 

[Nemesis]

And in the meanwhile, as posted in another thread:

SAVE BRITAIN’S HERITAGE
70 Cowcross Street, London, EC1M 6EJ
PRESS RELEASE 21 JULY 2008

BARFORD GRANARY SAVED


SAVE Britain’s Heritage is delighted to announce that it has saved the listed 18th-century brick granary at Barford Farm in Wiltshire from imminent destruction.

The granary is a delightful and rare example of its kind, supported on staddle stones and picturesquely situated in a yard together with other 18th-century listed farm buildings. Over the last decade the building has been allowed to decay and is now in a perilous state.

When SAVE drew attention to the plight of the granary in the Times on 26th April the case seemed hopeless. Permission had been granted to demolish and the building had only days left. In a last ditch attempt to halt the bulldozers, SAVE issued a legal challenge against the demolition consent granted by Salisbury District Council. This consent had been agreed in controversial circumstances, and in the face of strong opposition from local and national heritage bodies. SAVE argued that the council had failed to provide adequate justification for the decision.

The council conceded and agreed to quash the consent. At the same time, SAVE met the owners of the granary to discuss the building’s long-term future. Despite the legal victory, the building was not secure. The owners were minded to submit another application for demolition which could have succeeded.

To end the deadlock, SAVE agreed to raise the funds necessary to repair the envelope of the granary, provided the owners could guarantee its retention and allow SAVE use the building for events and fundraising activities.

SAVE has commissioned Ian Payne, a local surveyor and specialist in the repair of farm buildings, to undertake the work and emergency repairs will begin immediately. SAVE will now be launching a campaign to raise the £70,000 needed to complete the work.

Marcus Binney, President of SAVE, said ‘SAVE has stepped in a number of times before to rescue historic buildings from imminent demolition, most notably at Georgian Barlaston Hall, Victorian All Souls Church at Haley Hill in Halifax, and medieval 6 Palace Street in Carnarfon. In each case the building would certainly have been lost without our intervention. Our intention this time is to demonstrate how decaying and unwanted farm buildings can be given a new lease of life.’

SAVE’s intervention recently halted the demolition of the atmospheric pumping station by Isambard Kingdom Brunel at Totnes. Another major SAVE campaign is aimed at stopping the destruction of thousands of traditional terrace houses in the north of England, helping local residents fight compulsory purchase proposed under the Government’s Pathfinder programme. As a result of these combined efforts, proposed demolitions have been reduced from 400,000 to 40,000. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recently issued a strong critique of Pathfinder schemes.

Note: the mushroom shaped staddle stones on which the barn stands were to prevent rats from getting to the grain stored in the barn.

For more information and pictures contact:

William Palin, Secretary, SAVE Britain’s Heritage

 

[skier-hughes]

Oh but you see - I think you are abusive. And because you don't agree with me, doesn't make you right. Or in this case, well informed. But keen to leap in with both feet, with a spot of misplaced sanctimony.

Maybe Lime has the right idea.

I do wonder how much involvement you have had with 'conservation' bodies I have to say. And indeed, with building rescue. Not a lot by the sounds of it.

But spouts far more common sense than most.

 

[Nemesis]

Not in my opinion.

However, it's interesting how many here have really not grasped any back story, just keen to leap in with both feet and wagging fingers as usual.

 

[skier-hughes]

:lol: