G&M wrote:

"Pete C" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:22:30 +0100, "G&M" wrote:


Ah, when you mentioned a conservation officer earlier it meant the
house was listed.

Nope - just living within a National Park where the conservation officers
try to pretend that everything is effectively listed.

Life in a National Park must be hard :^)


Not for me perhaps. But for all the farmhands who can't actually afford to
live there it isn't so good.


Expecting a visit
anyday from the jackboots about the duck pond mentioned on another thread
that I've just had dug in my garden.

I can't see why that would be a problem, but they may not allow a huge
pond in a conservation area.


They'd rather there was nobody here at all. No homes, no farms, no sheep.
Just a few walkers.


Did you spell that last word aright?




Still, it's a shame to see original features go. Would it not have
been better to buy a house without these features if you don't like
them?

I'd love to have done so. Or even built a house to suit our needs from
scratch.
But it took over a year to even find an unlisted one with land round here
large enough for what we wanted. And getting planning permission for a

new

build here is simply impossible.

It works both ways, if there was no listing process or planning
permission you might end up surrounded by Tudorbethan boxes and not
want to live there anyway. So maybe living with these things is an
acceptable price to pay.


Problem with the listing process is it stagnates the farms. Farms used to
build a farmhouse. Next generation that would become the barn when a new
farmhouse was built. As this went on unused structures were demolished and
the stone used for the new buildings. Thus farms moved from crofts, through
cottages onto the farmhouses we now know. Suddenly with listing and the
National Parks, this stopped dead. I live in a valley with 30% of the
buildings unused and unusable, but it is impossible to get permission either
to demolish them or convert them to any sensible use. If course if a
demolition was allowed the replacement would have to fit in with the look of
the countryside, but that isn't beyond the wit of at least a small
proportion of modern architects.



No. I have to agree 100%. The concept of 'sympathetic evolution and
preservation' needs to replace 'frozen in space time, forever'

At least for the lower grades.




You could say that it's OK to demolish 17th century cottages or
pubs as the ceiling or doorways are too low and people would hurt
their head...

I would expect 17th century stuff to be preserved and fully agree it

should

be listed. But 19th century is rather more common, especially late 1890s
when this staircase was put in.

True, but art deco buildings and town centres were considered common
enough in the 60s to make way for tower blocks and ring roads, and it
was seen to be 'progress' at the time.


And fortunately still is. Whoever tried to list the Portsmouth Unicorn
should have been strung up from it.


Could you give the staircase a second chance? It's served it's purpose
for 100+ years so far. My rule for such situations is to always look
where I put my feet, has served me very well so far.

What sort of timber are you planning to replace it with if you don't
mind me asking?


Haven't got that far. In fact aren't going anywhere until foot mends :-)
But there's a traditional staircase company working in a barn nearby so I'll
get them to take a look. Maybe they can rebuild what's there a little safer
which of course would fit in best of all.



Agood carpenter can make alomst anything you want. But spend some time
sketching out how you want it fist.

I cotsed out a staircase from the joiners - 3 grand plus whatever the
chippes charged to fit it. Got 600 quids woth of wood and the chiipoes
charged about 2500 to fit it all togther perfectly. MDF where the carpet
was going for strength, and oak wherever you saw it, which looks stunning.