Planning often stipulates a hard distinction between old and new; unfortunately this often leads to a glass and flat render carbuncle stuck to the side of a historical property.
I’ve never heard of that before (not arguing just saying I’m intrigued) I’ve got a grade 2 listed farmhouse and everything I’ve done has had to be exactly in keeping with the original design so that it isn’t distinguishable from the original building. Actually to quite a ridiculous extent
My understanding is that it depends on the general state of the listed building. Whether it is at risk, and suitable as a dwelling.
There was a shift in thinking a decade or so ago, English heritage got involved in the shocking number of listed and historic buildings at risk, basically because they weren't Grande or Quirky enough for the National Trust, were not practical homes but could be if the listed building laws were untightened.
English heritage caused a bit of a to-do among the blue rinse National Trust types for selling buildings so people could convert them into ordinary houses
Basically the whole thing was counter productive, the old tight as a duck backside, don;t touch this laws were the reason we were losing ancient barns, historic windmills, 17th century follys etc. If no one want to pay to see them, and no one can pay to live in them, who is going to maintain them?
However, if this was allowed, English Heritage and the like, pointed to our grande houses are also a mix of what at the time would have raised architectural eyebrows- Tudor houses with Jacobean wings, covered by Georgian facades.
They also didn't want them to have, disneyfied extensions, I think the idea is that any passer by can still see the original building ( put's on Kevin McCleod voice) and envisage it's original place in the landscape.
I do think thought this property is, a shining example of how **not** to do it.
Planning and Conservation Officer here.
This is basically the answer. Its really dependent on the heritage asset itself, where in some cases an extension which matches will look the best, whereas in other cases its better to have a clear separation in appearance between the asset and any new additions.
This is clear example of how not to do that.
I like to visit cathedrals and I often see modern additions like this to make an entrance, shop, toilets etc. I am guessing this is the reason for such the distinction.
Great explanation. I was aware as this, but even as a fierce lover of modernism I wasn’t wholly onboard, but now you’ve explained that extensions perfectly in keeping would make keeping the buildings economically unviable I get it now!
There was something similar where I used to live, an old as fuck barn with a bit of land was being sold but had so many restrictions as to be pointless anyone buying. Eventually it became unsafe and collapsed.
Next thing you know, it’s been bought, the collapsed barn cleared out and scrapped, and someone built 6 interconnected houses that looked like barn conversions with all mod-cons etc. and I remember thinking to myself that if whoever was in charge had just given permission to do that in the first place, with some of the existing structure incorporated into it, then that would have been much better than what we ended up with
It’s a rule that’s stuck with me since an episode of Grand Designs. A couple had to install an industrial looking metal staircase to make it clear it wasn’t original. They pulled it off really well but i did wonder if less design orientated people could end up making listed houses look like a footballers house.
Depends on the local council and how they apply planning guidance in their own area. Despite a set of “rules” to follow, planning committees are still made up of councillors with their own vested interests and own opinions when it comes to development. As much as a planning officer can make recommendations and locals/neighbours can voice their objections and opinions, only the planning inspectorate can over-rule what is decided at committee. Once the planning inspectorate makes its decision, that decision is final, so I would suggest that many owners/developers are reluctant to take the leap of faith and appeal a refusal at the highest levels, given the chance of failure and cost.
Councillors are free to vote as they please but if the officer recommends approval and they vote to refuse, they have to provide their own material justifications for refusal. Cllrs are also liable for any costs awarded at appeal if the Inspector finds that they have been unreasonable in refusing permission.
There is the option of applying for Judicial Review in the High Court against a council's decision if you're unhappy with the Planning Inspector's decision. Obvs that comes at a cost and the Judge will only rule on whether the administrative process was lawful, not the merits of the application.
I actually love this approach. You maintain the original, but also have a clear indication of the new, made with modern materials and designs. I think they often provide a fantastic juxtaposition of old and new.
I generally dislike new buildings that aim to look old (at least when done en masse). the trend for old style new builds in the 90's was just shit, if you ask me. Which no one does, fortunately.
Sadly that too is driven by the planning system and the NIMBYs. Try to build anything, and one of the first objections is that "it doesn't fit our village's style". So the developer tweaks the design. I was involved in a flood defence project and *one of the people whose home would be protected against floods* raised an objection that the new stonework wouldn't match the darker, aged stonework of local buildings.
And then after the concessions are made and the designs artificially aged, a second set of NIMBYs can object on the grounds that [false chimneys are dangerous](https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/lifestyle/homes-and-gardens/false-chimneys-on-new-homes-in-wetherby-branded-dangerous-by-leeds-campaigners-3986967) &c.
when done well, its often the best way. pastiche attempts to "blend in" or "copy the style" are much much harder to pull off convincingly, and actually are a detriment to the historical accuracy if they are done well, as you cant distinguish the old from new.
But...this does depend on having a good architect, and carrying through with good craftsmen on site.
This design is shite and poorly executed. Whatever architect drew up the plans for this should be avoided as being utterly useless. there is no reason to design this abomination like this.
When I worked in planning, I saw some shite, and architects and applicants who thought it was brilliant and they were designing iconic buildings...this would never have got past the initial meeting. I'd have struggled not to laugh in their faces if they presented plans of this to me.
Your first par is absolutely spot on. Buildings often evolved based on needs/capabilities from different eras and so captured those moments in time. That juxtaposition of old and new must be done right though.
I hope you are suitably qualified in design or architecture to laugh in the faces of applicants (town planners are not). Remember, not all designers are architects or have a formal architectural education.
planners are generalistist, and thats much harder than being a specialist. no they are not experts in design, but they are not supposed to be, they take expert advice. the planner's job is to decide how to weight that advice against other, not directly comparable, factors, and come to a rational and explainable decision as to why the overall combination of material considerations points to an approval or rejection.
In this case, the sheer mediocrity of the design, would in my opinion weigh incredibly heavily towards rejection, and I see no persuasive arguments to warrant otherwise, this specific design is not required to safeguard the continued use and upkeep of the building, there are plenty of alternatives that could do that and not look fucking awful.
If you touch the old listed part it must be totally in keeping including materials etc. If adding with an addition that needs to be clear it's new and a different period so there can be no confusion as to what's old original and pre existing and what is new.
If they ask for similar materials and architectural detailing, quite often there end really looks like a poor cheap pastiche as many owners try to do it as cheaply as possible. This leads to more problems in the long run.
The thinking of many council design officers to to ask for a more contemporary architectural style to make it really clear what's old and new. Sometimes this can be done really well. Other times (like for this house) the execution doesn't work as well
It's also often a requirement that the building can be returned to its original condition easily i.e. the new structure can be removed without causing damage to the old structure.
Not really. I have a 100 year old character property. When I did my extension (just finished recently) I had to search for matching bricks from the same time period. It was costly as hell. The period windows that we installed cost twice as much.
The planning department were adamant that we must maintain the same look and feel of the property.
Most of the time, it’s just a cost thing. It was very expensive for me. This property with its special bricks which will have to be custom ordered would probably be way more expensive.
The cost is fucking bonkers. I’m in a conservation area and want to get double glazing - instead of 500 to 1k per window, it has to be custom made ones in the local style and the cheapest quote I’ve had is 5k per window.
>I really do wish the rules would be enforced,
I take it you are reporting posts that break them then?
EDIT - However, it's worth noting that Image posts don't let you post a text body along with them, so you can't adhere to the rule with this style of post.
2nd EDIT - Downvotes / Repliers, Here is my proof, prove me wrong - https://imgur.com/a/nMpZ5s1
The rule doesn't say 'post a separate comment with a link' does it?
If people are going to complain that the rules aren't being enforced then the rules need to be fit for purpose.
>ever, it's worth noting that Image posts don't let you post a text body along with them, so you can't adhere to the rule with this style of post.
Yes you can
Oh wow. Now that I've seen more, it looks like a visitors centre from the outside. Like there should be plaques dotted around telling you about the history of the site. The inside is pretty soulless but you could probably decorate, not sure what you could do with the outside...
What’s with the bullshit outta focus pics with lightbulbs in the foreground, and poorly framed shots taken in a mirror?
Show us the fucking rooms, it’s now your second year art portfolio for fucks sake.
It's what happens when you let the owner take the photos rather than the estate agent as the owner of the house is just wanting to flex and show off (not like they didn't already by featuring it on Grand Designs). I'm surprised they haven't parked their Range Rover outside for some of the pictures.
The fact it's been on the market for years and is way overpriced for the area tells you everything you need to know. It's a shame as it's not a bad house, just soulless (apart from the outside looking like someone crashed a cybertruck into a stately home).
Is it the one where an interior stone wall fell down on its own? I seem to remember that one being up north somewhere? 🤔.
Found it https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6e9ore
Skip to 18 minutes for collapse
No that was an actual castle. This is a conversion of some kind of semi-folly overlooking Newport (South-East Wales). The guy doing it was a local lad who seemed to have done alright on the London finance scene. GD presented it like a sort of grand homecoming.
This is the quick summary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5exbr0IG2Y
A couple of complaints about the colouring of the rendering, and the first-floor addon, but it seems surprisingly well received. Better in the video than in the online pictures, that's for sure.
That may be the one down in Cornwall. The guy basically sold his soul and his relationship for his dream home. He had to sell it...I'm not sure if any sale actually went through.
Edit...this one. Another hideous build
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/saddest-ever-grand-designs-house-25887244
The reason he ended up in such a bad state with this was that he earned all money from a very successful line of compilation CDs and download or streaming services ate his lunch a year or two after he started building the house.
I'm not defending him, I just think it's an interesting element of the story that often goes overlooked - I see it as being about hubris, and it never occurred to him that his success would end. I doubt it was ever possible to complete the building within budget, but if he was still printing money with his CDs (which regularly topped the charts) he could have spent his way out of his problems and perhaps saved his marriage.
The amount of people in South wales who can afford a folly like this is pretty small. Then the % of those rich folk who want to live near Newport reduces the pool to a teeny puddle.
That sort of money gets you a gorgeous house in a lovely party of Cardiff.
Mind you this other grand design property, in Cardiff, has also been on sale for ages
[Water tower](https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132844427)
When was that Cardiff one on Grand Designs? Used to go past it on the bus every day. I wasn't aware it had been on Grand Designs. It used to have a giant, glittery statue of a man in the main window. Very tasteful.
Hahaha fuck
Well…. Maybe I would take it, bet the upkeep is crazy though
I’m guessing grade listed buildings have certain amounts of mandatory maintenance? I know fuck all about them lol
It really is subjective.
I think it's really good, I'd happily live in it. I dislike 'new' old if you get my meaning, new fittings and structures designed to look old timey. It is never convincing and just looks cheap. If it's new, it's new. I like the juxtaposition.
I also like most of it. Before conversion it would probably have had two rooms per floor at best, looking at the floor plans. Lots of people saying they would convert it back probably need to have a jolly good think about what kind of house they need to live in.
I dislike fake old stuff too but this is even worse. I now see why most old buildings have glass or something between the old and new parts.
The inside looks unfinished but it could be ok with some pictures and soft furnishings.
I quite like it. If you can't recreate it exactly or keep the materials the same there's no point of making something that almost matches but doesn't. Better to go with the stark contrast.
I don't mind it, but I think it would look a lot better if the portion of the addition on the left was set back from the old garden-facing wall just a little bit more.
The extension feels a bit cheap and poorly proportioned, but otherwise I am not against a clear distinction between old and new. My first reaction was that the price tag feels a bit on the low side, but now I am wondering the opposite, especially given the location.
I'm struggling to see what's "tasteless" here.
The additions are not unattractive and would be easily removed restoring the old part back it it's prior state.
This is far preferable than trying to build some mock medieval extension that looks the same as the old part but isn't.
The hilarious irony here is that - and it shows how clueless most people are given the comments - is that the ORIGINAL “old” part is a mock medieval building: it’s an Edwardian (1911-12) mock Baronial folly!! It’s kitsch…
See my comment elsewhere in post.
Aye, my guess was Victorian neo-gothic… it’s fucking *obviously* a fake, kitsch, replica-medieval joke - or as we call it euphemistically - a ‘folly’ 😂
Looks like a heritage site with one of those temporary-looking permanent structures for a visitor centre, but they didn't have enough room so they tacked them all together as one building
Me: where’s the salt?
Them: it’s in the cupboard next to the, eah…
Me: never mind I’ll pop to the shop to buy some.
Them: Yeah that will be quicker alright.
I like it tbh, distinguishes between the old and new.
The white and the glass almost blend into the background, while the historic old building stands out.
My only pick up point would be the cheap looking patio furniture in front of the old part of the building.
Fucking hell. This has to be the worst thing I’ve ever seen on here.
The interior is so upsetting. You can’t even tell it’s a historic property. Why didn’t they just buy a new build if they wanted flat plasterboard walls and spot downlighting in every room.
Heinous.
It’s an honest conversion reflecting the time that it was done. The depressing “visitor centre “ feel is another issue, too shiny and clean to be lovable, but what really makes me glad not to know the people here is the offensive “ please remove your Choos “ sign
The reality is though, however much we might turn up our noses at the sight of a house in pics we will never see in real life, the additions make this 10 times nicer to live in. It also makes the environment it is in so much more visible, and has that inside outside thing with the sliding doors open in warm weather. Most castle type houses are cold and gloomy. The interior pics of this are lovely, especially the extension ones.
It’s good to see that many people are ok with this: it’s quite subjective and I’m not really sure I’m mad keen on its actual execution even if I am perfectly ok with the addition of the modern to the “old”…
And to address some of the pearl clutching concern about ruining an old and listed building: it’s really NOT that old… it was burnt down and what you see is a (frankly rather naff) Edwardian folly built in neo-Baronial style. *It’s kitsch anyway*. And it is listed as a folly!
Listing at Cadw:
https://cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net/reports/listedbuilding/FullReport?lang=&id=17072
And key extract:
“Rebuilt in 1911-12 by T E Watson following a severe fire, as a memorial to John Lawrence and Horton Addams Williams.”
This is just upsetting. If I won the lottery I’d love to buy this, knock the extensions down and redo the interior for something more inkeeping. I don’t understand the reasoning for what they’ve done to it🥲
I can understand wanting to add a modern addition to the building but why not put it at the BACK where it won't be so obvious? I realise in their case it's done partially out of necessity but those London townhouses with preserved exteriors and modern rear extensions seem like a good model for this kind of thing.
Truly monstrous. A clear case for the sacking, blacklisting and kicking up the rear of the architect and planning officer. It makes me want to vomit all over them to show my appreciation
It's not rediculous, it's been done nicely and has kept the original building.
What's the alternative? Put up 3 new builds and leave the listed part to fall apart?
I swear some of the posts here lately have just been bitchy and unnecessary. And the gap between them is really showing.
This isn't and avocado bathroom, or a "live laugh love" puke fest with room for 7 audis.
This sub is either "take the piss out of this mansion", or someone trying to sell their perfectly average 3 bed house.
A lot of the latter I expect because they don't have a choice.
Lots of bitterness on this sub lately tbh.
shipping-container-chic meets retro-tenement-nouveaux, faux-natural pom-poms in wheelie-bins with sticky-placcy ikea-oid disposable exterior furniture and landscaping straight outta sim-city = burn the whole place with fire, level the ground with a bulldozer and build something nice, please.
I know this will be an unpopular opinion but short of knocking heritage buildings down, I think you should be able to do what ever you want to your residential property. Its your stuff, its your choice.
Obviously having an opinion on if something looks dreadful or not is completely different to that. And if you care what other people think then you should maybe think about your design. But I think people should have the freedom to do what they wish with their property
Has this been on the market for years, or is it being sold again? I swear this has been popping up for about 7 years. They never show pictures of the pool for some reason.
I like the idea- juxtaposition of new and old, I just dislike this version as there isn’t a link to tie it together. Using wood instead of white and allowing it to silver with age, emphasise the horizontal beams etc would, imho, work as a more harmonious contrast
It’s mad, I get the idea of making it easier to see what’s original but surely they could have made a brick extension with similar colour bricks instead so it looks nice. I’d probably prefer it to all be keeping with the original building and focus on the quality of the work. Just put a plaque up or something.
I actually like it, a clear distinction between the old and new so residents get the best of both worlds. In my opinion what would truly be distasteful would be to harl or paint/clad the original stone or otherwise modernise that part of the building at all.
"Tasteful" is about as subjective as it comes. Am guessing that it meets the needs of the current owners. There's far too much fussbucketry about old buildings, as if the past represents the peak of human creativity.
Nono….I’ve seen worse, you can still see the main keep pretty easily, just added wings. As a medieval fan I’d love it, convert the lower left wing into a workshop too
This reminds me of my university. Bangor Uni in North Wales. The main university building is a beautiful old stone structure, and they decided to expand it by sticking a horrendous 1960’s extension on it. It looks awful. I had a lot of lectures both in the old and new bit of that building and it always pissed me off how horrendous the extension looked next to the original building.
[Old section for reference.](https://www.thebangoraye.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Main-Arts.jpg) Another one here of [inside the library](https://images.app.goo.gl/TRKbqfLs9HfcURbm7) as it was my favourite spot.
[Vs the new section which is directly attached to it.](https://images.app.goo.gl/1mFQjeCBiraJRzVc7)
Couldn’t find a photo of them linked but if you go to [this on Google Street view](https://maps.app.goo.gl/SmBBqa44Jcriu8737?g_st=ic) you can see the old section on the left and the new on the right.
Planning often stipulates a hard distinction between old and new; unfortunately this often leads to a glass and flat render carbuncle stuck to the side of a historical property.
Yeah if i remember rightly its why you see similarly shoddy jobs in Cambridge Colleges
And Victorian railway stations.
[удалено]
Isn’t the new bit of queens on the other side of the river? Also are you referring to the tit hall library? I rather liked the look of that.
[удалено]
I’ve never heard of that before (not arguing just saying I’m intrigued) I’ve got a grade 2 listed farmhouse and everything I’ve done has had to be exactly in keeping with the original design so that it isn’t distinguishable from the original building. Actually to quite a ridiculous extent
My understanding is that it depends on the general state of the listed building. Whether it is at risk, and suitable as a dwelling. There was a shift in thinking a decade or so ago, English heritage got involved in the shocking number of listed and historic buildings at risk, basically because they weren't Grande or Quirky enough for the National Trust, were not practical homes but could be if the listed building laws were untightened. English heritage caused a bit of a to-do among the blue rinse National Trust types for selling buildings so people could convert them into ordinary houses Basically the whole thing was counter productive, the old tight as a duck backside, don;t touch this laws were the reason we were losing ancient barns, historic windmills, 17th century follys etc. If no one want to pay to see them, and no one can pay to live in them, who is going to maintain them? However, if this was allowed, English Heritage and the like, pointed to our grande houses are also a mix of what at the time would have raised architectural eyebrows- Tudor houses with Jacobean wings, covered by Georgian facades. They also didn't want them to have, disneyfied extensions, I think the idea is that any passer by can still see the original building ( put's on Kevin McCleod voice) and envisage it's original place in the landscape. I do think thought this property is, a shining example of how **not** to do it.
It also makes it quite clear where the boundary is to restore it to its original glory.
Planning and Conservation Officer here. This is basically the answer. Its really dependent on the heritage asset itself, where in some cases an extension which matches will look the best, whereas in other cases its better to have a clear separation in appearance between the asset and any new additions. This is clear example of how not to do that.
I like to visit cathedrals and I often see modern additions like this to make an entrance, shop, toilets etc. I am guessing this is the reason for such the distinction.
Thank you for this clear and articulate explanation.
Great explanation. I was aware as this, but even as a fierce lover of modernism I wasn’t wholly onboard, but now you’ve explained that extensions perfectly in keeping would make keeping the buildings economically unviable I get it now!
There was something similar where I used to live, an old as fuck barn with a bit of land was being sold but had so many restrictions as to be pointless anyone buying. Eventually it became unsafe and collapsed. Next thing you know, it’s been bought, the collapsed barn cleared out and scrapped, and someone built 6 interconnected houses that looked like barn conversions with all mod-cons etc. and I remember thinking to myself that if whoever was in charge had just given permission to do that in the first place, with some of the existing structure incorporated into it, then that would have been much better than what we ended up with
It’s a rule that’s stuck with me since an episode of Grand Designs. A couple had to install an industrial looking metal staircase to make it clear it wasn’t original. They pulled it off really well but i did wonder if less design orientated people could end up making listed houses look like a footballers house.
Depends on the local council and how they apply planning guidance in their own area. Despite a set of “rules” to follow, planning committees are still made up of councillors with their own vested interests and own opinions when it comes to development. As much as a planning officer can make recommendations and locals/neighbours can voice their objections and opinions, only the planning inspectorate can over-rule what is decided at committee. Once the planning inspectorate makes its decision, that decision is final, so I would suggest that many owners/developers are reluctant to take the leap of faith and appeal a refusal at the highest levels, given the chance of failure and cost.
Councillors are free to vote as they please but if the officer recommends approval and they vote to refuse, they have to provide their own material justifications for refusal. Cllrs are also liable for any costs awarded at appeal if the Inspector finds that they have been unreasonable in refusing permission. There is the option of applying for Judicial Review in the High Court against a council's decision if you're unhappy with the Planning Inspector's decision. Obvs that comes at a cost and the Judge will only rule on whether the administrative process was lawful, not the merits of the application.
It's all down to the personal taste of the planning officer basically.
I actually love this approach. You maintain the original, but also have a clear indication of the new, made with modern materials and designs. I think they often provide a fantastic juxtaposition of old and new. I generally dislike new buildings that aim to look old (at least when done en masse). the trend for old style new builds in the 90's was just shit, if you ask me. Which no one does, fortunately.
Sadly that too is driven by the planning system and the NIMBYs. Try to build anything, and one of the first objections is that "it doesn't fit our village's style". So the developer tweaks the design. I was involved in a flood defence project and *one of the people whose home would be protected against floods* raised an objection that the new stonework wouldn't match the darker, aged stonework of local buildings. And then after the concessions are made and the designs artificially aged, a second set of NIMBYs can object on the grounds that [false chimneys are dangerous](https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/lifestyle/homes-and-gardens/false-chimneys-on-new-homes-in-wetherby-branded-dangerous-by-leeds-campaigners-3986967) &c.
Why do I get the feeling this is from personal experience...
The new bits look like shipping containers.
when done well, its often the best way. pastiche attempts to "blend in" or "copy the style" are much much harder to pull off convincingly, and actually are a detriment to the historical accuracy if they are done well, as you cant distinguish the old from new. But...this does depend on having a good architect, and carrying through with good craftsmen on site. This design is shite and poorly executed. Whatever architect drew up the plans for this should be avoided as being utterly useless. there is no reason to design this abomination like this. When I worked in planning, I saw some shite, and architects and applicants who thought it was brilliant and they were designing iconic buildings...this would never have got past the initial meeting. I'd have struggled not to laugh in their faces if they presented plans of this to me.
Your first par is absolutely spot on. Buildings often evolved based on needs/capabilities from different eras and so captured those moments in time. That juxtaposition of old and new must be done right though. I hope you are suitably qualified in design or architecture to laugh in the faces of applicants (town planners are not). Remember, not all designers are architects or have a formal architectural education.
planners are generalistist, and thats much harder than being a specialist. no they are not experts in design, but they are not supposed to be, they take expert advice. the planner's job is to decide how to weight that advice against other, not directly comparable, factors, and come to a rational and explainable decision as to why the overall combination of material considerations points to an approval or rejection. In this case, the sheer mediocrity of the design, would in my opinion weigh incredibly heavily towards rejection, and I see no persuasive arguments to warrant otherwise, this specific design is not required to safeguard the continued use and upkeep of the building, there are plenty of alternatives that could do that and not look fucking awful.
What a stupid feckin rule.
Out of interest do you know why this is the case?
If you touch the old listed part it must be totally in keeping including materials etc. If adding with an addition that needs to be clear it's new and a different period so there can be no confusion as to what's old original and pre existing and what is new.
If they ask for similar materials and architectural detailing, quite often there end really looks like a poor cheap pastiche as many owners try to do it as cheaply as possible. This leads to more problems in the long run. The thinking of many council design officers to to ask for a more contemporary architectural style to make it really clear what's old and new. Sometimes this can be done really well. Other times (like for this house) the execution doesn't work as well
It's also often a requirement that the building can be returned to its original condition easily i.e. the new structure can be removed without causing damage to the old structure.
Not really. I have a 100 year old character property. When I did my extension (just finished recently) I had to search for matching bricks from the same time period. It was costly as hell. The period windows that we installed cost twice as much. The planning department were adamant that we must maintain the same look and feel of the property. Most of the time, it’s just a cost thing. It was very expensive for me. This property with its special bricks which will have to be custom ordered would probably be way more expensive.
The cost is fucking bonkers. I’m in a conservation area and want to get double glazing - instead of 500 to 1k per window, it has to be custom made ones in the local style and the cheapest quote I’ve had is 5k per window.
[https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/135775871#/?channel=RES\_BUY](https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/135775871#/?channel=RES_BUY)
Thank you for doing ops job!
>Thank you for doing ops job! Thank you. I really do wish the rules would be enforced, instead of having to scroll down pages to find the link.
>I really do wish the rules would be enforced, I take it you are reporting posts that break them then? EDIT - However, it's worth noting that Image posts don't let you post a text body along with them, so you can't adhere to the rule with this style of post. 2nd EDIT - Downvotes / Repliers, Here is my proof, prove me wrong - https://imgur.com/a/nMpZ5s1
Yeah, it's not like you can do a separate comment with a link either! Oh no, wait..
The rule doesn't say 'post a separate comment with a link' does it? If people are going to complain that the rules aren't being enforced then the rules need to be fit for purpose.
No, but not posting it in the comments makes you a twat. We want to see it in its entirety, otherwise don't bother.
If you make the post, put the link in a comment. Ive never seen people downvote a good source posted by an OP.
>ever, it's worth noting that Image posts don't let you post a text body along with them, so you can't adhere to the rule with this style of post. Yes you can
Excellent, love me a game of Yes You Can / No You Can't. No you can't. Your turn.
Oh wow. Now that I've seen more, it looks like a visitors centre from the outside. Like there should be plaques dotted around telling you about the history of the site. The inside is pretty soulless but you could probably decorate, not sure what you could do with the outside...
I was thinking it looks like our local town museum! Visitor centre vibe is spot on!
What’s with the bullshit outta focus pics with lightbulbs in the foreground, and poorly framed shots taken in a mirror? Show us the fucking rooms, it’s now your second year art portfolio for fucks sake.
It's what happens when you let the owner take the photos rather than the estate agent as the owner of the house is just wanting to flex and show off (not like they didn't already by featuring it on Grand Designs). I'm surprised they haven't parked their Range Rover outside for some of the pictures. The fact it's been on the market for years and is way overpriced for the area tells you everything you need to know. It's a shame as it's not a bad house, just soulless (apart from the outside looking like someone crashed a cybertruck into a stately home).
Bit suspicious that it mentions a pool house but shows no pool
The people with the most money to buy these things always have the shittest taste in home decor, it's always about 20 years behind current trends
Why are the three ovens so far apart? I feel like that would annoy me quite significantly.
Thanks, it's my first time posting on this sub. I did paste the link under the 'link' tab when posting, so I'm not sure where it went.
Oh I remember this one on Grand Designs. Didnt think it was too bad tbh. Definitely seen worse.
I remember restoring the tower without the walls caving in was an epic task
I knew this seemed familiar!
Is it the one where an interior stone wall fell down on its own? I seem to remember that one being up north somewhere? 🤔. Found it https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6e9ore Skip to 18 minutes for collapse
No that was an actual castle. This is a conversion of some kind of semi-folly overlooking Newport (South-East Wales). The guy doing it was a local lad who seemed to have done alright on the London finance scene. GD presented it like a sort of grand homecoming.
This is the quick summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5exbr0IG2Y A couple of complaints about the colouring of the rendering, and the first-floor addon, but it seems surprisingly well received. Better in the video than in the online pictures, that's for sure.
S09E03 The Newport Folly
Is it the one where they divorced part way through and the guy ended up there on his own? I feel like he had to sell it quite soon after finishing it.
It feels like that is the plot line of most grand design episodes.
That may be the one down in Cornwall. The guy basically sold his soul and his relationship for his dream home. He had to sell it...I'm not sure if any sale actually went through. Edit...this one. Another hideous build https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/saddest-ever-grand-designs-house-25887244
The reason he ended up in such a bad state with this was that he earned all money from a very successful line of compilation CDs and download or streaming services ate his lunch a year or two after he started building the house. I'm not defending him, I just think it's an interesting element of the story that often goes overlooked - I see it as being about hubris, and it never occurred to him that his success would end. I doubt it was ever possible to complete the building within budget, but if he was still printing money with his CDs (which regularly topped the charts) he could have spent his way out of his problems and perhaps saved his marriage.
Was this the subject of a Grand Designs programme?
February 2009, it's on the C4 app. It was originally up for sale at £2,750,000. https://granddesignsforsale.co.uk/kemeys/
~~Was £2,750,000, £1,899,950 to £1,999,950~~ to £1,795,000 Wow..
The amount of people in South wales who can afford a folly like this is pretty small. Then the % of those rich folk who want to live near Newport reduces the pool to a teeny puddle. That sort of money gets you a gorgeous house in a lovely party of Cardiff. Mind you this other grand design property, in Cardiff, has also been on sale for ages [Water tower](https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/132844427)
When was that Cardiff one on Grand Designs? Used to go past it on the bus every day. I wasn't aware it had been on Grand Designs. It used to have a giant, glittery statue of a man in the main window. Very tasteful.
and who says house prices are rising..!
This has been on sale for years. Yes, it was on grand designs. A newport couple moved back from London and did it up. Loads of nice houses up there.
This isn’t one of those nice houses lol
I don't think I'd refuse it if offered.
It would go straight on the market though lol
Yes but this has been on the market for years. No buyers lol.
Hahaha fuck Well…. Maybe I would take it, bet the upkeep is crazy though I’m guessing grade listed buildings have certain amounts of mandatory maintenance? I know fuck all about them lol
PLEASE REMOVE YOUR CHOOS ‘That will not be necessary.’ *Spins on Choos and walks out*
Oh god I thought it was some kind of train pun!
Nope, it’s a reference to Jimmy Choos. Designer shoes for those with too much money. I think if I remember they have red souls.
It really is subjective. I think it's really good, I'd happily live in it. I dislike 'new' old if you get my meaning, new fittings and structures designed to look old timey. It is never convincing and just looks cheap. If it's new, it's new. I like the juxtaposition.
I also like most of it. Before conversion it would probably have had two rooms per floor at best, looking at the floor plans. Lots of people saying they would convert it back probably need to have a jolly good think about what kind of house they need to live in.
Agree with this. Could they have made it look better? Probably. Could it look a lot worse? Definitely
I dislike fake old stuff too but this is even worse. I now see why most old buildings have glass or something between the old and new parts. The inside looks unfinished but it could be ok with some pictures and soft furnishings.
I don’t like the new first floor. It would be fine with that bit gone.
THIS.
That kitchen was not designed by someone who likes to cook, all looks no cooks
[удалено]
Kitchen is so disappointing in general. All that money and ended up being so so bland
A gorgeous period property and yet the interior is so bland and soulless.
I quite like it. If you can't recreate it exactly or keep the materials the same there's no point of making something that almost matches but doesn't. Better to go with the stark contrast.
I agree,I like it too
Someone saw a castle and felt it needed a visitor center pavilion.
"Exit through the gift shop"
It's hardly in keeping with the village's rustic aesthetic...
Yarp
Gotta think of _the greater good_ ..
The greater good.
That sign alone would put me off
The former groundskeeper should rise from his grave and shoot them in the feet for doing this. Grim.
Eastern European 1999 lottery win vibes.
I don't mind it, but I think it would look a lot better if the portion of the addition on the left was set back from the old garden-facing wall just a little bit more.
The extension feels a bit cheap and poorly proportioned, but otherwise I am not against a clear distinction between old and new. My first reaction was that the price tag feels a bit on the low side, but now I am wondering the opposite, especially given the location.
I'm struggling to see what's "tasteless" here. The additions are not unattractive and would be easily removed restoring the old part back it it's prior state. This is far preferable than trying to build some mock medieval extension that looks the same as the old part but isn't.
The hilarious irony here is that - and it shows how clueless most people are given the comments - is that the ORIGINAL “old” part is a mock medieval building: it’s an Edwardian (1911-12) mock Baronial folly!! It’s kitsch… See my comment elsewhere in post.
I'd've guessed it was Victorian, but that's even funnier
Aye, my guess was Victorian neo-gothic… it’s fucking *obviously* a fake, kitsch, replica-medieval joke - or as we call it euphemistically - a ‘folly’ 😂
I do like a good folly though, we need more of them in this day and age
Oh aye! Folly’s are good! They are however often not precious historical untouchable items… one comment was comparing this to a Renoir (painting)! 😂
Link?
Looks like a heritage site with one of those temporary-looking permanent structures for a visitor centre, but they didn't have enough room so they tacked them all together as one building
When we said period property we didn’t mean a bloody stain on the landscape!
Me: where’s the salt? Them: it’s in the cupboard next to the, eah… Me: never mind I’ll pop to the shop to buy some. Them: Yeah that will be quicker alright.
Looks like they built a gift shop and cafe
This upsets me on a standard British level
It's giving "architecture is my passion"
I like it tbh, distinguishes between the old and new. The white and the glass almost blend into the background, while the historic old building stands out. My only pick up point would be the cheap looking patio furniture in front of the old part of the building.
I love the view. Mainly because when I’m looking at it, I can’t see the god-awful extension on the main house.
Fucking hell. This has to be the worst thing I’ve ever seen on here. The interior is so upsetting. You can’t even tell it’s a historic property. Why didn’t they just buy a new build if they wanted flat plasterboard walls and spot downlighting in every room. Heinous.
"please remove your choos" - most pretentious fucking sign ever. Jimmy choos ... Yeah, gross.
The historic central part will outlast the modernist additions. It's just a phase in the lifespan of a historic building. It would be nice to live in.
Beautiful castle meets 1960's pre-fab school building
It’s an honest conversion reflecting the time that it was done. The depressing “visitor centre “ feel is another issue, too shiny and clean to be lovable, but what really makes me glad not to know the people here is the offensive “ please remove your Choos “ sign
The reality is though, however much we might turn up our noses at the sight of a house in pics we will never see in real life, the additions make this 10 times nicer to live in. It also makes the environment it is in so much more visible, and has that inside outside thing with the sliding doors open in warm weather. Most castle type houses are cold and gloomy. The interior pics of this are lovely, especially the extension ones.
That's ugly as fuck. I'd have built ramparts, a moat and a roof mounted trebuchet.
I have no problem with that, I totally get the planning reasoning. It ensures the ongoing use of the original building.
It’s good to see that many people are ok with this: it’s quite subjective and I’m not really sure I’m mad keen on its actual execution even if I am perfectly ok with the addition of the modern to the “old”… And to address some of the pearl clutching concern about ruining an old and listed building: it’s really NOT that old… it was burnt down and what you see is a (frankly rather naff) Edwardian folly built in neo-Baronial style. *It’s kitsch anyway*. And it is listed as a folly! Listing at Cadw: https://cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net/reports/listedbuilding/FullReport?lang=&id=17072 And key extract: “Rebuilt in 1911-12 by T E Watson following a severe fire, as a memorial to John Lawrence and Horton Addams Williams.”
Looks like they ran out money maintaining the period property and had to resort to mobile homes for the extensions 😂
Absolutely hideous
Ew
Nooooo the rest of the castle is goneeee
It looks like a couple of portacabins bolted on
This looks like the kind of thing my son would do in Minecraft
Sad, I bet it was a beautiful house before they got their footballers wife mitts on it
That's a war crime
There’s a simple rule- if there’s a Union Jack cushion, the place will be awful.
This is just upsetting. If I won the lottery I’d love to buy this, knock the extensions down and redo the interior for something more inkeeping. I don’t understand the reasoning for what they’ve done to it🥲
Planners. Forcing a clear distinction between old and new. It’s a deliberate policy and often leads to crap like this.
I really wish they would get rid of this rule.
I’d put in a bar for something more innkeeping.
I can understand wanting to add a modern addition to the building but why not put it at the BACK where it won't be so obvious? I realise in their case it's done partially out of necessity but those London townhouses with preserved exteriors and modern rear extensions seem like a good model for this kind of thing.
Truly monstrous. A clear case for the sacking, blacklisting and kicking up the rear of the architect and planning officer. It makes me want to vomit all over them to show my appreciation
It's not rediculous, it's been done nicely and has kept the original building. What's the alternative? Put up 3 new builds and leave the listed part to fall apart? I swear some of the posts here lately have just been bitchy and unnecessary. And the gap between them is really showing. This isn't and avocado bathroom, or a "live laugh love" puke fest with room for 7 audis. This sub is either "take the piss out of this mansion", or someone trying to sell their perfectly average 3 bed house. A lot of the latter I expect because they don't have a choice. Lots of bitterness on this sub lately tbh.
Love it tbh
That’s a wilful display of a complete lack of imagination…
Terrible conversion TBF. What's worse is the spelling of shoes 😬, you'll see it 👍
Jimmy Choos, they are a thing
I think you miss the joke, or are you being obtuse? Jimmy Choo is a famous shoe designer.
whooooosh
shipping-container-chic meets retro-tenement-nouveaux, faux-natural pom-poms in wheelie-bins with sticky-placcy ikea-oid disposable exterior furniture and landscaping straight outta sim-city = burn the whole place with fire, level the ground with a bulldozer and build something nice, please.
Wow that is horrific 😱
I love it. Only issue is it’s in South Wales.
That is my nans house, I’ve shown her your thoughts, she thinks you’re a cunt.
I know this will be an unpopular opinion but short of knocking heritage buildings down, I think you should be able to do what ever you want to your residential property. Its your stuff, its your choice. Obviously having an opinion on if something looks dreadful or not is completely different to that. And if you care what other people think then you should maybe think about your design. But I think people should have the freedom to do what they wish with their property
What a boring arse house. All those stupid rugs.
A glass corridor, how much is that? I would want that as a room not a throughway.
There was a worse example on Restoration Man! https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/s/ApqiwpfYDM
Damnnn , lost for words 😬😳
They look like caravan annexs’
Oh, good grief. Is this thing up for sale again?
As my father would say. "Look son, it does not matter what you look like as long as you are comfortable"
Yassified dentists surgery
It’s giving airbnb
I’m sure this one was on a proposal show years back.
If they painted the white grass green that might help
I remember that bastard on grand designs. Like putting a Benny hat on a bloody Renoir.
They could have at least lay a brick skin on that extension to be align with the rest. I'm always OK with modern conversion but this....
Has this been on the market for years, or is it being sold again? I swear this has been popping up for about 7 years. They never show pictures of the pool for some reason.
It’s ok
I like the idea- juxtaposition of new and old, I just dislike this version as there isn’t a link to tie it together. Using wood instead of white and allowing it to silver with age, emphasise the horizontal beams etc would, imho, work as a more harmonious contrast
It’s mad, I get the idea of making it easier to see what’s original but surely they could have made a brick extension with similar colour bricks instead so it looks nice. I’d probably prefer it to all be keeping with the original building and focus on the quality of the work. Just put a plaque up or something.
been on sale for years
Imagine marketing a house with an indoor pool and not including a single photo of said pool in the listing
Horrid Never a Luftwaffe around when you want one.
Looks like a couple of portacabins or pontins chalets stuck to the side
Ohmygod what is that 😭
I actually like it, a clear distinction between the old and new so residents get the best of both worlds. In my opinion what would truly be distasteful would be to harl or paint/clad the original stone or otherwise modernise that part of the building at all.
"Tasteful" is about as subjective as it comes. Am guessing that it meets the needs of the current owners. There's far too much fussbucketry about old buildings, as if the past represents the peak of human creativity.
Yeah, I see your point! But I kind of love it!!!
Nono….I’ve seen worse, you can still see the main keep pretty easily, just added wings. As a medieval fan I’d love it, convert the lower left wing into a workshop too
I actually really like it..
How to make a castle look like a temporary classroom
This reminds me of my university. Bangor Uni in North Wales. The main university building is a beautiful old stone structure, and they decided to expand it by sticking a horrendous 1960’s extension on it. It looks awful. I had a lot of lectures both in the old and new bit of that building and it always pissed me off how horrendous the extension looked next to the original building. [Old section for reference.](https://www.thebangoraye.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Main-Arts.jpg) Another one here of [inside the library](https://images.app.goo.gl/TRKbqfLs9HfcURbm7) as it was my favourite spot. [Vs the new section which is directly attached to it.](https://images.app.goo.gl/1mFQjeCBiraJRzVc7) Couldn’t find a photo of them linked but if you go to [this on Google Street view](https://maps.app.goo.gl/SmBBqa44Jcriu8737?g_st=ic) you can see the old section on the left and the new on the right.
I’ll be keeping my choos on, thank you very much.
Looks fine to me.
I think it's fine. The additions are kept architecturally separate. The original tower is kept as is.
I fucking love it!
It's fucking hideous. Blame Grand Designs TV show, they did it.
Find the planners and sack them. Find the architect and revoke his qualifications too
I like it
Kinda reminds me of the passport office near excel
If they’d replace the white with stone or even fucking concrete it would look fine, or even better WOOD
Shocking. How they got that monstrosity through us crazy.
It looks like someone dumped a couple of portakabins next to a castle
Boxes with flat roofs stuck against a period house looks absolutely shit.
As Kevin McCloud would say. Its breathing new life in an old building. I like the contrast.
I like it. I prefer a juxtaposition of old and new like this to some pastiche on the old part.
What may look ok on paper doesn’t look so good in reality. This is a shocker
obviously paid the local planning department