Neighbour wanting a front extension, not pleased.
Discussion
Rewe said:
Equus said:
Then I recommend that you remove the electrics (all of them, but especially the satellite dish and TV aerial - I am reliably informed that Victorian satellite dishes were quite a bit bigger).
You'll also want to remove the bathroom, and revert to a tin bath in the kitchen (which should have no fitted kitchen units, incidentally) and a bog in a little brick hut at the bottom of the garden.
Remove the log burner and the parquet flooring, which are both dreadfully inauthentic. You'll need to replace all the doors and windows again, too, because you haven't got them period-correct.
Finally, you need to die of dysentery within the next couple of years and Sarah needs to contract tuberculosis, for that final authentic Victorian working class touch.
Hope that helps?
That post is really quite mean.You'll also want to remove the bathroom, and revert to a tin bath in the kitchen (which should have no fitted kitchen units, incidentally) and a bog in a little brick hut at the bottom of the garden.
Remove the log burner and the parquet flooring, which are both dreadfully inauthentic. You'll need to replace all the doors and windows again, too, because you haven't got them period-correct.
Finally, you need to die of dysentery within the next couple of years and Sarah needs to contract tuberculosis, for that final authentic Victorian working class touch.
Hope that helps?
as possible.'
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 17:23
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Fair enough, I'd not seen them before. I'm still satisfied it will not contain sound though, and for that reason we'd still be unhappy at it being proposed.
What exactly are you worried about? Do you think you're going to be able to hear bathroom noises from your lounge? Or are you planning on standing outside your front door with a dB meter to check the levels?My available sympathy is now exhausted and, to be frank, I hope your pettiness doesn't interfere with the neighbour's plans (assuming they are deemed acceptable and pass PP). Your entire objection essentially boils down to "I don't like it. Therefore, it shouldn't be allowed".
Edited by thetoxicnerve on Sunday 5th May 17:15
And what, the pettiness that has suggested we'll not object if he moves it back a few feet, as he's proposed?
alfie2244 said:
Perhaps rustic may have been a better description.
Nope, it's not rustic at all: I stand by my use of the word 'ordinary', and even that is probably being polite.It is an absolutely basic and bog standard example of a Victorian workers' terrace. Even by the standards of its period, it lacks the most vestigial attempts at making it special, such as bay windows, moulded stonework or anything like that. The stone lintels, brick eaves and chimney detailing, etc., are all as basic as it was possible to make them, even in the Victorian era.
There was, of course, lower quality housing built in that period - back-to-backs and slum tenements - but most of it has now been cleared as unfit for modern habitation.
Rewe said:
That post is really quite mean.
Why? We've got people down here in Norfolk who get their jollies by living in a settlement of wattle and daub huts and pretending to be in the Iron age fen-dwellers.I have no problem with that, but if you're going to get all preachy about 'authenticity', at least do it properly?
Equus said:
Why? We've got people down here in Norfolk who get their jollies by living in a settlement of wattle and daub huts and pretending to be in the Iron age fen-dwellers.
I have no problem with that, but if you're going to get all preachy about 'authenticity', at least do it properly?
And you continue I have no problem with that, but if you're going to get all preachy about 'authenticity', at least do it properly?
Nope, it's not rustic at all: I stand by my use of the word 'ordinary', and even that is probably being polite.
It is an absolutely basic and bog standard example of a Victorian workers' terrace. Even by the standards of its period, it lacks the most vestigial attempts at making it special, such as bay windows, moulded stonework or anything like that. The stone lintels, brick eaves and chimney detailing, etc., are all as basic as it was possible to make them, even in the Victorian era.
There was, of course, lower quality housing built in that period - back-to-backs and slum tenements - but most of it has now been cleared as unfit for modern habitation
You're wrong. We have studied the history of our village extensively. Our style of house was for one up from the basic workers. The modern equivalent would maybe be lower management.
This is a road behind ours, which the pit workers, the men digging would live. About 35% smaller square footage, and half the size of plot.
And as I stated, where possible. Of cause modern living requires upgrades from the Victorian period.
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 17:48
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 17:48
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 17:50
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 17:50
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 17:51
alfie2244 said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
alfie2244 said:
Nice copings on top of the wall 
They are actually, aren't they. May see if we could find something similar as a reclaim. Rewe said:
Because that house has clearly been a labour of love for Kermit and Sarah, it marks the start of their lives together and they have worked hard to make it special for them. You belittled this.
Professionally you are correct, but the intent was mean.
I should perhaps state that I myself live in a very ordinary 19th Century agricultural worker's cottage, lacking any local character whatsoever. If it has any architectural or historic interest at all, it's that it is an example of a 'catalogue cottage', where landowners would literally order a set of standard plans from a catalogue to build housing for their workers... a product of Victorian national industrialisation taking over from local materials and vernacular building techniques.Professionally you are correct, but the intent was mean.
I am not so prissy or delusional as to think that forming a new opening in a plain brick garden wall is going to critically compromise its historic integrity, however. Even the most rabid Conservation Officers and Historic Buildings Consultants acknowledge that all buildings evolve over their lifetimes to accommodated modern standards of living, and that itself forms part of the history of the building.
To avoid relocating an access gate, despite the fact that it will cause you significant inconvenience, on such spurious 'heritage' grounds is quite simply nuts. And if my neighbour wants to add an extension to meet his needs (we all have one already, added by the original landlord in the 60's to accommodate the bathroom that didn't exist on the original design), then good luck to him.
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
And you continue
You're wrong. We have studied the history of our village extensively. Our style of house was for one up from the basic workers. The modern equivalent would maybe be lower management.
This is a road behind ours, which the pit workers, the men digging would live. About 35% smaller square footage, and half the size of plot.
And as I stated, where possible. Of cause modern living requires upgrades from the Victorian period.
I didn't say that it was the cheapest or smallest in terms of scale - as I said, there was certainly lower quality housing, most of which has been swept away.You're wrong. We have studied the history of our village extensively. Our style of house was for one up from the basic workers. The modern equivalent would maybe be lower management.
This is a road behind ours, which the pit workers, the men digging would live. About 35% smaller square footage, and half the size of plot.
And as I stated, where possible. Of cause modern living requires upgrades from the Victorian period.
Interestingly, the housing you picture, whilst smaller, is of much better design quality than yours - round copings on the garden wall, string course details, arched heads over the ground floor windows, peaks over the first floor windows... that's really rather nice, relatively speaking.
Are you sure that they were for the pit workers? It's actually screaming 'railway housing' at me - the railways tending to take a bit more pride in their architecture, because it helped reinforce the prestige of their 'corporate identity', to couch it in modern marketing terms.
Edited by Equus on Sunday 5th May 18:11
Equus said:
Rewe said:
Because that house has clearly been a labour of love for Kermit and Sarah, it marks the start of their lives together and they have worked hard to make it special for them. You belittled this.
Professionally you are correct, but the intent was mean.
I should perhaps state that I myself live in a very ordinary 19th Century agricultural worker's cottage, lacking any local character whatsoever. If it has any architectural or historic interest at all, it's that it is an example of a 'catalogue cottage', where landowners would literally order a set of standard plans from a catalogue to build housing for their workers... a product of Victorian national industrialisation taking over from local materials and vernacular building techniques.Professionally you are correct, but the intent was mean.
I am not so prissy or delusional as to think that forming a new opening in a plain brick garden wall is going to critically compromise its historic integrity, however. Even the most rabid Conservation Officers and Historic Buildings Consultants acknowledge that all buildings evolve over their lifetimes to accommodated modern standards of living, and that itself forms part of the history of the building.
To avoid relocating an access gate, despite the fact that it will cause you significant inconvenience, on such spurious 'heritage' grounds is quite simply nuts. And if my neighbour wants to add an extension to meet his needs (we all have one already, added by the original landlord in the 60's to accommodate the bathroom that didn't exist on the original design), then good luck to him.
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
And you continue
You're wrong. We have studied the history of our village extensively. Our style of house was for one up from the basic workers. The modern equivalent would maybe be lower management.
This is a road behind ours, which the pit workers, the men digging would live. About 35% smaller square footage, and half the size of plot.
And as I stated, where possible. Of cause modern living requires upgrades from the Victorian period.
I didn't say that it was the cheapest or smallest in terms of scale - as I said, there was certainly lower quality housing, most of which has been swept away.You're wrong. We have studied the history of our village extensively. Our style of house was for one up from the basic workers. The modern equivalent would maybe be lower management.
This is a road behind ours, which the pit workers, the men digging would live. About 35% smaller square footage, and half the size of plot.
And as I stated, where possible. Of cause modern living requires upgrades from the Victorian period.
Interestingly, the housing you picture, whilst smaller, is of much better design quality than yours - bullnose copings on the garden wall, string course detail, peaks over the first floor windows.
Are you sure that they were for the pit workers? It's actually screaming 'railway housing' at me - the railways tending to take a bit more pride in their architecture, because it helped reinforce the prestige of their 'corporate identity', to couch it in modern marketing terms.
As long as the historians who wrote the books we have read are correct then yes, the smaller houses were for the base workers. Our village had a railway for both passengers, and taking coal out. I'm not sure if that could have any relation to the railway element?
O/T, which went badly wrong one day.....
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 18:06
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
...the smaller houses were for the base workers. Our village had a railway for both passengers, and taking coal out. I'm not sure if that could have any relation to the railway element?
Well, at risk of stating the obvious, Railways didn't have much by way of 'middle management' at a local level, being as they provided the high-speed transport links that meant it could be centralised.I could be wrong, but your terrace is screaming 'colliery worker' and the other photo very much 'railway cottages' at me... the difference in styles is quite distinctive and characteristic.
Equus said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
May see if we could find something similar as a reclaim.
You don't see any contradiction there, at all?Equus said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
...the smaller houses were for the base workers. Our village had a railway for both passengers, and taking coal out. I'm not sure if that could have any relation to the railway element?
Well, at risk of stating the obvious, Railways didn't have much by way of 'middle management' at a local level, being as they provided the high-speed transport links that meant it could be centralised.I could be wrong, but your terrace is screaming 'colliery worker' and the other photo very much 'railway cottages' at me... the difference in styles is quite distinctive and characteristic.
For clarification ours is an ex-mining village.
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
...it is making it original.
Eh? You're taking something that is genuinely original and modifying it to make it...erm... 'original'?
I think that the word you are looking for is 'pastiche'.
And yes, if you're taking a strictly historical view, b
dising an original car to turn it into a more 'desirable' model is equally reprehensible - you're destroying the genuine history. And don't get me going on 'restomods'!Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Probably 2/3's of the village is the smaller style, which would be a lot for a railway with not many staff?
You've never been to Swindon, then? 
I'm not a local historian, but from knowledge of similar settlements (I was born and raised in a former Yorkshire pit village), you may well find that the base level housing for the colliery workers has been swept away because it was deemed sub-standard. The big clue is often to look for a post-war council estate that replaced it.
Steam railways could be quite labour intensive, depending on the location... and common sense suggests that railway+colliery = coalyard & refuelling stop for locomotives.
You've also got a nearby village called 'Langwith Junction', I see, and if that doesn't scream 'railways', then I don't know what does!
Edited by Equus on Sunday 5th May 18:53
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Equus said:
DonkeyApple said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Equus said:
desolate said:
Would having a toilet on the boundary be a relevant factor in the decision?
Nope, not even slightly.Would anyone be happy about that?
Is there any kind of case to argue that it cannot be a toilet?
No, really, honestly, I kid you not. The Planning system does not consider the proximity of a khazi to neighbouring boundary when determining applications. They just don't.
The environmental impact of odours from neighbouring development is a valid planning consideration, and if we were talking about the extract duct from the kitchen of a curry house they'd be valid concerns, but a single domestic toilet? As dickymint says: get a grip.
I'm beginning to believe that, what with this and "to completely destroy a 146 year old Victorian wall would be sacrilege in our eyes" this is really all a subtle wind-up on the OP's part.
I mean, FFS, its not the Taj Mahal... its a very ordinary section of brick wall, outside a very ordinary brick terrace in a very ordinary Northern village.
Perhaps the OP should seek to get the property listed, if it's really so precious...
You see the fireplace, which I spent 80 hours working on, hacking off plaster, brick acid'ing, replacing damaged bricks and re-pointing? Again, regular compliments. The reclaimed Victorian bricks passageway replacing the tarmac path, the same. I could go on, but I wont bore you.
What I am getting at is that when you put all these elements, and more, together the sum of its parts can make the house right, impressive, I'm struggling for the word. Compare it to 4 years ago, pictured some pages back.
So no, a Victorian wall is not going to be destroyed to install a cheap B&Q wooden fence.
Also, to come on and call every part of our existence ordinary is poor form.
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 16:24
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 16:26
They tried selling in 2008. Everyone commented on how nice and well cared for the property was and "nice door, nice windows, looks out of place, needs modernising, how much off".
They finally sold in 2016, by then everything was uPVC and guess what, the street was becoming infiltrated by uPVC porches (about 1 in 10 houses).
My Dad must have wasted thousands on estate agents, he kept falling for up front fees even though I told him not to, of course got "Everested" in the uPVCisation of the house and they lost money on the nett difference when they finally moved after years of anguish about it - I can't even imagine what the angst of wanting to move for nearly a decade is, after two years I offered to buy my folks a place near me and I'd rent it them but no dice, too independent.
Sounds like you've the right idea in compromise, sounds though like your being taken down visually to lowest common denominator. Don't think being the smartest, nicest, commentedest on house is the best if you're getting unsure about the standards locally, you might get caught before the time to move on to another area before it is too late?
Edit: Couldn't remember the phrase my Dad coined at the end, added it now "We had the best house in the worst street, estate agents tell me that is the nightmare sale".
Edit 2 - Just seen Langwath up the threat - ha, not so far away, you don't remember a girl from nearby called Rebeca C whom went to Cambridge in 1991 do you. If so tell her she broke my heart but I've still got her Stone Roses LP which she'd hidden "our" polaroids in!!!!! (Aaaaahhhhh why do polaroids fade to blank over 30 yrs.....).
Edited by StanleyT on Sunday 5th May 18:55
StanleyT said:
.... Don't think being the smartest, nicest, commentedest on house is the best if you're getting unsure about the standards locally, you might get caught before the time to move on to another area before it is too late?
It does certainly sound as though you might be happier in a Conservation Area, with a nice Article 4 Direction in place, where you can take pride in your 'authenticity' and twitch curtains to your hearts content.Otherwise, you need to learn to live and let live, a bit more, perhaps?
Equus said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
...it is making it original.
Eh? You're taking something that is genuinely original and modifying it to make it...erm... 'original'?
I think that the word you are looking for is 'pastiche'.
And yes, if you're taking a strictly historical view, b
dising an original car to turn it into a more 'desirable' model is equally reprehensible - you're destroying the genuine history. And don't get me going on 'restomods'!Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Probably 2/3's of the village is the smaller style, which would be a lot for a railway with not many staff?
You've never been to Swindon, then? I'm not a local historian, but from knowledge of similar settlements (I was born and raised in a former Yorkshire pit village), you may well find that the base level housing for the colliery workers has been swept away because it was deemed sub-standard. The big clue is often to look for a post-war council estate that replaced it.
Steam railways could be quite labour intensive, depending on the location... and common sense suggests that railway+colliery = coalyard & refuelling stop for locomotives.
You've also got a nearby village called 'Langwith Junction', I see, and if that doesn't scream 'railways', then I don't know what does!
Edited by Equus on Sunday 5th May 18:53
Langwith Junction was IIRC the junction, yes.
Much of the base worker houses were swept away in our vilage, when they continued digging under them, and they fell in
StanleyT said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Equus said:
DonkeyApple said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Equus said:
desolate said:
Edit: Couldn't remember the phrase my Dad coined at the end, added it now "We had the best house in the worst street, estate agents tell me that is the nightmare sale".
Edit 2 - Just seen Langwath up the threat - ha, not so far away, you don't remember a girl from nearby called Rebeca C whom went to Cambridge in 1991 do you. If so tell her she broke my heart but I've still got her Stone Roses LP which she'd hidden "our" polaroids in!!!!! (Aaaaahhhhh why do polaroids fade to blank over 30 yrs.....).
That top comment really is gold! I don't recall her, but I'm not Langwith born and bread. I'm from Southwell, Sarah London. We'd prefer these locations, but ours would be a £260k house in Southwell (with a £180k mortgage) and god knows what in London.Edit 2 - Just seen Langwath up the threat - ha, not so far away, you don't remember a girl from nearby called Rebeca C whom went to Cambridge in 1991 do you. If so tell her she broke my heart but I've still got her Stone Roses LP which she'd hidden "our" polaroids in!!!!! (Aaaaahhhhh why do polaroids fade to blank over 30 yrs.....).
Edited by StanleyT on Sunday 5th May 18:55
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff