C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 7 back stairs adjacent to the latch in question. The owner claimed at appeal that these were 1970s in date. This is despite the fact that the BEAMS report stated that ‘it is likely that this part of the house was occupied by farm workers/servants; the accommodation is much plainer in style, there are separate front and rear doors, and a separate rear staircase to access the first floor.’ The partitions were typical of the changes in Victorian farmhouses, introducing a hierarchy in terms of the ‘low’ and ‘parlour’ ends of the house, and also in terms of introducing partitioning to provide an entrance lobby and a more ‘private’ stair which did not give directly on to the bedroom. The inspector concluded that the removal of partitions from the ground and first-floor rooms confused the historic layout and plan form of the house, and how it had evolved prior to its listing. Overall the inspector concluded that these alterations represented an unacceptable loss of historic fabric, obscuring the building’s historical origins and development. The three aspects covered by these appeals still may appear relatively minor. However, the local planning authority is now bracing itself to receive appeals against the enforcement notices it intends to serve for these three cases, and the other 12 offences where the owner had failed to apply for listed building consent. The owner was trying to pick off the easy wins in his appeal strategy. In August 2010 a successful prosecution by the local planning authority led to the owner being fined £4,000 with costs of £5,070 at St Albans Crown Court, for carrying out unauthorised works to the farmhouse which affected its character as a building of architectural and historic interest. The judge commented that ‘The degree of damage is considerable... [the local planning authority] said that you systematically swept through the entire building, removing certain elements, concealing or damaging others and introducing false elements.’ In these sweeping changes, a host of subtle alterations had occurred. Some second-hand timber had been introduced into three of the rooms. Most door architraves had been replaced, in some cases concealing carpenters’ marks on the adjacent timber framing. A new letterbox had been carved into the doubleleaf front door and much of its ironmongery altered. Loudspeakers had been inserted into the ceilings of the principal rooms, which raised suspicions as to whether the ceilings themselves had been replaced. The upstairs bathroom had been nudged out to take in a former landing cupboard. Two chimneypieces had been lost to inappropriate replacements. The incremental effect of these changes has been damaging enough, though the owner claimed they were all simply repairs. He stretched this concept to include: 1. Converting the attic space over the parlour chamber into a bedroom, which in turn involved reconfiguring the bedrooms below it to introduce an unsuitable staircase, with the sawnout joists being used to decorate the partition wall as mock timber-framing. 2. Dry-lining every internal face of the external walls, both to the ground floor and upper storey. The owner claimed that nothing had been destroyed in the process, but this has been impossible to verify. The metal fixing system clearly required holes to be drilled in the original plaster, while room sizes have been affected, and inevitably every aperture and skirting detail has had to be altered to accommodate the new linings. 3. Changing much of the detailing of the roof by building out the eaves, replacing four-inch with sixinch guttering, and doubling up on bargeboards at the gables. The owner was prosecuted for 15 offences in August 2010. These were a distillation of the total works carried Now the exposed brickwork and fireplace adjacent to the staircase give a visually confusing message. The main staircase being dismantled
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=