# Gurney's, November 2019



## ocelot397 (Nov 24, 2019)

*Gurney's, November 2019
*
This was an interesting explore of a Grade 2 listed farmhouse; although I feared for my life on the top deck!

I can't really find any history on this place, but it's a big shame that it's been left to decay like this; I think it's past saving now.


1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.



7.



8.



9.



10.



11.



12.



13.



14.



15.


----------



## BikinGlynn (Nov 24, 2019)

Jees, yes u are braver than me! what a lovely looking building though thanks for documenting this!


----------



## Sabtr (Nov 25, 2019)

One sneeze and you're gone!
A cute building and listed too - we're losing a lot of listed buildings but with many, such as this one, I don't know what the answer would be.
I do know that I couldn't live there - I'm just too big for the place! 
Nice interesting bits still laid about too.
Thanks for sharing.


----------



## BikinGlynn (Nov 25, 2019)

Sausage said:


> One sneeze and you're gone!
> A cute building and listed too - we're losing a lot of listed buildings but with many, such as this one, I don't know what the answer would be.
> I do know that I couldn't live there - I'm just too big for the place!
> Nice interesting bits still laid about too.
> Thanks for sharing.



I amazed thats listed but as you say what happens when it inevitably falls down!
incidentally I love the way the horseshoe survives above the entrance although it dosent appear to of brought it much luck!


----------



## Dirus_Strictus (Nov 25, 2019)

A typical two edged sword here - Listing has stopped the place being raised to the ground, but is also responsible for the ruination we now see here. This is because the 'modifications' allowed under the present Listing, are too restricted to allow this place to be a viable home. Never mind the location! For structures like this we really need a new category of listing that allows sympathetic restoration and modifications - after all; the place will have been altered over the years prior to listing. The person who drew up the listing documents should have been sacked! I know many people think that the abandonment of listed buildings; by their owners, is deliberate - if they do not get their own way with their alteration planning applications. In some cases this is true, but in many cases, what is 'allowed' does not produce a structure that meets modern domestic living. Also it is worth remembering that the Authorities can force an owner to rebuild a Listed Building to its original design, if they just let it collapse.


----------



## ocelot397 (Nov 25, 2019)

Well, the paddock at the back has been cleared recently. so perhaps there may be some movement on that front?

Although, as Dirus says, it may be hard to do make anything of it due to listing restrictions; at 6'2" I couldn't stand upright on the bottom floor! 

Regardless, it's a very photogenic little site and I'm happy with the way the photos turned out considering the flat light conditions!


----------



## Sam Haltin (Nov 26, 2019)

Looks like it was a cosy little cottage at one time. Christmas and birthdays were celebrated there at one time. The cabinet in the last picture looks like a tea cabinet, but I could be (and usually I am) wrong.


----------



## NoseyGit (Nov 26, 2019)

How sad. It upsets me to see once loved and lived in homes going to rack and ruin.


----------



## ryedale rodent (Nov 27, 2019)

Dirus_Strictus said:


> A typical two edged sword here - Listing has stopped the place being raised to the ground, but is also responsible for the ruination we now see here. This is because the 'modifications' allowed under the present Listing, are too restricted to allow this place to be a viable home. Never mind the location! For structures like this we really need a new category of listing that allows sympathetic restoration and modifications - after all; the place will have been altered over the years prior to listing. The person who drew up the listing documents should have been sacked! I know many people think that the abandonment of listed buildings; by their owners, is deliberate - if they do not get their own way with their alteration planning applications. In some cases this is true, but in many cases, what is 'allowed' does not produce a structure that meets modern domestic living. Also it is worth remembering that the Authorities can force an owner to rebuild a Listed Building to its original design, if they just let it collapse.


 
It’s a shame to see such a quaint wee house so ruinous. However, you’re not correct regarding the implications for the building of its listing (nb I haven’t been able to check if it is in fact listed; there doesn’t appear to be a Gurney’s farm/house/farmhouse on Historic England’s register). If it is, I don’t see how you can state that the listing is responsible for the building’s present state of ruination. It’s impossible to say without visiting the site whether it would have been viable or possible to reinstate it for human habitation, so you simply cannot assert what modifications would be required to render it habitable again, and thus whether they’d be acceptable to the relevant authorities. I’ve dealt with many hundreds of listed buildings over the years and the great majority have been perfectly capable of sympathetic adaptation to modern uses without conflicting with their listed status or compromising their inherent architectural and/or historic qualities. In saying that the “person who drew up the listing documents should have been sacked”, you clearly misunderstand the procedures and criteria for listing (see relevant Historic England guidance). Finally, it’s very rare for a local authority to “force an owner to rebuild a listed building”. It did occur when the Carlton Tavern in Kilburn was demolished without LBC some years ago, and the owners were required to rebuild following enforcement action by the LPA and dismissal of a subsequent planning appeal, but such instances are very unusual.


----------



## BikinGlynn (Nov 28, 2019)

ryedale rodent said:


> It’s a shame to see such a quaint wee house so ruinous. However, you’re not correct regarding the implications for the building of its listing (nb I haven’t been able to check if it is in fact listed; there doesn’t appear to be a Gurney’s farm/house/farmhouse on Historic England’s register). If it is, I don’t see how you can state that the listing is responsible for the building’s present state of ruination. It’s impossible to say without visiting the site whether it would have been viable or possible to reinstate it for human habitation, so you simply cannot assert what modifications would be required to render it habitable again, and thus whether they’d be acceptable to the relevant authorities. I’ve dealt with many hundreds of listed buildings over the years and the great majority have been perfectly capable of sympathetic adaptation to modern uses without conflicting with their listed status or compromising their inherent architectural and/or historic qualities. In saying that the “person who drew up the listing documents should have been sacked”, you clearly misunderstand the procedures and criteria for listing (see relevant Historic England guidance). Finally, it’s very rare for a local authority to “force an owner to rebuild a listed building”. It did occur when the Carlton Tavern in Kilburn was demolished without LBC some years ago, and the owners were required to rebuild following enforcement action by the LPA and dismissal of a subsequent planning appeal, but such instances are very unusual.



I think the point Dirus is making is that listing "makes things awkward".
If you owned this building when it was habitable but starting to deteriorate & know it prob has a low market value would you be prepared to jump through the hoops & pay higher prices listing requires?
Yes listing is good but even the length of process to make amendments would put a lot off buying a listed property.
As you state its rare that you would be made to rebuild if a collapse happens so why not just wait for the inevitable collapse to happen.
Or maybe a case of "oops I let the trainee have a go on the digger & look what happened" would be the more cost effective solution.
Look at the lovely St Josephs for example, sure its listed but they cant force the owner to spend the huge amounts required to preserve it so its slowly falling in on itself, in instances like this the listing is worthless!


----------



## Dirus_Strictus (Nov 29, 2019)

The family restoration firm - now run by my brother, has worked on very many listed and conserved buildings over the years and has come across examples where Authorities have not been sympathetic! As for this place; I know it very well, having first come across it in the early '60's when it was lived in.


----------



## ocelot397 (Nov 30, 2019)

Dirus_Strictus said:


> The family restoration firm - now run by my brother, has worked on very many listed and conserved buildings over the years and has come across examples where Authorities have not been sympathetic! As for this place; I know it very well, having first come across it in the early '60's when it was lived in.



Do you know anything on the history of the place?


----------



## ryedale rodent (Dec 3, 2019)

BikinGlynn said:


> I think the point Dirus is making is that listing "makes things awkward".
> If you owned this building when it was habitable but starting to deteriorate & know it prob has a low market value would you be prepared to jump through the hoops & pay higher prices listing requires?
> Yes listing is good but even the length of process to make amendments would put a lot off buying a listed property.
> As you state its rare that you would be made to rebuild if a collapse happens so why not just wait for the inevitable collapse to happen.
> ...



The provisions of LB repairs notices are there to tackle the neglect (deliberate or otherwise) of LBs. I’ve frequently used them to good effect (and have also successfully prosecuted where buildings have partially “collapsed”).


----------

