Medieval Church May 24

[Stealthstar79]

A absolutely stunning , medieval church. Although no access it's still worthy of a post.
The deocise is selling the church due to the falling numbers of the congregation.
It's been redundant since 2010 when it held it's last service.
Along with the Church is a mortuary chapel, again no access.
The12rh century church is grade II listed and is on the historic England at risk register due to it's decaying state, break ins and vandalism.
I hope there is a wonderful future for this breathtaking church and graveyard. Although it's not had much interest since it's sale I can imagine purchasing a church of this size and history with its graded status would be a tricky purchase.

 

[night crawler]

There was a church not far away from me that was for sale Bradfield collage purchased it in the end. At the time I tried to get access and even communicated with the churchwarden that held the key. At first he was OK about meeting but then said he did not have the time. He was a right arse. In the end the people who were selling it were going to allow me along for a final inspection. Then Covid hit and I lost out. That looks a good church to visit if you can go inside, shame it is closing

 

[Stealthstar79]

There was a church not far away from me that was for sale Bradfield collage purchased it in the end. At the time I tried to get access and even communicated with the churchwarden that held the key. At first he was OK about meeting but then said he did not have the time. He was a right arse. In the end the people who were selling it were going to allow me along for a final inspection. Then Covid hit and I lost out. That looks a good church to visit if you can go inside, shame it is closing

It's been closed since 2010 no services since then. It's just left decaying now

 

[Hayman]

It's been closed since 2010 no services since then. It's just left decaying now

Governments set up the Listing process - which has saved many buildings from demolition - but with no thought as to what happens if owners either do not have the money to maintain them, or they choose to shut them up and walk away. If buildings are of national or local value, then should taxpayers - that's us - be compelled to fund their maintenance?

 

[Gibbo]

I'm sure many Wiganers will lament at the loss of Winstanley Hall. When I first explored it in 2005 it was in a precarious state.

Then after arguments between owner and the council nothing got done. Now the roof, 3rd, 2nd, first and ground floors are mostly all in the basement.

 

[Antar]

Governments set up the Listing process - which has saved many buildings from demolition - but with no thought as to what happens if owners either do not have the money to maintain them, or they choose to shut them up and walk away. If buildings are of national or local value, then should taxpayers - that's us - be compelled to fund their maintenance?

No system is perfect, but you appear to be starting with an assumption that building owners have no obligations to society or the places that their buildings occupy. That may be your opinion, but it isn't shared by our nation, our laws or our government. The idea of the listing is to ensure the owner or owners of a building have to recognise that their building has a wider importance than its material value (although it's often why they bought it) and hopefully encourage them to embrace and celebrate that value, which the vast majority do. It also prevents an owner from knocking it down easily and quickly to profit from the land value or lumps of architectural salvage and should also prevent them from making substantial changes without notice. If owners no longer have the money to maintain a property, then they can sell it. Other than issues like probate, nothing forces anyone to hang on to a building regardless other than greed or selfishness and while owners can and do shut buildings up and walk away, local authorities can also force such owners to pay for essential repairs.

 

[Hayman]

No system is perfect, but you appear to be starting with an assumption that building owners have no obligations to society or the places that their buildings occupy. That may be your opinion, but it isn't shared by our nation, our laws or our government. The idea of the listing is to ensure the owner or owners of a building have to recognise that their building has a wider importance than its material value (although it's often why they bought it) and hopefully encourage them to embrace and celebrate that value, which the vast majority do. It also prevents an owner from knocking it down easily and quickly to profit from the land value or lumps of architectural salvage and should also prevent them from making substantial changes without notice. If owners no longer have the money to maintain a property, then they can sell it. Other than issues like probate, nothing forces anyone to hang on to a building regardless other than greed or selfishness and while owners can and do shut buildings up and walk away, local authorities can also force such owners to pay for essential repairs.

Thank you for your reply. I do think that owners have a responsibility to maintain buildings that were already listed when they bought them. But not if the listing is slapped on a building after purchase. The reverse of that is complusory purchase of someone's home and its demolition for a road scheme, etc. You say "If owners no longer have the money to maintain a property, then they can sell it". That assumes there is someone wiling to buy the property, and that person will have the money and the desire to spend large sums to preserve it. To what purpose? Every building was constructed for a reason. When that reason no longer exists, why try to perpetuate it. Here we have a situation where people no longer believe in the religion that saw the church built. Times move on. Thousands of equally well-built and attractive railway stations have been demolished since the 1960s, with not a whimper. How is a disused church different from a disused railway station?

 

[Roderick]

No system is perfect, but you appear to be starting with an assumption that building owners have no obligations to society or the places that their buildings occupy. That may be your opinion, but it isn't shared by our nation, our laws or our government. The idea of the listing is to ensure the owner or owners of a building have to recognise that their building has a wider importance than its material value (although it's often why they bought it) and hopefully encourage them to embrace and celebrate that value, which the vast majority do. It also prevents an owner from knocking it down easily and quickly to profit from the land value or lumps of architectural salvage and should also prevent them from making substantial changes without notice. If owners no longer have the money to maintain a property, then they can sell it. Other than issues like probate, nothing forces anyone to hang on to a building regardless other than greed or selfishness and while owners can and do shut buildings up and walk away, local authorities can also force such owners to pay for essential repairs.

I feel that's a slightly naive response. I know of numerous nice buildings which have gone to ruin just because they are listed, nobody wants to take them on as a result of the micro-management which is applied to the smallest repair or alteration- this deters most buyers. Next to where I live an old hall had it's oldest and most interesting wing hurriedly demolished into its cellar when the local history society started a listing application - it stopped the listing but spoilt the building.
The law is an ass and the government, in the belief that one size fits all, constantly passes ill considered laws with plenty of unintended consequences. Other countries have more flexible policies which often result in people living in flats in well maintained historical buildings.

 

[Hayman]

I feel that's a slightly naive response. I know of numerous nice buildings which have gone to ruin just because they are listed, nobody wants to take them on as a result of the micro-management which is applied to the smallest repair or alteration- this deters most buyers. Next to where I live an old hall had it's oldest and most interesting wing hurriedly demolished into its cellar when the local history society started a listing application - it stopped the listing but spoilt the building.
The law is an ass and the government, in the belief that one size fits all, constantly passes ill considered laws with plenty of unintended consequences. Other countries have more flexible policies which often result in people living in flats in well maintained historical buildings.

If my response was naive, it was based on over seventy years of obtaining enjoyment from visiting old buildings, very seldom churches since I do not hold with any religions. I do think that people leave something of themselves behind when they have occupied places; just my own fancy. I agree that British authorities have a very 'clunky' attitude when it comes to listing and conserving. This is seen when demanding very particular replacement materials, regardless of the cost.

Two buildings that should have been preserved were the old Kensington Town Hall and the Firestone Tyre Factory in Brentford. The first had its frontage destroyed on instructions by the Kensington & Chelsea Council. That happened in the early hours of 12 Jun 1977, when the GLC was about to declare it and nearby buildings a conservation area. The art deco Firestone factory in Brentford - after its purchase by Trafalgar House - was demolished during the August 1980 bank holiday weekend, reportedly in anticipation of its becoming listed. It is not just private owners who take against listing orders.

 

[Roderick]

If my response was naive, it was based on over seventy years of obtaining enjoyment from visiting old buildings, very seldom churches since I do not hold with any religions. I do think that people leave something of themselves behind when they have occupied places; just my own fancy. I agree that British authorities have a very 'clunky' attitude when it comes to listing and conserving. This is seen when demanding very particular replacement materials, regardless of the cost.

Two buildings that should have been preserved were the old Kensington Town Hall and the Firestone Tyre Factory in Brentford. The first had its frontage destroyed on instructions by the Kensington & Chelsea Council. That happened in the early hours of 12 Jun 1977, when the GLC was about to declare it and nearby buildings a conservation area. The art deco Firestone factory in Brentford - after its purchase by Trafalgar House - was demolished during the August 1980 bank holiday weekend, reportedly in anticipation of its becoming listed. It is not just private owners who take against listing orders.

Yours was fine by me, ( I usually agree with what you post on here) I was commenting on @Antar's response to you.

 

[Hayman]

Yours was fine by me, ( I usually agree with what you post on here) I was commenting on @Antar's response to you.

Fine. Thanks for that explanation. Fully understood.

 

[Antar]

I wasn't commenting on this specific church which by the photos doesn't appear to have ever had a lot going for it, I was just making a general observation on your comments. As I said, no system is perfect, and our system has been a political football since it was introduced and is widely accepted to be long overdue for significant change. The importance or significance of a building has never been fully objective and the listing process has always been fragmentary and heavily-biased towards structures that were either religious in nature or the products of the nobility. Particularly with industrial buildings, it is often only when the building comes up for sale or is set for demolition that any significance is recognised by someone knowledgeable enough to spot that it isn't listed and willing to try to get the building listed and this whole issue of who pays then begins. Whether that counts as the listing being 'slapped on' at the last minute as you put it is neither here nor there, my limited understanding is that the listing process is far from rapid and while it is 'the authorities' who determine if a building meets the requirements for listing, more often than not it is a member of the public rather than 'the authorities' who these days nominate what might be worth saving and why and hence many of the difficulties.

 

[Hayman]

I wasn't commenting on this specific church which by the photos doesn't appear to have ever had a lot going for it, I was just making a general observation on your comments. As I said, no system is perfect, and our system has been a political football since it was introduced and is widely accepted to be long overdue for significant change. The importance or significance of a building has never been fully objective and the listing process has always been fragmentary and heavily-biased towards structures that were either religious in nature or the products of the nobility. Particularly with industrial buildings, it is often only when the building comes up for sale or is set for demolition that any significance is recognised by someone knowledgeable enough to spot that it isn't listed and willing to try to get the building listed and this whole issue of who pays then begins. Whether that counts as the listing being 'slapped on' at the last minute as you put it is neither here nor there, my limited understanding is that the listing process is far from rapid and while it is 'the authorities' who determine if a building meets the requirements for listing, more often than not it is a member of the public rather than 'the authorities' who these days nominate what might be worth saving and why and hence many of the difficulties.

I used "slapped on" because some listings seem to be made quickly when it is the private owner who is suddenly faced with adhering to an order made by a council department or national government department. As for members of the public having a say in what buildings are listed, it took years of struggling by John Betjeman to counter the anti-Victorian era attitude when it came to saving both everyday and outstanding buildings. Whoever owned the former St Pancras Hotel was demanding its demolition; it was the efforts of Betjeman and the Victorian Society that stopped it from being lost. And that was because the Euston Arch was totally unnecessarily demolished when the Victorian Euston Station was razed to the ground and a new one built. King's Cross, Marylebone and Paddington stations are - thankfully - very much as built.

Many things are fashionable one moment, then written off the next. Music and clothes are other examples. Post-war utterly functional modernist architecture is now considered worth saving.
What goes around comes around.