development

When enabling development makes things worse: Sandhill Park, Somerset

Matthew Beckett - The Country Seat4 Comments
Sandhill Park, Somerset (Image: English Heritage)

There is always a temptation when any country house and estate comes to the market for the land to be built over with residential developments which provide a quick and relatively easy profit – even if it does ruin forever the setting of the house.  Usually the houses are snuck through under the cover of ‘enabling development’ with a promise that this will secure the long-term future of the house.  Grade-II* listed Sandhill Park in Somerset is an interesting example of where this fails if the development is build in an inappropriate location and a council who apparently haven’t ensured that at least some of the profits are invested in the house.

The main house at Sandhill Park was built around 1720, for the John Perriam, the MP for Minehead and inherited in 1767 by his grandson John Lethbridge (who was knighted in 1804) and remained in the Lethbridge family until 1913.  On inheriting Sandhill Park in 1815, Sir Thomas Buckler Lethbridge, the 2nd Baronet (b. 1778 – d.1849) added a grand portico to the main house and large wings to the rear.  The main house was substanially rebuilt in the 19th century giving it the distinctive and elegant sandstone ashlar look it retains today. These changes were funded through debt which burdened the family for years but ensured that no further major changes were made.  However, following the death in 1902 of Sir Wroth Acland Lethbridge, the 4th Baronet, the family moved out and the house was let until it was sold, along with 4,000 acres, in 1913.  It was subsequently bought in 1929 by Somerset County Council for use as a hospital and was requisitioned as a military hospital during WWII.  After the war, it became a psychiatric hospital until it closed in 1992 since which the house has remained unused.

The assumption appears to have been that the house could not be returned to being a family home which appears to have given the green light to the estate being built on and the conversion of the house with further building works to the rear, again turning a wonderful country house into a mere afterthought in a large development.  Planning permission was initially refused for what is now known as the Lethbridge Park housing estate which has been built to the east of the main house with the nearest property being just 100-metres away.  The only access for this estate is a small road to the north – the opposite direction to the town – which forces all traffic through a country lane before joining the main road back to Bishops Lydeard. It’s not possible to walk to the town so even to get a paper the residents must use their car.  Surely it would have been better to site the estate away from the house and use the parkland nearest the town?  The isolated residents gain no benefit from being so close to the house and the council’s decision has merely ensured more traffic on the local roads whilst compromising the setting of the main house.

This development has made it harder to sell the house as a home as the roofs of the new houses are visible from the main house. But perhaps this was part of the plan as the Knight Frank sales particulars explain that planning permission has been granted for the conversion of the main house into apartments with many more houses being built to the rear of the house.  However, as the house and 145-acres are now for sale for £2.75m it appears that after completing the residential development, the owners have decided to pocket the profits, sell the ‘difficult’ part and run.  This is apparently a prime example of a fine, though misused house being failed by the local council who are supposed to protect it.  How did they get planning permission for such an inappropriately sited development?  Why did the council not insist that the house be restored? Why are the old derelict hospital buildings still standing – surely they should have been removed as a minimum?  The council seem to have decided that it’s better to have two inappropriately sited developments rather than looking after an important part of their local architectural heritage.

Sales details:  ‘Sandhill Park, Somerset‘ [Knight Frank]

———————————————————————-

Update – 22 November – Sandhill Park seriously damaged by fire

Fire at Sandhill Park - 22 Nov 2011 (Image: Lucy Robert Shaw / This is Somerset)
Fire at Sandhill Park - 22 Nov 2011 (Image: Lucy Robert Shaw / This is Somerset)

Sadly, as so often happens with uninhabited country houses, Sandhill Park has suffered a serious fire which has affected large parts of the house.  The mysterious  blaze started on the first floor (and considering there are no services to the house, this has to be suspicious) and quickly spread through the rest of the first and upper floors.  The huge quantities of water the fire brigade would have had to have used have almost certainly brought down the ceilings in the rooms below and the now serious damp house will be extremely vulnerable to wet rot.  If it is proved that the fire was arson, it’s a terrible indictment of the NHS for abandoning the property and the local council for approving such a ridiculous housing scheme which has made it harder to sell the house – compounded by their ineffectiveness in getting the old hospital buildings removed and the house restored in the first place.

I can only hope the owner was insured and is able to take protective measures to mitigate the fire and water damage and to somehow get ownership of this fine house into the hands of someone who can care for and restore it.  Anything less would be an architectural tragedy and would reflect badly on those involved. However, if history is any guide, I suspect we will shortly see an application to demolish, claiming that it is ‘dangerous’ (usually this is not remotely true and just a developers excuse) and more bland housing will march across this once fine parkland, a poor memorial to the heritage of the town.

News story: ‘Blaze strikes Somerset mansion that was left to rot‘ [This is Somerset]

Welsh ‘Versailles’ still awaiting saviour: Kinmel Hall for sale

Matthew Beckett - The Country Seat17 Comments
Kinmel Hall, Conwy (Image: Hannells)

When Kinmel Hall was bought in March 2006 by an investment company it was almost immediately advertised on their website as a ‘a unique development opportunity’ with plans for use as either hotel, spa, offices, conference venue or apartments.  Yet, nearly four years later, this impressive mansion is still languishing without a clear future.

The Kinmel estate was bought in 1786 using the vast wealth generated for the Hughes family in the eighteenth century through their half-ownership of the copper mine in Parys mountain which generated up to £150,000 a year at it’s peak (equivalent today to about £200m measured against average earnings).  The Hughes family lived in the house already there until it was rebuilt in 1842-3 in a Palladian style designed by the famous Georgian architect Thomas Hopper for the 1st Lord Dinorben.  When this house burnt down shortly afterwards in 1848 their huge income meant that an even larger house could be built to replace it.  Designed by William Nesfield in a monumental chateau-style and built between 1871-76 it was for an age of lavish house parties and featured 52 bedrooms and accomodation for 60 live-in staff.  The Hughes family lived there until 1929 when it became a health spa, then a hospital during WWII and then a school from 1945 until a large fire forced them out in 1975.  Restored in the 1980s, it was sold several times before being purchased by Derbyshire Investments who still own it today.

The original descendants of the Hughes’ still own the 5,000-acre Kinmel estate – all that remains of their original holding of 85,000 acres they once owned across the area.  The grade-I listed Hall and the 18 acres of walled gardens would make a magical location for what ever final purpose is decided – but the important task is to determine that future.  I suppose it’s too much to hope that it will again be a family home but any sensitive use which preserves this historic house as part of Wales’ architectural heritage is to be encouraged.

More details: ‘Kinmel Hall, North Wales‘ [Derbyshire Investments]

Proposal for Trentham Hall to be rebuilt as a hotel

Matthew Beckett - The Country Seat2 Comments
Trentham Hall proposal, Staffordshire (Image: Property Week)

One of the greatest losses in the many country houses demolished in the 20th-century was that of Trentham Hall, the Staffordshire seat of the Dukes of Sutherland.  Originally a large Georgian house, it was rebuilt and greatly extended for the second Duke in the 1830s by the famous architect Sir Charles Barry, who was also responsible for the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament.  The house became a celebrated venue for entertaining and was filled with fine works of art and sculpture.

Unfortunately the relentless expansion of the nearby Potteries areas of Staffordshire led to increasing amounts of pollution entering the rivers which fed the lakes and gardens designed by Capability Brown. By 1898 the smell was so bad that the house was effectively abandoned by 1907.  The Duke tried to donate the house and estate to the local council  in 1905 but was rejected so in 1912 the house was demolished.

The gardens were eventually opened to the public with the remaining outbuildings sitting rather forlornly around the blank space which marked out the site of the now lost house.  The gardens had been maintained and delighted generations of locals who would walk through the extensive terraces which led down to the now clean lake.  Now the 750-acre Trentham Gardens are part of a £100m project to bring back the glory of the earlier eras, with the centrepiece being the £35m recreation of the house as a 150-room luxury hotel following Barry’s original designs.

Despite the economic turmoil, the developers, who originally planned for completion by 2011, are still hopeful that they will be able to proceed with the project.   Although the hotel will not bring back the history and unique architecture of the house, the idea of recreating a lost country house is one to be encouraged.  Although many houses were demolished, the parkland and gardens were often simply abandoned and are still visible today.  Perhaps other estates might be encouraged to look at whether a new house might be the most appropriate use of the estate – after all, this was the purpose of their creation.

Full story: ‘Trentham rebuilt‘ [Property Week]

Remembering the lost country houses of Suffolk

Matthew Beckett - The Country Seat1 Comment

Each county in England has suffered the loss of at least some of its wealth of country houses.  Although nearly 1,800 have been identified so far, it’s clear that some counties, such as Somerset, escaped relatively lightly whilst others such as Yorkshire were severely depleted.  Of course, the losses are not simply about numbers as these can mask the importance of the individual houses.  One county which has been deprived of not only a significant number but also some houses of national importance is Suffolk in East Anglia.  Financed by early wealth from the wool trade followed by large scale agriculture, Suffolk boasts some of the finest houses in the country including Somerleyton Hall (built for rail magnate Samuel Morton Peto), Ickworth (the spectacular home of the Marquesses of Bristol), and superb Elizabethan Long Melford Hall.

Yet Suffolk has also lost nearly 60 other country houses of all ages and styles to both fashion, finance and fire.   A new book focussing on these losses called ‘Lost Country Houses of Suffolk‘ (Boydell & Brewer, 2010) has just been published by a Suffolk author W.M. Roberts.  This superbly produced and researched book highlights 40 of these now vanished houses, including the larger houses such as the beautiful Rushbrooke Hall, and the lavish Flixton Hall, but also the smaller ones such as Assington Hall, and provides detailed histories of the ascendancy of the houses before explaining their demise.  Lavishly illustrated, the book is also a wealth of detail with further details and sources for anyone, be they genealogist or local historian, looking to research even deeper.

The book is available direct from the publisher or via Amazon or all good bookshops.

Full disclosure: I contributed a little of my research into England’s lost country houses to this book but I make no gain from sales.

Caldwell House – a nearly-lost Adam classic

Matthew Beckett - The Country Seat1 Comment
Caldwell House, Scotland (Image: intriguing_rly@livejournal)

Sometimes houses suffer in so many ways and yet, despite their eventual condition, it’s still possible to imagine them being restored to something approaching their former glory.  Caldwell House near Paisley in Scotland is definitely one that would require a purchaser with deep pockets and a slightly cavalier approach to budgeting – but they would be rescuing a classic house by the famous Scottish architect Robert Adam.

In 1773, Baron Mure of Caldwell commissioned Adam to design a grand home for him. For Adam it was to be the last of the ‘castle’ houses he designed, a style he’d started with at Ugbrooke House in Devon (1760s) and Mellerstain House in Berwickshire (1770).

It remained the family home of the Mures until 1909.  In the 1920s the House was sold to Glasgow Corporation and became a hospital for mentally handicapped children. The institutional changes were severe and included the removal of the main staircase to accomodate a lift shaft and the addition of numerous poor-quality outbuildings.  After the hospital closed in 1985 the usual pattern of neglect and vandalism set in, with a major fire in 1995 resulting in serious damage to the interiors and the loss of the roof.  In spite of being a Grade A listed building, it is now empty and has sadly been neglected and allowed to decay and has been on the Scottish Civic Trust’s Buildings at Risk register for some years.

As this shocking set of photos show, the house is now in a terrible condition.  However, the shell still evocative and it’s rural location would ensure privacy and so ought not to be written off yet.  Perhaps the family motto of the Mures – “Duris Non Frangar”, which means, “not to be broken by adversity” – would be an appropriate one to bear in mind when taking on this monumental restoration.