Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Churchcrawling] Re: Churches for sale

Expand Messages
  • Andy Foster
    Leaving the politics on one side - we disagree here. The SPAB has a simple rule which I m totally in agreement with. Later alterations are part of a building s
    Message 1 of 31 , Jan 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Leaving the politics on one side - we disagree here. The SPAB has a simple rule which I'm totally in agreement with. Later alterations are part of a building's (or fitting's) history. The eighteenth century paint on your font cover is part of its history, and if you can see mediaeval paint underneath that makes it a fascinating palimpsest. It must look lovely. The country is full of 'restored' objects taken back to their supposed best period, messed up with new paint or hopeful new work, and historically and aesthetically as dead as a doornail. I have enough trouble trying to stop stupid architects removing perfectly serviceable Georgian doors on Staffordshire churches because someone is offering the money for a nice new one. GE Street had the excuse that no-one realised how bad 'restoration' was until they'd seen a fair amount of it. We no longer do. A good decision by EH. William Morris for ever! (and Philip Webb and CC Winmill etc. etc.)

      Andy F

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: cbnewham
      To: Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 1:44 AM
      Subject: [Churchcrawling] Re: Churches for sale



      I'm not really willing to comment on the politics in that area -
      suffice to say there are other problems including a Perp font cover
      where someone was willing to donate the large amount of money to have
      it restored and strip off the chipped/flaking 18th Century blue-grey
      paint to reveal the original gold and other colours underneath, only
      to be refused by EH on the grounds that the 18th Century paint is just
      as important!

      It's an example of the political correctness of restoration. I'm
      afraid I'm very much against such thinking as it's partly to blame for
      the current situation.

      As for the area - even Allan Barton agrees with me and he was brought
      up near that part of Lincs. It is, to put it mildly, a dump. And a
      depressing one at that. Rural blight has set in and I doubt we've seen
      the end of it. A shame as it could be (and probably was once) a nice
      area - but that's the way of it.

      As Phil has pointed out (and I'd forgotten about) - there is a
      PixAround executable of Benington in the files area which is worth
      downloading and viewing. I might post up some pictures to Flickr
      later. One of my pictures was in a glossy report on the decline of
      English churches done a couple of years ago.

      cbn

      --- In Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Foster" <andyfoster@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Can you please oblige, for those of us who didn't? As just a DAC
      member elsehwere I am used to clergy sighing and saying 'It could only
      be Lincoln'.
      >
      > That was a bit sour about rural Lincs. rather than that diocese.
      Benington seems to have been a Dibley or a Seaside Parish where it all
      went wrong - new woman vicar somehow upset deeply rural local yobs,
      who then vandlalsed church and vicarage repeatedly.
      >
      > Andy F
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • cbnewham
      ... it is a large mainly over-restored structure with an interior which really feels unimportant in photos. As I recall the chancel contains the remains of
      Message 31 of 31 , Jan 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Churchcrawling@yahoogroups.com, "ChurchCrawler"
        <phil_bristoluk@...> wrote:
        >
        > Interesting points David - for Benington if I am absolutely honest
        it is a large mainly over-restored structure with an interior which
        really feels unimportant in photos.


        As I recall the chancel contains the remains of vaulting - it's
        perhaps not as unimportant as it first seems.

        If it was up to me I'd allow the building to be sub-divided and open
        up the scope for usage. However, it is I believe, Grade I listed, so
        you can wave bye bye to common sense and reason being involved in
        discussion on its future use.

        It will make a nice ruin - and perhaps that would be for the best in
        the end.

        cbn
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.