The English Country House and Chilton Lodge - Hungerford Virtual ...
The English Country House and Chilton Lodge - Hungerford Virtual ... The English Country House and Chilton Lodge - Hungerford Virtual ...
for their requirements, so the decision was taken to make substantial modifications to the house. #24, 25 The architectural services of Mr. Griffin of Sutton, Griffin and Sweetnam of Newbury were retained and the building contractors were F. Rendell & Sons of Devizes. Griffin was well known locally and already had added an attractive conservatory to West Woodhay House. All the Blomfield accretions to Chilton were removed including, sadly, the splendid porte cochere. A new roof was constructed over the main house and the rear of the house was remodelled to provide kitchens and staff (now children's) bedrooms. A new breakfast room was built on the site of the old Bachelors' Wing. Various changes were made to the internal layout including moving the dining room from its original location to a much smaller room, and the installation of guest bathrooms and hanging cupboards of Olympian size. Mr. Griffin's designs for the northern elevation of the house are not attractive. The execution by Rendell's also left something to be desired. However, we have every reason to be extremely grateful that the work was undertaken when planning regulations were minimal and the house could be reduced to a more manageable size. The family would not be living here now if that radical and far-sighted surgery had not been carried out at that time. POSTSCRIPT [The Historic Houses Association was founded in the 1970's and now has 1,500 house owning members. It's owners have more properties open to the public than the National Trust and English Heritage and their counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Ulster combined. Since more than 75% of 'built heritage' (a horrible term much used by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport) in this country is in private ownership, those responsible for its upkeep are now more readily heard in the corridors of power. 10,000 are employed directly by these houses and they generate more than £1.2 billion in revenues a year.] In 1974, in his essay for the book accompanying the exhibition at the V&A, Roy Strong wrote "Country houses are artefacts created for a system of society which has vanished, ...The paternal system of the great house and its dependents stretching over the countryside has gone. But we are left with the superb visual apparatus. Our difficulty lies in divorcing the one from the other." I am glad to say that over the last 28 years the divorce has been pretty successful and just about everyone is much happier as a result. What has saved the ECH is its desirability and its flexibility. Whenever a family dies out or gives up the ghost, a queue of new owners usually forms to take their place. [Some will be private families who have made or inherited their wealth. Other country houses will find themselves skilfully filleted into apartments that are snapped up by those who love the country but whose pockets do not stretch to owning the whole thing. Other houses become country house hotels, with varying degrees of success. Still others become corporate headquarters such as Benham Valence. Some houses, that had been given over to institutional use one or more generation ago, have come back into private ownership. For example, Farleigh House near Basingstoke, for many years a preparatory school, is now once again the home of the Wallop family, with new restoration and wonderful craftsmanship much in evidence.] [The private owners who live on in these big houses are a determined, if somewhat dotty, group. The temptation to move to a small cottage from their rambling and 8
draughty piles can often be tantalising. By and large, the owners share a love of their homes that usually overcomes the not inconsiderable odds stacked against them. Some are able to keep their houses as purely private homes, others open their doors to corporate entertainment, to weddings and parties, and to a host of other commercial activities from four wheel drive courses to art classes. Many are open to the public all year round. Some are open for part of the year as required if they contain chattels exempted from inheritance tax, or if they have accepted grants for renovation.] #26-27, 28-29, 30-31 The balance will always be a delicate one. The ECH is a phenomenon that has evolved and changed to meet the circumstances of each age and to reflect the people who have lived in them. It is often said that people who visit country houses spend more time looking at family pictures and photographs, and evidence of habitation, than they do at the historic contents. In other words, it is the personalisation of the houses, not the bricks and mortar, that is a most important consideration, and worthy of sustaining. Those houses that fall into public ownership, be it National Trust or English Heritage, and lose the connection with the family that previously lived there, often become mummified. Their curators have little option but to preserve the fabric, as Kenny Everett would have said, in the best possible taste. Magnificent though many of them undoubtedly are, the spirit and soul has gone from them, and is most unlikely ever to return to them. Chilton is not a particularly important house in national terms, but its relatively short history reflects the ability of successive owners to take responsibility for, and to manage, change. John Pearse really put it all together back in the 1790's, and his patronage and foresight have proved pretty durable. Sir William Pearce again lavished his fortune on Chilton and its estate a hundred years later. Within a further 20 years, the first generation of Wards at Chilton were embellishing it to their taste. Very importantly from today's perspective, in the 1960's Colonel Jackie Ward and his wife took Chilton back to more or less its original form and brought the house up to date. I suspect that the current hordes of bureaucrats would not have allowed that necessary surgery to happen today. Without a doubt, preventing such evolutionary change at Chilton would have one day sentenced the house to institutional use. If I see one danger greater than all others for the continuing health and development of the ECH and their occupation by private families, it is the exercise by central and local government of ever increasing authority without responsibility. Change can be frightening, so it is often discouraged. The costs of complying with listed building planning processes even just for repairs are so great as to be prohibitive for some owners. There is a backlog of repairs on many privately owned houses (estimated by one authority at more than £125 million) that must be addressed if they are to remain viable as houses. Some relief, for example from VAT or from income tax paid on the repairs and upkeep of the houses, would go a long way to enabling more owners to maintain and improve their houses properly. [Quite rightly, if public money is provided by way of cash grants for renovation of country houses as for other parts of our heritage, then the department providing the resources should have a powerful say in the standards to which the work is done. Further, most owners would agree that there should be at least some public access where the public purse has been involved to any great extent. However, it would do no harm for the bureaucrats to put more faith in the owners and to allow them reasonable latitude to adapt, expand or contract their houses to the requirements of the current generation. If change is discouraged, then houses will lose the interest of their owners and the vitality that is such an important part of their evolution.] #32 Christopher Hussey wrote in the 1930's 'The English home, while not laying claim to supreme artistry, yet represents to our sight a complex of facts and traditions and
- Page 1 and 2: HUNGERFORD HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION 2
- Page 3 and 4: 1920's onwards. Out came the demoli
- Page 5 and 6: shape of the Soane villa at Chilton
- Page 7: etail therapy, and put together the
draughty piles can often be tantalising. By <strong>and</strong> large, the owners share a love of their<br />
homes that usually overcomes the not inconsiderable odds stacked against them.<br />
Some are able to keep their houses as purely private homes, others open their doors<br />
to corporate entertainment, to weddings <strong>and</strong> parties, <strong>and</strong> to a host of other<br />
commercial activities from four wheel drive courses to art classes. Many are open to<br />
the public all year round. Some are open for part of the year as required if they<br />
contain chattels exempted from inheritance tax, or if they have accepted grants for<br />
renovation.]<br />
#26-27, 28-29, 30-31<br />
<strong>The</strong> balance will always be a delicate one. <strong>The</strong> ECH is a phenomenon that has evolved<br />
<strong>and</strong> changed to meet the circumstances of each age <strong>and</strong> to reflect the people who have<br />
lived in them. It is often said that people who visit country houses spend more time<br />
looking at family pictures <strong>and</strong> photographs, <strong>and</strong> evidence of habitation, than they do at<br />
the historic contents. In other words, it is the personalisation of the houses, not the<br />
bricks <strong>and</strong> mortar, that is a most important consideration, <strong>and</strong> worthy of sustaining.<br />
Those houses that fall into public ownership, be it National Trust or <strong>English</strong> Heritage, <strong>and</strong><br />
lose the connection with the family that previously lived there, often become mummified.<br />
<strong>The</strong>ir curators have little option but to preserve the fabric, as Kenny Everett would have<br />
said, in the best possible taste. Magnificent though many of them undoubtedly are, the<br />
spirit <strong>and</strong> soul has gone from them, <strong>and</strong> is most unlikely ever to return to them.<br />
<strong>Chilton</strong> is not a particularly important house in national terms, but its relatively short<br />
history reflects the ability of successive owners to take responsibility for, <strong>and</strong> to manage,<br />
change. John Pearse really put it all together back in the 1790's, <strong>and</strong> his patronage <strong>and</strong><br />
foresight have proved pretty durable. Sir William Pearce again lavished his fortune on<br />
<strong>Chilton</strong> <strong>and</strong> its estate a hundred years later. Within a further 20 years, the first<br />
generation of Wards at <strong>Chilton</strong> were embellishing it to their taste. Very importantly from<br />
today's perspective, in the 1960's Colonel Jackie Ward <strong>and</strong> his wife took <strong>Chilton</strong> back to<br />
more or less its original form <strong>and</strong> brought the house up to date. I suspect that the<br />
current hordes of bureaucrats would not have allowed that necessary surgery to happen<br />
today. Without a doubt, preventing such evolutionary change at <strong>Chilton</strong> would have one<br />
day sentenced the house to institutional use.<br />
If I see one danger greater than all others for the continuing health <strong>and</strong> development of<br />
the ECH <strong>and</strong> their occupation by private families, it is the exercise by central <strong>and</strong> local<br />
government of ever increasing authority without responsibility. Change can be frightening,<br />
so it is often discouraged. <strong>The</strong> costs of complying with listed building planning processes<br />
even just for repairs are so great as to be prohibitive for some owners. <strong>The</strong>re is a backlog<br />
of repairs on many privately owned houses (estimated by one authority at more than £125<br />
million) that must be addressed if they are to remain viable as houses. Some relief, for<br />
example from VAT or from income tax paid on the repairs <strong>and</strong> upkeep of the houses,<br />
would go a long way to enabling more owners to maintain <strong>and</strong> improve their houses<br />
properly.<br />
[Quite rightly, if public money is provided by way of cash grants for renovation of<br />
country houses as for other parts of our heritage, then the department providing the<br />
resources should have a powerful say in the st<strong>and</strong>ards to which the work is done.<br />
Further, most owners would agree that there should be at least some public access<br />
where the public purse has been involved to any great extent. However, it would do<br />
no harm for the bureaucrats to put more faith in the owners <strong>and</strong> to allow them<br />
reasonable latitude to adapt, exp<strong>and</strong> or contract their houses to the requirements of<br />
the current generation. If change is discouraged, then houses will lose the interest of<br />
their owners <strong>and</strong> the vitality that is such an important part of their evolution.]<br />
#32<br />
Christopher Hussey wrote in the 1930's '<strong>The</strong> <strong>English</strong> home, while not laying claim to<br />
supreme artistry, yet represents to our sight a complex of facts <strong>and</strong> traditions <strong>and</strong>
Change language