From Bland to Grand: Post-War Renovations

If you ask people to describe their dream home you can be confident that very few would choose anything from the 1950s through to the 1980s. A combination of post-war austerity, rising labour costs and huge demand to rebuild the nation’s housing stock quickly gave rise to a utilitarian approach to design and construction. This had barely improved by the 1980s with the advent of ‘Tudorbethan’ boxes adorned with bolt-on faux-period features. It is a sad fact that pre-90s, most British housing – with the exception of self-build – was at best bland and in too many cases, downright ugly. Not surprisingly it is also now less sought after than property from almost any other period.

There is, however, a positive in all of this. If you are looking to get as much home for your money as possible, and want a renovation project that will allow you to create a one-off individual home costeffectively, then the post-war housing stock is well worth a second look. It is more widely available, more affordable and in many cases, more flexible than period property, as there are rarely any architectural features worth preserving. In most cases the location of such housing means there are few, if any, planning restrictions to prevent you from realising your ambitions. With a clever design scheme, you really can transform an unappealing blot on the landscape into a shining jewel of architectural finesse.

“Often ugly 1960s and 70s houses are very much overlooked as it is difficult to see their potential, but they are often better planned than their predecessors,” says architect Jeremy Spratley, who has designed several remodelling schemes that have transformed dull 1960s and 70s houses into elegant contemporary homes. “Another benefit is that the sites are often larger and the construction of elements such as the foundations are more akin to new Building Regulations, so the unforeseen problems you get when renovating older houses or barn conversions are easier to control.”

Where to Start

“Start by finding a building that is fundamentally well designed,” advises Andrew Whiting of HÛT Architecture. “You can dramatically transform a building in terms of layout and materials, but you can’t change the orientation or location of a building within the site.”

Once you have decided a building is worth remodelling, it is time to start thinking of a design scheme. “Certain house types lend themselves better than others to particular style transformations,” says Yolande Hess of Back to Front Exterior Design, a firm which specialises in property transformations. “The key is to take a look at the building’s form and most dominant features and to try and work around them. The more plain the building, the better — so houses from the 50s and 60s are very good and versatile. 80s houses can be difficult as they often have too much styling to get over. The front-facing low-pitched gable is the hardest feature to overcome. This is a hideous shape and generally there is no option but to rebuild the roof to change the shape.”

Almost anything is possible in design terms, so at some stage return on investment has to be a consideration. External remodell - ing work alone may only have a limited impact on value, and so is best undertaken in conjunction with other improvements to the layout and the creation of additional space through extension or conversion.

Another factor that can limit the extent of remodelling work is the fact that at some point it will be more cost-effective to demolish the existing house and start again from scratch, largely because renovation work is currently standard rated (normally 17.5% but reduced 15% until Jan 2010) whilst new build is zero rated.

“As a rule of thumb, if the refurbishment costs go over £200,000, it usually is better to knock down and start again to save the VAT,” says Jeremy Spratley. Yolanda Hess claims the threshold is more like £500,000. It is a difficult equation, but you have to compare the total amount of VAT spent on renovation with the value of rebuilding what is left of the original structure, taking into account the benefits of having a totally new, more thermally efficient building and a ten-year new build warranty.

The decision can be further complicated by non-financial factors, such as intrinsic value of any existing architectural detailing and character. “Also, some people have an emotional attachment to their home and so to spruce it up feels better than demolition and new build, even if this is more costeffective,” says Spratley. “It’s the architectural equivalent of Botox or a nip and tuck — a new façade to improve what’s already there.”

Further reading:

• From Bland to Grand: Planning Costs
• From Bland to Grand: Assessing Potential
• From Bland to Grand: Case Studies