Skip to main content

Clegg Hall revisited

A while ago I blogged about Clegg Hall near Littleborough, where I grew up. All my lifetime it has been a ruin, a sad remnant of what it once was. When I was young I fantasized about making my fortune and one day coming back to restore it. The 'before' photo to the right here is what it looked like in 1999.

Thanks to Nick Pickvance for sending me photos including the one below of the hall in its shiny new 2009 state - remarkably, someone really has restored a building that has been abandoned for decades. It does look rather splendid, though it has lost a couple of its best architectural features - and there still seems to be a row of weavers' cottages right next to it - though given the history of the area, this isn't inappropriate.


So I raise a virtual glass in honour of whoever undertook this remarkable effort.

You can find more about Clegg Hall, its history and its boggart in this article.

Comments

  1. Although I have not lived in the area for many years, from childhood walks I remember Clegg Hall as an eerie ruin: what a wonderful restoration this appears to be!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi, I completely rebuilt clegghall between 2005 and 2008 at accost of 1 million, due to the recession I realised less than half that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I also saved Healeyhall in Rochdale between 2000 and 2004.again a loss of half a million pounds, !!!!! Both restorations are on Healeyhalldevelopments.co.uk or listedbuildingsrestoration.co.uk
    I am currently looking for another project??? if any body knows of ahall that needs saving!!!!!! I prefer a stately home this time.
    regards Jason Stead

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope