House within a house.Anyone know why?

Does anyone know the house just outside Bradfield overlooking Dam Flask, that appears to be a newish stone house built around an existing red brick one?

It's really weird. They seem to have built a large expensive house around what was a red brick bungalow I think, but not removed the bungalow! The result is the shell of the large house is unusable, and they are still effectively living in the bungalow, which is now so dark because the windows on the 2 properties don't line up. It's the oddest set-up imaginable, and I've always wondered what the rationale behind it was, if there is one, or whether the owners are, shall we say just a tad eccentric!

Not the first such! There's a house in Knowle Lane that's about 3 times the 'shell' house onto which the new one grew.

Is it possible that they've done this because they intend to demolish the bungalow, but didn't have anywhere to live while it was being taken down and the new building going up?

I don't know if that's a sensible, or even a physically possible thing to do, but it's about the only reason I can come up with for wanting to build a house around another house. If it's not that, then I'm stumped.

Is it possible that they've done this because they intend to demolish the bungalow, but didn't have anywhere to live while it was being taken down and the new building going up?

 

 

I don't know if that's a sensible, or even a physically possible thing to do, but it's about the only reason I can come up with for wanting to build a house around another house. If it's not that, then I'm stumped.

I've thought about that, but surely you'd live in a static caravan whilst the building work was done. Plus the new house was left sheeted for several years before a new roof was put on, but the new roof is on and has been for a coupleof yrs, and there are no signs of them trying to demolish the bungalow. Plus can you imagine trying to dismantle a bungalow brick by brick which you've got to throw out of the doors or windows of both properties! Mad

Whereabouts exactly is it?

Whereabouts exactly is it?

If you drove to Dam Flask up Loxley rd, turned left over the dam head and carried on towards Low Bradfield, it's on your left after a small row of terrace cottages, and a couple of detached properties, about quarter of a mile from The Plough.

If you drove to Dam Flask up Loxley rd, turned left over the dam head and carried on towards Low Bradfield, it's on your left after a small row of terrace cottages, and a couple of detached properties, about quarter of a mile from The Plough.

This one? http://g.co/maps/8qmmv

This one? http://g.co/maps/8qmmv

That's the one!

Can't see what you mean, all I can see is a red brick bungalow?

Pan right slightly and you'll see it, although it's not a good enough shot to see clearly what's going on. The red brick bungalow is brother chip to the one around which the new shell has been built I believe.

Pan right slightly and you'll see it, although it's not a good enough shot to see clearly what's going on. The red brick bungalow is brother chip to the one around which the new shell has been built I believe.

'brother chip', ha ha, i've not heard that in years, cheers!

I've thought about that, but surely you'd live in a static caravan whilst the building work was done. Plus the new house was left sheeted for several years before a new roof was put on, but the new roof is on and has been for a coupleof yrs, and there are no signs of them trying to demolish the bungalow. Plus can you imagine trying to dismantle a bungalow brick by brick which you've got to throw out of the doors or windows of both properties! Mad

It's about the only conceivable reason I could think of, and I fully expected someone who knows more about building work than I do (ie., anything at all!), to come along and tell me that it was a ridiculous reason.