26^th January 1961

'Reprieve' For Hall Lodge

An eleventh-hour attempt to save the lodge at the entrance to Rushden Hall succeeded at Rushden Urban Council meeting last night.

A month ago, the council had decided to demolish the building and accepted a tender. It was then reported that the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings had asked for reconsideration.

A motion submitted by Mr. R. H. S. Greenwood under standing orders and signed by nine other members was accepted by nine votes to eight last night.

Instructions will now be given to the contractor not to demolish the lodge, and the parks commit­tee will be asked to make provision for the restoration of the building in their estimates.

Voting for the motion were the chairman (Mrs. G. Marriott), the ner), Mrs. A. Perkins. Mrs. W. M. vice-chairman (Mr. C. G. Faulk-Lean Mr. J. E. Wills, Mrs. D. E. Shrive, Mr. R. H. Marriott, Mr. E. F. Mawson, and Mr. Greenwood. Against were Mr. P. E. Brown Mr. C. Freeman, Mr A. H. Bailey. Mr. E. E. Newell, Mr. D. Dickens, Mrs. A. U. Muxlow, Mr. B. Gramshaw, and Mr. C. Ginns.

Mr. Greenwood said he thought the decision of the council had been wrong and many people in the town thought so, too. The lodge was part of a heritage which should be passed on future generations.

Seconding, Mrs. Perkins said the lodge would be put to good use.

Sentimental Whim

Mrs. Muxlow said £400-£500 should not be spent on a sentimental whim. It was the first time in her 22 years’ experience that the standing order has been used and she thought the proceedings were dangerous and deplorable when the council had already made a decision.

Mr. Bailey asked what they had to show for thousands of pounds which had been spent on the hall? Much of the work was destroyed by vandalism. The council was faced with vast expenditure on essential schemes and the lodge was not vital

Mr. Freeman said the lodge had no historical value or special design. No-one was able to suggest a suitable use and it had been condemned as a dwelling. It would be in the way when a road improvement was made. In the hall he had counted 82 broken panes of glass and ironwork was being pulled from the mullions. If the hall could not be maintained in good order, how could they keep the lodge?

Waste of Money

Mr. F. E. Newell said: "It was my greatest mistake to vote in favour of retaining the hall. We have spent thousands, but it has been an absolute waste of money."

Mrs. Shrive pointed out that some nice flats had been provided at the hall.

Replying Mr. Greenwood said it would be impossible to improve the entrance without losing the lodge.

24^th June 1961

Rushden Urban Council will on Monday be asked by the parks committee to arrange for the demolition of the entrance lodge to Rushden Hall grounds.

In January a similar move was defeated and the committee was asked to carry out restorations for £400.

The committee have considered a suggestion that the lodge should become a book shop, but they feel it is not practicable to adapt the premises.

27^th June 1961

Century-Old Lodge To Be Demolished

A CENTURY-OLD stone-built lodge at the entrance to Rushden Hall — the subject of resolutions for and against retention for two years—is to be demolished.

Last night, Rushden Urban Council accepted a majority vote of the parks committee that instructions should be given to a contractor to do this. In January, £400 was included in estimates for restoration.

Mr. R. H. Marriott (committee chairman) said a four-figure sum would be needed to make the lodge useful for a shop. If some walls were moved there was danger of collapse.

Mrs. G. Marriott said that In the hall and grounds they had something of which any town could be justly proud, and the lodge was an integral part. They spent large sums on flowers and plants, but there was also beauty in stone, and in days of pre-fabrication and concrete construction individual architecture was worthy of preservation. The Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings and Sir Albert Richardson felt strongly that it should be preserved.

Eyesore

Mr. R. H. S. Greenwood also called for retention, but Mr. E. F. Mawson Ascribed the building as an eyesore.

Mr. F. E. Brown said no-one wanted to destroy for the sake of destruction, but there were no practical suggestions about use.