This section will include e-mails and letters that have been received by the public, letters that have appeared in our local newspapers and letters that the Trust have written with their responses. This should make interesting reading for those following our efforts.
A recent letter in the local Haslemere Herald dated 31st December 2010.
Note: Any questions you may have about this case maybe answered in the newspaper article below, if not, please may we kindly request that people do not come through our website to gain information. We would be grateful, should you wish to learn more, to contact the Royal Courts of Justice – the High Court, Strand, London, WC1.
The reply as a consequence to the Prime Minister forwarding our letter onto the appropriate department.
The reply from 10 Downing Street
The Trusts letter to the Rt Hon David Cameron MP on 7th October 2010
You spoke quite recently concerning the importance of tourism in this country and, given that it is something you are clearly concerned about, I thought I should bring the following matter to your attention in the hope that it is something you may be able to assist with.
For some time now my colleagues and I have been campaigning to save our national treasure, Undershaw, the former residence of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, from unsympathetic redevelopment. The house, which has been standing for 113 years, could, if restored properly, be a significant tourist attraction as well as a monument to one of this country’s greatest and most recognised writers. Our campaign to achieve this end has been reported in local and national newspapers and is attracting worldwide attention.
If we fail in our aim the current, council approved, proposal will see the grade II listed property divided into three separate units with an additional five town houses built on the site. Once converted there is no going back and a national iconic building (and potential sourse of tourism revenue) will be lost to future generations.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle lived at Undershaw for 10 years. Furthermore it was a house he designed, which very few authors did in those days. He wrote his most famous novel ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’ and resurrected Sherlock Holmes there. He was visited by the author of Peter Pan, J M Barrie, the author of Dacula, Bram Stoker and by the young Virginia Wolf to name but a few. In short, this is a house that contains much literary history.
Even though he did eventually leave the area, four members of his family are buried in the local Grayshott cemetery and the nearby Portsmouth Museum houses some 50,000 artifacts relating to Conan Doyle and his works, of which Stephen Fry is the patron. Mr Fry has been an asset to the campaign with the statement he released back in March and recent support on Twitter. Thus bringing the campaign to the eye of the nation and worldwide.
We enjoyed your speech regarding tourism and we like to think that, by fighting to save Undershaw, we are doing something to aid tourism in this country and are embodying, at least in part, aspects of your ‘Big Society’ vision.
Understandably you might question why we are approaching you about this rather than the local council. Regrettably the council has become decidedly close-minded about the issue and increasingly acting as if we are flies to be waved away rather than concerned citizens that deserve to be listened to. It was for this reason that we began to communicate with our local MP and Culture Minister, Jeremy Hunt.
Prior to the election Mr Hunt was in full support of our efforts and attended a couple of our meetings to promote the cause. Since taking office, however, he has taken a back seat which is understandable, if regrettable. Mr Hunt does not seem to appreciate that this withdrawal comes across as though he supported the campaign only until he was elected. As an experienced politician I’m sure you are aware that the perception of reality is often more powerful than reality itself and in this case the general perception is not good. He may be culture secretary but he is also our MP and has a responsibility in the latter office, if not the former, to play his part.
The official opinion seems to be that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle does not rate as highly as the likes of Jane Austen or Charles Dickens but is it for officials to decide who is or is not of literary importance? Surely that decision, like so much these days, is made by market forces. The recent successes of the BBC and Warner Brothers with their Sherlock Holmes offerings show that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his work are still recognised and enjoyed the world over. This is hardly a characteristic you would associate with a second-rate writer.
Undershaw badly needs to be upgraded to a grade II* or even a grade I listed building thus preventing this redevelopment from happening. We need to act now as the house may not survive another winter. We have a potential (and serious) purchaser standing by who has also submitted an application, which incidentially has also be approved by the planning department of Waverley Borough Council, to restore the property like for like and have it as a single home opening it to the public several times a year. He currently lives in Devon and has much experience in restoring Victorian property sympathetically.
The Trust call on you as Prime Minister, and as supporter of tourism wihin the UK, to approach English Heritage to do all you can to persuade them to upgrade this very British building to a grade II* or grade I which will prevent development taking place and help to preserve and protect the property from further deterioration.
May I thank you in anticipation. Your efforts to help, in whatever way you can, will most certainly be appreciated both home and abroad.
The letter from TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall dated 21st September 2009
This letter appeared in the Herald on the 18th June:
I am writing to you in connection with the recent decision by Waverley Borough Council to grant the present owners of Undershaw the right to redevelop it.
The decision, if allowed to pass unchallenged, would be wrong on many levels.
Firstly there is the remark listed on the Surrey Advertiser website.
Councillor David Inman, who represents Chiddingfold and Dunsfold on Waverley, said “There have been numerous objections that are not based on planning matters. Doubtless they are heartfelt, but this application must be judged only on its merit. We must be pragmatic”.
Mr Inman makes it reasonably clear that, in his opinion, the decision in cases such as Undershaw should be made purely on ‘planning matters’. It may seem absurd example but, using Mr Inman’s argument, a plan to demolish Nelson’s column and fill Trafalgar Square with houses would be accepted.
The second reason for objecting to the planning application is the message it would send to other developers with designs on redeveloping listed buildings. Take this quote from Waverley Borough Council’s own website concerning Undershaw.
“Waverley became very worried about the poor condition of the house. Water was seeping into the building, following theft of lead from the roof, and lack of security. Promises by the owner had been poorly implemented and planning service staff were regularly undertaking various ad-hoc reinforcements of inadequate security measures. Waverley then served an Urgent Works Notice in December 2006. This required moth-balling measures such as protection from the weather and vandalism.
The response from the owners was still inadequate, with insecure windows and ineffective protection from wind and rain. This forced Waverley, who were not the owners, to made a series of emergency repair measures to protect the building from further deterioration”.
The ‘inadequate’ response from the owners regarding the implementation of instructions from the council has clearly contributed to the poor state in which the building now stands. Surely, given the building’s listed status, the council’s responsibility was to take action against the owners of Undershaw rather than grant them permission to redevelop the property?
By now agreeing to the redevelopment, the council is sending the clear signal that developers can allow listed buildings to deteriorate, receive little more than a slap on the wrist and ultimately get their plans accepted. The signal it sends will be even worse if the present owners go on to make a handsome profit for their redevelopment.
Next there is the fact that an individual submitted different plans that would keep the house as a single dwelling. At the meeting this plan was acknowledged but not even discussed or considered. This went a long way to creating the impression that the committee’s decision had been made before anyone had even sat down.
Finally there is the historical argument. These changes, if allowed to proceed, cannot be undone. This house is the only one that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had built. It literally would not be standing if it was not for him and it is the house in which large parts of the Hound of the Baskervilles were edited and the place where he formally resurrected Sherlock Holmes in 1903. Aside from Sherlock Holmes’ adventures, he also wrote a great many other works within the walls of Undershaw.
It is hardly necessary for me to point out that a mere pavilion containing information on Conan Doyle’s link to the house (which forms part of the owners’ redevelopment plans) is woefully inadequate as a means of retaining the historical link. AD
Another letter in the Herald on 25th June read:
I am writing to express my disappointment with Waverley’s decision to approve the development of Undershaw.
In addition to the application which the councillors have approved, there was another application which was overlooked. This second application was registered for change of use from hotel/restaurant to a single dwelling. The councillors had been made aware of this application in advance of the planning meeting yet it was not given any consideration.
The applicant had been in talks with Waverley Borough Council for several months seeking the correct procedure for such an application. He was particular about his preparation as he was not the owner of the building.
The applicant received the following advice from Waverley:
“I can confirm that, subject to getting the details right and proper repair of the original fabric, I would not insist on a listed building application for the works you describe. I would regard them as a combination of like-for-like repair and minor alteration not affecting the significance of the listed building”.
It was even admitted by the Historic Buildings Officer that the preferred option for Undershaw would be for a single dwelling.
On receiving this advice the applicant felt confident enough to proceed. Several thousands of pounds later his application was cast aside. Why did Waverley enter into discussions with this applicant if his application had no chance of survival at the meeting? Why did Waverley discuss with him the procedures for submitting such an application? Were they just going through the motion and charging him for it?
Incidentally, this second application is now available for comments on the Waverley Borough Council website under planning. Reference Number WA/2010/0830 change of use from hotel/restaurant to single dwelling. Please support this now, final comments to be received by 9th July 2010.
Councillor Stephen Mulliner commented “I was very concerned by the design and I think that was the part which anyone thinking about a house with existing architectural merit should be concerned about”. He continued to say that: “I would have to say it was difficult to tell from plans exactly how it would look, but it is some comfort from the track record of the architect involved”.
Does this mean that councillor Mulliner is familiar with the architect? How does he know about the architect’s track record? What happens if Fossway decide to use a builder rather than an architect, would councillor Mulliner still take some comfort from this?
He went onto say: “I don’t think the owners can take pride at all in the way in which they allowed Undershaw to fall into disrepair and the way in which this council had to put its own hand in its pocket and spent almost £100,000 on taking restorative work. The biggest concerns I have are with the design”.
What also interested me was the fact that councillor Mulliner said that he did some research and spoke to the Tennyson’s Society because here is an entirely undistinguished writer familiar in these parts, being Alfred Lord Tennyson, and it turns out that there has been no access in the interior of Aldworth House in the last 20-odd years with two or three visits to the grounds, one very recently. (May I add that this is because it is owned privately by a wealthy Russian and off the beaten track).
Perhaps if councillor Mulliner had researched Jane Austen’s house at Chawton or Kipling’s House, Bateman’s, or Churchill’s House at Westerton, which attracts many visitors a year, or even 221b Baker Street, he may have received a different story. Of course Sherlock Holmes is in a league of his own – there is no comparison.
Councillor Simon Inchbold made the comment: “Certainly it would have been better if this whole matter could have been resolved a long time ago and I suspect if it was approached properly this situation would not have happened”. Who should have approached it properly? This is a listed and historic house for goodness sake. Why wasn’t it treated with respect and why wasn’t it protected by the council?
Councillor Inchbold went on to say: “There are two parts to this, there is the original building which is to be subdivided and yes I think it is a great shame that it has to be done in this way”. (It doesn’t have to be done in this way – the second application would have retained Undershaw as a single dwelling). “The new build I think is pretty horrible. It may be the view of the officers that it is sympathetic to the original building, even with its lack lustre extension, sits reasonably comfortably on the site. This extension I don’t think does sit comfortably there”.
May I just add that councillor Jim Edwards did a tremendous job in objecting to the development by saying that: “Undershaw has got tremendous historic importance and the local people are really against this development and I can understand why, it is over development and I know my learned friends have said they don’t really believe what the town council say, but it really is a massive development in my opinion unacceptable”. Here is a councillor that spoke with the local people in mind. Thank you councillor Edwards.
To sum up, Waverley Borough Council have just approved the devastation of our most iconic landmark with reservations on the division of the main house and the erection of the new extension which they view has pretty horrible. Well done Waverley on creating a blot on your conservation record for all time! LG
Because we feel very strongly that Undershaw should be given more recognition than purely a new development of houses, we are now seeking the justice it so rightly deserves. The following letter was served on Waverley Borough Council being our first step of making sure justice is given to Hindhead’s iconic building.
Letter to Waverley Borough Council dated 6th August 2010 re Judicial Review
I refer to applications WA/2010/0172&0173 determined by your Council on 9th June 2010 for Undershaw.
I understand the applications were granted conditionally and would therefore be pleased if you would confirm this and advise me immediately they are formally fully granted. This is so that my barrister can launch an immediate Judicial Review in the Royal Courts of Justice. I understand that until they are fully granted no Judicial Review can be made and that the 3-month time limit does not start to run until the applications have been fully granted.
I should also be grateful if you would let me have copies of the Planning Committee’s reports/decisions not only on WA/2010/0172 & 0173 but also on the recent decision WA/2010/0830 under Delegated powers for the application as a single dwelling house. JG
This is a formal letter of complaint to Waverley Borough Council asking for the involvment of the local Government Ombudsman:
I have been in touch with the local Government Ombudsman who advises me to write to you stating formal complaint with regard to your Planning Department handling of the historic, and internationally known, home of the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle – Undershaw, Portsmouth Road, Hindhead.
My indictment is that over the last 5 years, since May 2005 when the property became vacant, your Planning Department has presided over a complete maladministrative failure to protect and preserve this iconic Grade II building for the nation. Taking it in half a decade from an hotel/restaurant recommended in the local press to a vandalised/trashed wreck with planning for 8 ‘lock up and leave’ units with no public access. The first and last thirds of the 5-year period are the most significant and will be highlighted by me to the Ombudsman.
Since the granting of planning permission on 9th June 2010 there can now be no resolution of this matter between myself and your Council. I would therefore be grateful if you will refer this matter to the Ombudsman at the very earliest.
I would be pleased for an acknowledgement of this letter. JG
The reply from Waverely Borough Council in respect of the involvement of the local Government Ombudsman – 19th July 2010
Thank you for your letter dated 1st July 2010 addressed to Mary Orton concerning your complaint about the way in which the Council has dealt with the handling of the planning issues relating to Undershaw. This is being dealt with as a level 1 complaint under the Council’s complaints procedures. I am sorry that you remain concerned about the way in which the Council has dealt with this property. The purpose of this letter is to set out what the Council has done over the last 5 years.
Undershaw is a grade II listed building, which ceased to be used as a hotel and restaurant and bcame vacant in 2005. Waverley Borough Council’s actions thereafter are as explained below.
In 2006, the owners of Undershaw applied for planning permission and listed building consent for the conversion of the house into flats and building of three houses in the garden in front of the principal elevation. These proposals were refused as being too intrusive to the fabric and the setting of the house.
Since the property remained empty, and the owners, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, seemed unable to find an appropriate use for it, the building entered into a steep decline. It was repeatedly broken into, lead was stripped from the roof, and there was serious and damaging ingress of water. The Council repeatedly brought these problems to the attention of the owner’s agent who undertook only inadequate remedial action.
Therefore, in December 2006, the Council served an urgent works notice requiring works to protect the building from further deterioration including a scaffold roof and protection against intruders. The owner’s response was still inadequate and in January 2007 planning officers themselves affixed a padlock to an insecure door and endeavoured to make other points of potential entry more secure. The Council also investigated the cost of installing scaffold and a monitored alarm system and itself commissioned this work in April 2007. These works cost the Council more than £70,000, with no guarantee of recovery from the offshore owners. In the event, the Council’s legal and finance staff were successful in full recovery. The house, though now looking very sad, was protected from further deterioration and began to dry out.
In November 2008, the owners having failed to progress towards a permanent solution, the Council served a repair notice requiring the house to be reinstated to its condition at the time of listing. The Council had no powers to undertake this level of work itself. In the event of failure, its only remedy would be to institute compulsory purchase proceedings, and perhaps resell to someone prepared to undertake the necessary works.
This prompted the owners to employ a new manager for the property, an architect with a successful record of residential conversion of large listed buildings. Under his stewardship, the scaffold has been replaced by less intrusive temporary roof repairs and the building stripped of rubbish and modern fittings and partitions. This architect perpared the recent scheme for which the Council has resolved to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to conditions and subject to a legal agreement. This scheme was considered on its merits, and it remains open for anyone to submit alternative schemes and negotiate with the owners. Meanwhile, the repairs notice remains in force and compulsory purchase proceedings can be instituted if no satisfactory scheme involving repair is in prospect of implementation.
It should be added that the Council has always been happy to respond to requests for advice from other prospective users of the building throughout this period.
I trust that you will agree from the above that the Council has always acted responsibly at all times in relation to this property and has adopted the correct procedures and has acted in the public interest in respect of all matters relating to Undershaw. Indeed, I trust you will agree that we have been particularly proactive in ensuring this valuable property does not fall into irreversible decline by supporting repair work and future beneficial schemes that will support the buildings long term survival.
If you remain unhappy with the Council’s response then it is open to you to write further to the Head of Planning Services under level 2 of the complaints procedure. ES (Development Control Manager)
A letter in response to Waverley Borough Council Letter dated 20th July 2010
I must advise you that your letter leaves me as deeply unhappy with this matter as previously and I ask you to refer this to the Head of Planning Services to proceed to Level 2 of the Complaints Procedure.
I would be pleased to receive an urgent acknowedgment to this letter. JG
A letter from Waverley Borough Council in reply to letter above dated 21st July 2010
Thank you for your letter received on 21 July 2010 concerning your response received under Level 1.
I am happy to raise this as a Level 2 complaint but please could you provide me with details of why you are not happy with our Level 1 response.
Matthew Evans will aim to let you have a full response within 10 days of receiving the information requested above and can be contacted on his direct number.
If you are not happy with our response sent to you by the Head of Service, you should write to Mary Orton, the Chief Executive, as soon as possible, explaining why you are not satisfied and confirming that you would like your complaint to be reviewed by her under Level 3 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
A letter in response to Waverley Borough Council Letter dated 26th July 2010
I refer to your letter of the 21st July 2010. As I stated in my letter of 1 July 2010 “my indictment is that over the last 5 years, since May 2005 when the property became vacant, your Planning Department has presided over a complete maladminsistrative failure to protect and preserve this iconic grade II building for the nation. Taking it in half a decade from a hotel/restaurant recommended in the local press to a vandalised trashed wreck with planning for 8 ‘lock-up and leave units’ with no public access. The first and last thirds of the 5-year period are the most significant and will be hightlighted by me to the ombudsman”.
This statement extracted from my letter of July 2010 is clearly a statement of fact, and what has happended to this iconic building over the last 5 years has been universally condemned worldwide. As mentioned I shall be very much concentrating on the first and last 20 months or so of the 5-year period when I commence detailed discussions with the ombudsman.
I shall never agree that Waverley Borough Council acted properly in this matter and hence the sooner I can discuss this with the Ombudsman the better.
It is no exaggeration to say that your Authority totally failed this unique literary property known throughout the world.
A Judicial Review on the planning decision of the 9 June is also looking very likely.
Can I please commence Level 3.
I will be pleased if you would let me have an urgent acknowledgment to this letter.
Waverley Borough Council’s reply dated 29th July 2010
I am writing on behalf of the Chief Executive, Mary Orton, to thank you for your letter received on 28 July 2010 concerning your alleged claim that Waverley Borough Council has presided over a complete maladministrative failure to protect and preserve Undershaw this iconic Grade II building for the nation.
I am sorry that you remain unhappy with the Council’s response to your complaint, and can confirm that the Chief Executive will be carrying out a further investigation of your complaint in accordance with Level 3 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
The Chief Executive hopes to be able to send you a detailed response by 11th August 2010.
Waverely Borough Council’s reply to letter dated 26th July 2010
Thank you for your letter of 26th July 2010 in which you expressed once again your concerns about how the Council has dealt with the planning issues relating to Undershaw. The Chief Executive, Mary Orton, is currently away from the office on leave, and so I have investigated your complaint under Level 3 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
I have discussed your concerns with the Planning officers and in the light of those discussions, I am not sure there is really very much more I can add to the letter sent to you on 19th July 2010 by the Development Control Manager, Mrs Sims. As indicated in Mrs Sim’s letter, the Council has been proactive in ensuring this valuable property does not fall into irreversible decline. It has done this by supporting both repair work and future beneficial schemes that will support the building’s long term survival.
As you know, planning permission has been granted for the change of use from a hotel to a single dwelling, and a decision has been taken to grant planning permission for conversion of the building to provide eight dwellings, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement. The implementation of either of these schemes will secure the future of the listed building, and if the current owner decides to proceed with the second of these schemes, the public will be able to visit a pavilion in the grounds where there will be a display of information relating to the building’s past history.
In the meantime, as indicated in Mrs Sim’s letter, the repairs notice remains in force and the Council can consider instituting compulsory purchase proceedings if there is no prospect of implementing a satisfactory scheme within a reasonable period.
This response means that you have now come to the end of the Council’s complaints procedure. I am sorry you feel that you will never be able to accept that Waverley has acted properly in this matter, and agree that your next course of action should be to make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
This letter was in the local Haslemere Herald dated 16th July entitled ‘Cavalier Attitude to our Cultural Past’
The saga that now results in Waverley Borough Council granting permission for Conan Doyle’s house ‘Undershaw’ at the Hindhead traffic lights, to be converted into the inevitable apartments, in spite of there being another proposal to keep it as a single house, is more than a little local planning affair. It is attracting national and international criticism.
Some while ago I heard a Waverley planning officer on national radio explaining the difficulties and cost issues. Knowing the house well, I have some sympathy – it had been allowed to get into a poor state. But that’s what Listed Building regulations are for, and this is far more than a local disaster.
This is an e-mail I received from a German friend:
“Our leading German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung which is published in Munich wrote that finally all the efforts failed to save Conan Doyle’s Victorian house at Hindhead. They say that it will be divided into eight apartments and that obviously the genious of the period is not very appreciated for cultural heritages. It’s a pity, isn’t it? Do you remember that you showed us the building at one of our last visits? Lovely. Tough times for culture ….”
Other nationalities find our cavalier attitude to our great people and landmarks incomprehensible.
Conan Doyle is admired across the world, and this could have been Hindhead’s jewel, and a national treasure.
Instead it will be just another block of Hindhead flats. What a legacy! LH
Letter in the local Haslemere Herald dated 23rd July entitled ‘Share outrage over Undershaw’
I share the outrage expressed in your pages about Undershaw. Surely there can be only one line of explanation – that developers have means of persuading councillors to vote for development. The interesting question is how?
E-mails received from members of the public
E-mail received on 16th July
Best of luck to you all in this latest battle to save Undershaw. JG
E-mails received on 19th July
I was horrified to find out about the state of Undershaw House and also the terrible planning application that Waverley Borough Council has agreed. It is ridicously short sighted and destructive of a key building in the life of one of the UKs most popular writers. If there is anyway of contributing to the campaign by letter writing or donation to support the legal costs, I would be very keen to hear about it. Sincerely and with thanks for your efforts. MR
I read about your campaign today in the Guardian and felt moved to write. Is there anyway I can help – pledging either time or some money to make sure the campaign stays on track. Holmes has been an important part of my life and indeed continues to be even now I look forward to the BBC adaptation on Sunday evening. Please let me know how I can be of service. RC
I’m horrified to read that nothing has been done to preserve this lovely old and historic house for the nation. I am very disappointed and disturbed that a recent decision was made to allow development. This should be retracted and saved for our nation. CH
E-mails received on 20th July
I have only just discovered this website and I’m in full support of your endeavours to save Undershaw. Is there anyway at all the common Doyle fan can help with the campaign? I’d hate to think that I have sat by and done nothing. NEB
E-mails received on 21st July
I am so sad that the Council have not had the intelligence and foresight to stop this development. I despair of people in authority’s lack of knowledge and respect for their own heritage. I wish you well in what you are doing. There are too many ignorant people in Government now. JB
E-mails received on 22nd July
I wholeheartedly support the efforts made by you to support Undershaw. I hope you will be successful and I shall be communicating with the Planning Department and Waverley Borough Council in due course. JND
E-mails received on 2nd August
After seeing your plight highlighted in the recent press; I have had a number of my colleagues voice concern, regarding the plight of Undershaw in Surrey.
As an avid fan of the character Sherlock Holmes, I would hope to pledge support and if possible any help from those that I work with to your cause.
If I may explain; I am a Senior First Officer with British Airways and feelings are running very strong amongst my community regarding the conservation of Undershaw …. I understand from my colleagues at work that a few may have been in touch individually; however as a collective …. if we can help I would be more than happy to help channel any response.
Once again if I may be of assistance in anyway. SG (Senior First Officer British Airways)
E-mail received on 6th August 2010
As Grayshott residents, and having just read the article in ‘Life in Haslemere’ magazine, we wanted to add our voices to the opinion that The Undershaw should be kept as a museum and house of national historic interest in view of the connection with Conan Doyle.
We have no idea what we can do to be of assistance, but we are here if required. K&N H
E-mail received on 7th August 2010
What a wonderful opportunity to put Hindhead on the tourist map. People love visiting houses with history. Just think of the Bronte’s and how much money has been generated by tourists visiting the famous moors.
I last visited Undershaw when it was a restaurant and admired the stained glass and how the house was full of intrigue and atmosphere. It could be recreated as a museum and could ensure employment for local people too. Couldn’t we get government funding to add another attraction for visitors from abroad. The Americans love Sherlock Holmes.
Good luck John Gibson and if I can help in some small way, I would be glad to. PR
E-mail received on 9th August 2010
Hello. I have just spoken on the phone to you regarding our wish to support the initiative of the Undershaw Preservation Trust to prevent Undershaw from being transformed into eight homes. For me, my family and many of my Bulgarian friends and the others that live around and all over the UK, the books of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle are a treasure.
Books of Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson including the ‘Hound of the Baskervilles’ have been and are still my favourite.
The fact that I live very close to the former house of the writer makes us feel very excited and somehow very proud. Then reading the article in ‘Life in Haslemere’ magazine makes me realise that one of the things that make a connection between us and that famous man is about to be destroyed.
We want to give our full support for Undershaw to be preserved as a museum and not to be transformed. We really hope that our support as well as the support for many others will help the Trust in its battle for this wonderful cause. Our heroes and our heritage deserves a much better future. We agree with Doctor Watson “The games afoot”. Good luck and god bless. Best wishes for the future. IM
E-mail received on 29th August 2010
I would like to offer my support for your excellent campaign. My family had the privilege of visiting The Undershaw on a number of occasions when it was a restaurant and we found it a magical experience. Having watched your video and seen the wonderful features of the place I feel that, irrespective of its literary history it would be an outright crime to allow such a magnificent building to be pulled apart for flats.
Conan Doyle’s works are timeless and his home should be preserved for the nation. What was Waverley Borough Council thinking of when they gave planning permission for the development. I will add my voice whenever you need it. A Haslemere resident. KT
Letter received 23rd July
Thank you for your letter of the 13th July, recently received, regarding the planning application for Undershaw.
I do fully support your work to keep this home as a fitting memorial to such a great writer, and accordingly I have today written to Waverley Borough Council to this effect.
Hope I am not too late to add my voice to the support you are looking for. JM
Letters to Mary Orton – Chief Executive, Waverley Borough Council (These are letters that have been sent to Mary Orton and copied to the Undershaw Preservation Trust)
I am writing to you with regard to the recently passed planning application (WA/2010/0172 & 0173) for Undershaw House, which if allowed to go ahead would result in the despoiling, disfigurement and permanent loss to the nation of a unique and relatively original building, steeped in literary and social history.
I am very disappointed to learn that your planning committee has seen fit to pass this application.
I first discovered Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when as a young boy I read Sherlock Holmes and over the years have come to realise just what a unique contribution Sir Arthur made not only to the literature of crime fiction, but also to the wider world as a role model, sportsman, visionary and first class human being. If the house and home of this great man is lost, it will be like a death. Like all deaths the deceased will be gone forever.
I make a plea to you to reconsider your decision, to look again at what will be lost not only to your county, but to the nation and in fact the world if you allow this unique building to be desecrated in the manner described in the recently passed planning application.
Conan Doyle was a Knight of the Realm, Deputy Lieutenant of the County and very well like locally. As another of your famous locals Flora Thompson (author of: Lark Rise to Candleford) commented: “As he went about the village he (Sir Arthur) had a kindly greeting for all. He was probably the most popular man in the neighbourhood.”
He certainly created one of the most popular characters in the world, even to this day.
Within Waverley Council you have it in your power to keep intact for the world this shrine and piece of England, that still yet holds within its walls the memory and memorabilia of one our nations very greatest sons. DL
Letter dated 20 July 2010
With reference to the planning application for Undershaw (WA/2010/0830) for changing the use of this wonderful residence of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I would urgently ask you to support this change to the single residence it should be – former home of one of our most illustrious writers.
We are a small island and our history must be preserved against the ever increasing number of people invading our fair land for “cash” advantages. Let us try and keep what wonderful houses and memories we can from these wretched housing developers whose houses will certainly not stand the test of time! SAW
Letter dated 21st July 2010
I understand that a fresh planning application has been submitted for Undershaw, change of use from hotel/restaurant to a single dwelling (WA/2010/0830).
Following my earlier detailed representation AGAINST the former development WA/2010/0172/0173 , this more recent submission is surely a purposeful proposal to ensure the long-term conservation of these noteworthy premises.
Waverley Borough Council had previously instigated protection of the structure so surely that responsible action iteself was a cursor for Undershaw historic survival.
For the record, my earlier representation which actually outlines FORTY years concern for Hindhead centre.
I, and many others, trust you can persuade the ‘powers of be’ to see fit in supporting this latest proposal.
Letter dated 23rd July 2010
I have been informed by the Undershaw Preservation Trust that the planning application for change of use of these premises was approved by your Council on 9th June, but that a fresh application has now been made – reference WA/2010/0830 – for a single dwelling.
I am writing to support this application, in the hope that it will help preserve the memory of one of England’s greatest writers, known all over the world. As I have said in a previous letter to you, here in Swansea we have a house preserved as a memorial to the late Dylan Thomas, which is an attraction on the ‘tourist trail’, and I am sure there are other examples of the homes of writers that are lovingly cherished for the benefit of future generations – Wordsworth’s home in the Lake District also comes to mind.
The Waverley Borough Council is surely sensitive and aware enough of the implications of unsuitable uses for such a home, and I trust that this latest application will be approved. JM
Letter dated 24 July 2010
My wife and I are amazed and distressed to learn that your Council has approved a completely inappropriate planning application for this property. I surely need not remind your Council of the significance of Conan Doyle’s contribution to the literary canon of our language? And they are content to see his home destroyed? The only word is vandalism.
We support the application for change of use to a single dwelling. J & R H
Replies from Jeremy Hunt’s Office which have been sent to the Trust
Dated 29th July 2010. Thank you for your letter of 9 July to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, to which I again have been asked to reply.
I apologise if you feel you received a generic letter previously, but I must stress that the facts of the matter remain the same. Undershaw was listed Grade II on 19 September 1977. Once a building receives listed status, responsibility becomes that of the local authority.
Waverley Borough Council has set out its position on the situation at the following link: http://www.waverley.gov.uk/site/scripts/news_article.php?newsID=463 If you feel a planning decision has been wrongly made, I would advise that you contact the Council. If you remain dissatisfied, you may consider making your objections known to the Department of Communities and Local Government.
Unless any significant new information comes to light that might alter the listed status of the building, this is not a matter for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. TG
The Times on Saturday – The Open Letter to Jeremy Hunt MP – Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport dated 31 July 2010
We, the undersigned, call upon Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, to review the recent decision by Waverley Borough Council to permit the redevelopment of Undershaw.
Undershaw was built in Hindhead, Surrey, for Arthur Conan Doyle. During his period of his residency there he wrote many of his most important works, including ‘The Hound of the Baskervilles’, and he also received many notable guests, including Bram Stoker and J M Barrie. The house is unique in that it remains one the the few examples of a literary home that was actually built to the writer’s own ideas and design.
As the constituency MP for Hindhead, Mr Hunt is no doubt aware that Undershaw has been neglected since it was purchased by Fossway in 2004. The building has no security, little water-proofing and a number of the heraldic stained-glass windows have been broken. In 2008 Waverley Borough Council served a repair notice on Fossway but it failed to serve a compulsory purchase order, as is usual when a Grade-II listed building is left derelict by its owners.
Recently, the council approved a planning application by Fossway to redevelop Undershaw. However, these plans are insensitive because they entail the loss of Conan Doyle’s billiards room, stables, garage and his brick-lined well. These same plans have also inflated the value of Undershaw and thereby undermined the efforts of the Undershaw Preservation Trust to have it converted into a hotel complex with open public access.
Before the election in May, Mr Hunt indicated that he would support a change of listing for Undershaw to afford better protection. Hence, we trust that he is now willing to work closely with the council, to find a more acceptable solution to the preservation of Undershaw.
Sir Christopher Frayling (ex-Rector Royal College of Art and Member of the Baker Street Irregulars), William Roache, MBE (Actor & Winner of ‘British Soap Awards Lifetime Achievement Award’), Edward Hardwicke (Film & TV Actor: ‘Colditz’ & ‘The Return of Sherlock Holmes’ series), Gyles Brandreth (Author, Broadcaster & Former Conservative Member of Parliament), Uri Geller (Paranormalist & Entertainer), Robert Daws (Actor ‘Jeeves and Wooster’ and ‘The Secret of Sherlock Holmes’), Peter Egan (Actor: ‘Ever Decreasing Circles’ & ‘The Secret of Sherlock Holmes’), Philip Franks (Actor: ‘The Darling Buds of May’, ‘Heartbeat’ & ‘The Secret of Sherlock Holmes’), Roger Llewellyn (Actor: ‘Sherlock Holmes – The Last Act!’ & ‘Sherlock Holmes – The Death and Life’), Mark McGann (Actor, Songwriter, Director and two time ‘Olivier Awards’ nominee), Robin Herford (Theatre Director & Director of ‘The Woman in Black’ & ‘The Secret of Sherlock Holmes’), Jon Lellenberg & Daniel Stashower (Co-Editors of ‘Arthur Conan Doyle: A Life in Letters’), Bill Barnes (President of The Sherlock Holmes Society of Australia), Dr Sadru Bhanji (Author, Historian & Former Lecturer at Exeter University), Peter Calamai (Journalist & Adjunct Professor, Carleton School of Journalism: Ottawa, Canada), Joshua Conan Doyle (Great Great Nephew of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), Oliver Conan Doyle (Great Great Nephew of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), Philip Cornell (Artist & Vice President of The Sherlock Holmes Society of Australia), Jane Doyle (Spouse of the Great Nephew of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), Richard Doyle (Great Nephew of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle), Alistair Duncan (Author), Steve Emecz (Author & Publisher), Dr Amanda J Field (Author), Lynn Gale (Assistant Director of ‘The Undershaw Preservation Trust’), John Gibson (Author & Receipient of the ‘Edgar Allan Poe Special Edgars Award’), Dr Yuichi Hirayama (Author & Editor of ‘The Shoso-in Bulletin’: Tokyo, Japan), Roger Johnson (Editor of ‘The Sherlock Holmes Journal’: London), Ales Kolodrubec (Founder & President of the Czech Society of Sherlock Holmes), Leslie S Klinger (Author, Editor & Recipient of the ‘Edgar Award for Best Critical/Biographical Work’), David Lewis (Lecturer, Historian & Officer of The Sherlock Holmes Society of Australia), Guy Marriott (President of The Sherlock Holmes Society of London), Olaf Maurer (Publisher & Chairman of the Deutsche Sherlock-Holmes-Gesellschaft), Rafe McGregor (Novelist), Russell Miller (Author & Award Winning Journalist), Edwin R Nye (Editor of the ‘Antipodean Society Newsletter’: Dunedin, New Zealand), Jeremy Paul (Playwrite & Screenwriter), Miguel Ojeda Peral (Vice-President of the Circulo Holmes, Asociacion Cultural: Spain), Brian W Pugh (Author & Curator of the Conan Doyle (Crowborough) Establishment), Shirley Purves (Former Chairman of The Sherlock Holmes Society of London), Professor B J Rahn (Former Lecturer of English Literature: Hunter College, New York City), Michael Ross (Author, Translator & Bookseller: Cologne, Germany), Oscar Ross (Hon. Secretary of Northern Ireland’s Sherlock Holmes Society), Steven Rothman (Editor of ‘The Baker Street Journal’: USA), Thierry Saint-Joanis (Founder & President of the Sherlock Holmes Society of France), Gianluca Salvatori (Founder of La lega dei Presidenti & Past President of Uno Studio in Holmes: Italy), Daniel Smith (Author), Paul Spiring (Author & Hon. Member of the Sherlock Holmes Society of France: Karlsruhe, Germany), Dr Robert J Stek (University of Arizona & Member of the Baker Street Iregulars), Dr Roger Straughan (Author & Former Reading in Education: University of Reading), Nick Utechin (Former Radio 4 producer & Hon. Member of the Sherlock Holmes Society London), Michael F Whelan (Chairman of the Baker Street Irregulars), J Douglas Wrigglesworth (Chairman Emeritus of the Friends of the Arthur Conan Doyle Collection of the Toronto Public Library: Canada).
Twitter Updates 
![Dragon[1]](http://www.saveundershaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Dragon17.jpg)
Back to top
Recent Comments 