Those of you familiar with our "Buildings At Risk" list will already know of Apethorpe Hall. This splendid building, dating from circa 1500 first came to SAVE's attention in 1982, when it was vacated by the school which had previously occupied it. The building has remained vacant ever since, and although its fine exterior is mainly in relatively good condition, recently the roof has begun to deteriorate seriously in places, threatening the superb interior. In 1996, Northamptonshire District Council served an urgent works notice. Two more have since been served, and measures have been taken to prevent vandals entering the building, following a break-in, in which a statue was stolen.

A compulsory purchase order served by the Council over a year ago has yet to come to anything, as the absent owner has employed various stalling tactics, promising to carry out repairs, and subsequently failing so to do. A full repairs notice drawn up three years ago put the price of repairs at £1.8m, but the figure is now more likely to be double this. Several potential buyers, vetted by the Council, have attempted to buy the Hall, but all to no avail. This is not because of the scale of work needed, but because the owner has never agreed to sell.

Despite this, the Council remains hopeful. English Heritage is presently drawing up a full schedule of repairs, and could then move to a compulsory purchase order if necessary. It has very recently listed several of the garden structures, indicating its concern for the whole park, not just the Hall. The Council is hoping that once the present owner either sells up or is forced to sell, the main courtyard will be open to the public, and the other courtyard developed into a private residential area of 1 to 3 units.

In our last newsletter, we discussed Railtrack's plans for the redevelopment of Paddington Station, involving the demolition of the Grade I listed Span 4 and the construction of a 40 storey tower block, designed by Nicholas Grimshaw and Partners. We wrote to Westminster City Council, objecting to the scheme on the basis that the thinking behind Railtrack's decision to demolish Span 4 was flawed.

Although hidden under a mass of scaffolding, the trainshed survives substantially intact, and despite Railtrack's claims to the contrary, SAVE believes that it is possible to accommodate the extra platform capacity required without demolition. The other point on which Railtrack base their argument for the demolition of the building is the need to improve taxi facilities in order to better accommodate Heathrow Express passengers. Although this need does exist, the new proposals would involve the taxi drop off / pick up zone being further from the Heathrow Express platforms and check-in desks, above platform level - a better solution would be a taxi drop off / pick up point at the south eastern entrance to the station, similar to that which serves the Eurostar at the Gare du Nord in Paris.

Since Railtrack's proposals were sprung on Westminster Council, the Council have re-written the planning brief for the whole Paddington area. Contained within this is the suggestion that a workable solution could be found for Paddington station without having to demolish Span 4. Furthermore, the conditions that it lays down for demolition are very strict. We will continue to press for the preservation and repair of Span 4 - there is still the opportunity for Railtrack to develop the land alongside this.

There has been a long running campaign organised by locals to prevent the Almshouses from suffering from development in the large walled garden. Through their combined efforts with SAVE and English Heritage, the prospect of this has now been almost entirely eliminated, following the withdrawal of an application to renew planning permission by the Honourable Company of Drapers, who presently run the Henry Lucas Charity.

The Drapers have now signalled their intent to sell the almshouses without the planning permission for enabling development. The Charity Commission have approved the sale.

It is now essential to find a sympathetic buyer, and SAVE have been in contact with both the National Trust and the Landmark Trust.

This case raises some wider issues for the future - there are 46 Grade I listed, 113 Grade II* and 680 Grade II listed almshouses in the country, and as this case shows, they are in a vulnerable position. What state are they in? What does this future hold for them? This is an area we intend to explore.

The 'Them-and-Us' divide between urban and rural communities has rarely been stronger than it is today. We have been thinking for sometime about a potential report on the lack of funding available to rural buildings at risk. English Heritage can only grant aid Grade I and II* buildings but Grade II listed buildings in towns and cities have been able to benefit from Conservation Area Partnership Schemes, the Townscape Heritage Initiatives and other regeneration money. Urban regeneration is of course vitally important but virtually no money exists for isolated rural buildings and this must be redressed.

Rural vernacular buildings are important for a number of reasons: they document social and economic history and reflect local skills and materials. Above all they are an intrinsic part of our landscape and contribute to it so much more honestly than the off-the-peg sheds we so often see sprouting up today.

Obviously the rural community has more pressing concerns at the moment with the current Foot and Mouth crisis and because of the virulence of this disease there couldn't be a worse possible time to embark on a series of fact finding missions across the country. However, this is subject which we will keep on the back burner for a potential future report.

A Future for Farm Buildings, a SAVE report from 1988 gives an interesting introduction to the importance of farm buildings as well as focusing on best practice for conversions. It is available from SAVE for £5.

We have discussed the case and it's implications at some length elsewhere on the website (there is a link from the home page)

As you will remember, the interior of the Exchange was dismantled prior to demolition, with the condition that it would be re-erected. It would now appear that although the parts are all in storage, there is no site for them to be re-erected on, and nor is there the money with which to do this.

This is potentially a disastrous precedent, with immediate consequences for other buildings and structures that concern SAVE, such as the St. Pancreas Gas Holders. These are due to be dismantled as a part of the work needed to complete phase II of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. However, as yet no site has been earmarked for their re-erection, and no funds have been promised for this.

A recent report from the English Tourism Council (ETC) "Sea Changes - Creating World Class resorts in England" has warned that seaside resorts are in danger of falling into terminal decline. A recent SAVE visit to Hastings showed how much there still is to do despite the heroic success of the local Civic Society, which transformed the redundant Church of St. Mary in the Castle into a concert hall.

Hastings has been a resort since 1775, and its continued popularity lasted well into the 20th century. Today an air of decay hangs over the town: the huge and derelict Queen's Hotel, built in 1858-62 by F H Fowler and empty for the past 13 years is a striking symptom of this. Underused, empty or under-maintained buildings, and seasonal businesses boarded up for the winter, give Hastings the feel of a ghost town.

Since the advent of cheap package holidays, the popularity of English seaside resorts has declined and the ETC has suggested that each resort needs to "establish its own distinctive brand in the minds of visitors and deliver a quality product". This is deemed necessary as unlike resorts on the continent we simply do not have the sunny weather to draw the crowds, and this re-branding is beginning to happen. For example, Blackpool, still the most popular resort in Britain with over 7 million visitors a year, is preparing to set itself up as England's Las Vegas; and St. Ives (which has been popular with artists since the early 20th century) has benefited from the presence of Tate St. Ives since 1993.

In spite of the filthy weather on our visit there is no question that Hastings has some beautiful buildings: The gracious Wellington Square, built c.1820, has suffered from lack of maintenance to some buildings and the insensitive removal of balconies but remains a great asset to the town; Pelham Crescent, 1824-28 by Joseph Kay, is again down at heel but lovely, overlooking the sea front. Attractive weatherboarded seasonal buildings along the seafront, the tightly packed buildings of the old town connected by impossibly narrow passage ways and steps, and the unique net shops all add to the feel of the place.

The Hastings Regeneration Partnership has £1.75M funds to promote regeneration concentrated around the railway station and seafront and a development brief is being drawn up by BDP architects. This is an ideal opportunity for some conservation-led regeneration schemes.

Permission has been granted by Norwich City Council for the demolition of the majority of the Grade II listed Boardman and Wyatt hospital at Norwich, which dates from 1879. Bizarrely enough, listed building consent has not been required by the Council, and SAVE is determined to correct this.

The hospital was designed as an H plan building, with the wards in the main wings which form the uprights of the H. These 'Pavilion Wings' are due for demolition, as the Council does not consider them covered by the listing. This decision flies in the face of both legislation and planning policy guidance, which we believe the Council has interpreted incorrectly. For reasons unknown and unclear to us, they are sticking to their guns, and refusing to request an application for listed building consent from the developer, Persimmon Homes.

Not only is this bad practice on the Council's part, but it has wider implications for listed buildings across England. The list description does not specifically mention the Pavilion Wings, and as is explicitly stated in legislation, the list descriptions are only meant to serve as a guide, rather than representing the specific extent of the listing. If Norwich City Council do not recognise the Pavilion Wings as listed, they are effectively saying that alterations to and even demolition of parts of listed buildings not mentioned in the list description do not require listed building consent. This would be a terrible precedent to set, we are preparing the necessary papers to challenge this in court.