LETTER OF THE WEEK: 'Reluctant to see familiar landmark swept away'

As he says, I did know Bryan Beggs well and we had no problem over our differing views over the future of the Acre almshouses. Indeed, we worked together on his article on the history of the Andover Charter Trustees that appeared in Lookback at Andover, the Andover History and Archaeology Society’s journal, and which subsequently won a British Association for Local History prize, an honour I collected on Bryan’s behalf at the annual awards in London.

Bryan was a man of great integrity, welcoming the debate of contentious issues in order that the right result should emerge, and the suggestion that can easily gain traction after such a man’s decease — that it should be carried forward just because he wished it — is not something he would have endorsed.

As many will now know, the almshouses were built in 1869 and replaced at least two previous sets of houses that were first built in 1647, almost certainly on the same footprint of land. The Common Acre, until quite recently, extended down to East Street and within living memory could be accessed from there, between the chimney sweep Luke Bull’s house and the old bowling green. The almshouses were on the Common Acre and the long vista of ground from East Street to the Recreation Ground was the area where men of the town practised their archery as proscribed by statute in order to be ready to protect the country from invasion.

That view from East Street to Recreation Road still exists, an historic tract of land called the Common Acre, free to anybody who may have wished to take exercise there over hundreds of years past.

The new building, if built, will destroy forever that vista.

Of course, that lower part of the old Common Acre is now a car park. One wonders what is the current legal status of that car park? It was (and may still) be owned by the charity trustees and this is why it is proposed to become part of the new building.

Any revenue collected from current parking charges will therefore be lost as would of course the benefit to the shops in Swan Court. Does the current revenue go the charity trustees or to TVBC?

The latter surely maintain the car park as well as the ticket machine and are responsible for its penalties, so I presume it must also get the revenue. And within that car park is a line of free spaces of one hour’s duration. Why are they there? Are there historic or legal reasons why no charge can be levied on that area? Is there an unspoken legal complication with that entire block of land, connected with its common status?

Maybe not but nobody seems to want to discuss it.

Mr Lloyd stresses the need to provide more housing for those in need and we can all sympathise with that view.

I’m sure that the present almshouses need urgent attention and may not currently be fit for human habitation but that should be no problem for a builder to remedy.

Why do they need to be knocked down? The same situation arose in 1975 with the line of Pollen’s almshouses in Marlborough Street. What happened then was that they were eventually sold and are now private houses in prime condition. Why can this not happen with the Acre almshouses?

The money received can go towards the purchase of a site elsewhere that is not in a precious and historic part of the town, instead of wasting money demolishing houses from which a considerable sum could be raised.

But of course, for most of us who are keen to see what is left of the old town of Andover preserved, the choice is rarely an economic one, but one dictated by the heart. The almshouses have been there since before any of us were born and as such they are a familiar landmark and an old friend. Their aged features wear a smile on their face and we are reluctant to see them swept away.

David Borrett, Lansdowne Avenue, Andover