Barn conversions are getting to be hot properties both in the UK and much of Europe, and the U.S. as well.

Part of the allure of this type of living space is the enduring image of rustic beams, worn and weathered natural woods that have served a useful purpose over the years, and which now are being shown as a museum piece would be, and to their best advantage.

But, successful barn conversions present special considerations to the architect, and they are not projects for the faint-hearted. They demand a close inspection of the existing structure for soundness of the wood features to be preserved and structural integrity of the foundation and stonework.

The architect also must be adaptable in his or her vision as there are unforeseen issues that can arise once you start the conversion of a building that can be hundreds of years old.

A successful barn conversion represents ararity and sense of artistic merit combined with ongoing utility. They are unusual structures to encounter and they provide a bit of a lift to ones spirit as if they were a piece of art that one is not expecting to see in that setting. This is a part of their charm as well.

However, the government has stepped in to say that there are new rules that will continue to decrease the amount of barns and outbuilding that are considered candidates for conversion.

One has to wonder at the real reason behind the regulations. The UK has millions of buildings scattered over the countryside that fit the descriptions of these “undesirable” buildings and locations.

The UK has always prided itself on being able to preserve the past while continuing on into the future. I would think that these sorts of beautiful conversions would stand as the absolute epitome of that sentiment. But, obviously, there are some government regulators who don’t see things quite as positively as the supporters of these conversions do.

Without going into the convoluted wording of the new regulations, the government is seen as being concerned that the conversions would cause an inconvenience to the owners. They bring up the issue of “sustainability of location” arguing that many of the agricultural buildings being considered for conversion would not be located in a village setting, and that therefore the residents may not be able to rely on public transport.

They go on to suggest that a building on the top of a hill would be unsuitable for a conversion, as it has no existing power or road connecting to civilization. And, that buildings which are adjacent to other offensive agricultural activities such as poultry farming, silage storage or buildings with dangerous machines or chemicals would be undesirable.

Do they actually believe that the barns should continue to stand just as they have, in a misguided attempt to preserve the landscape from the face of any changes? Or are the new regulations simply another clumsy attempt to save the public that one could lump together with all the other ‘nanny state’ regulations. Whatever the reason, it is a shame that these regulators don’t seem to appreciate the growing phenomenon of the wondrous celebrations of the past that these conversions represent.

Maybe that is why successful barn conversions seem to hold so much value in people’s eyes and are so coveted as a private residence. They stand as a beautiful, unique link to the past while exhibiting a utilitarian usefulness within their beauty.