Grade 2 listed - what’s allowed?
Discussion
Elderly said:
I've never understood why the extension should obviously appear to be a later addition. The house and the extension are 'Listed' , that presumably means that they are on a LIST.
And so if somebody in the future wants to know if the extension is 'original' to the main house, they can simply search the List and find the answer.
I gave a link to the LIST above. And so if somebody in the future wants to know if the extension is 'original' to the main house, they can simply search the List and find the answer.
If you take a few moments to read some examples from it, you'll discover that it actually isn't detailed enough to give you the answer you think it should.
Theoretically, 200 years from now an experienced Architectural Historian should be able to access the LPA's Planning history of the individual building (assuming the computer records still exist by then) and work out from that how the building changed or was extended post 1948, but even if you could do that, the idea (as set out by Mark V GTD) is that any reasonably perceptive member of the public should be able to see the chronology of the building just by looking at it, without needing a study of historic records.
Which still seems daft to me.
We had this with an office extension. It was technically in a conservation area but next to a load a car garages under the railway arches so not much to preserve in my view.
The extension would have been seamless but they wanted it to be obviously different. I hope in years to come people will ask what on earth they were thinking.
To me a building should be a cohesive whole. It is rather like theatre critics. I have studied architecture for 7 years so I know best. Emmm. Just bear in mind that same profession and the council planning department designed and approved every single hideous building you see - the 60s and 70s ( plastic external cladding anyone ).
We had this with an office extension. It was technically in a conservation area but next to a load a car garages under the railway arches so not much to preserve in my view.
The extension would have been seamless but they wanted it to be obviously different. I hope in years to come people will ask what on earth they were thinking.
To me a building should be a cohesive whole. It is rather like theatre critics. I have studied architecture for 7 years so I know best. Emmm. Just bear in mind that same profession and the council planning department designed and approved every single hideous building you see - the 60s and 70s ( plastic external cladding anyone ).
Equus said:
the idea (as set out by Mark V GTD) is that any reasonably perceptive member of the public should be able to see the chronology of the building just by looking at it, without needing a study of historic records.
True, but sadly much seems to rely on the competence of the conservation officer. Having been through a planning application for a G2 listed, some of the things they were initially insisting upon were ludicrous (e.g 1970s internal features) whilst managing to overlook much more significant features going back 2-300 years that were semi-hidden but arguably should have been spotted by/considered by a trained eye.
Jeremy-75qq8 said:
To me a building should be a cohesive whole.
There can be pros and cons to both, and which is most appropriate will depend on the circumstances and the client's brief.I'm engaged in a fight with Planning on an application down in Devon at the moment where (for reasons too long-winded to enter into here) going down the 'contemporary' route will destroy the character of the 'heritage asset' building that we're trying to rehabilitate, but the Planner (who fancies himself as a Conservation Officer) lacks the technical knowlege to understand why that will be the case, and is too dogmatic to accept a 'traditional' approach.
On the other hand, most features of vernacular architecture are there for practical reasons associated with historic locally available materials, local socio-economics or climate, most of which no longer exist (our building technology has changed dramatically, and materials and components are now sourced at a national, if not international level). Where historic buildings were adapted in the past (without the constraints of either the Planning system or rose-tinted glasses), they did so to take practical advantage of prevailing needs, materials and technologies, so there is a strong argument that to do differently today is just a contrived pastiche. It's not elitist, becasue it's not a particularly complicated argument... but many people are unwilling to even think that far.
Jeremy-75qq8 said:
I have studied architecture for 7 years so I know best. Emmm.
For what it's worth, Conservation Officers seldom come from an architectural background and seldom have any practical experience in architectural design,Equus said:
I gave a link to the LIST above.
If you take a few moments to read some examples from it, you'll discover that it actually isn't detailed enough to give you the answer you think it should.
.
I’ve just had a look at the listing for my own house and it’s laughably inaccurate and incomplete.If you take a few moments to read some examples from it, you'll discover that it actually isn't detailed enough to give you the answer you think it should.
.
I also looked at the list of a friends GII* house, which does mention some internal paneling ….
….. internal paneling that turned out to be asbestos.
Elderly said:
I’ve just had a look at the listing for my own house and it’s laughably inaccurate and incomplete.
QEDThat's pretty typical: they make no attempt at completeness. The description given on the list is really only sufficient that an Architectural Historian could determine whether the building might be of interest for them to look at, if they're seeking an example of a particular style or period.
Equus said:
Where historic buildings were adapted in the past (without the constraints of either the Planning system or rose-tinted glasses), they did so to take practical advantage of prevailing needs, materials and technologies, so there is a strong argument that to do differently today is just a contrived pastiche.
This is the side I tend to come down on. For Grade II properties (which are the vast majority of listed buildings) the intent (IMO) should be to preserve the elements of the building that have merit, with a view that it has to be a functional building. If it's the building frontage that is important (like many Georgian properties, where all bets were off once you got beyond the public face), then preserve that, but allow a "period pastiche" extension to be built at the back. I would far rather have something that looked like it might be original, rather than a contemporary timber or glass box stuck on the back. Again IMO the merit of the building's appearance is diminished by the latter approach, rather than enhanced.I've been quite "lucky" in that I've been allowed to do extensive exterior changes to a Grade II building - including building an attached garage, a sliding glass roof onto a (new) rooftop terrace, an orangery and adding an oriel window - in a style and materials that were sympathetic to the original building. Now, some of these would be obviously non-original but others not so much. But overall the building appearance is far better (again IMO) for being cohesive rather than jarring. It may have helped that the building had been royally mucked around with over its lifetime and we were restoring it closer to its original facades and removing carbuncular additions, but then again some COs decide that such carbuncles form the history of the building and want to keep them. I did retain consultants to "work with" the CO to get the package of changes through (including massive internal changes) and I have to say a degree of relationship management and ego massaging of the CO probably helped. Another day, another CO though, and it's possible the whole lot could have been rejected - leaving the building as a "neither one thing nor another" mess with very diminished public and personal amenity.
PhilboSE said:
Equus said:
Where historic buildings were adapted in the past (without the constraints of either the Planning system or rose-tinted glasses), they did so to take practical advantage of prevailing needs, materials and technologies, so there is a strong argument that to do differently today is just a contrived pastiche.
This is the side I tend to come down on...Personally, I think we're far too obsessed with 'heritage' in this country. Probably comes from the fact that we know we're now an also-ran as a world power, where once we had an empire, so we feel the need to cling on to some rose-tinted idea of past glory (ignoring the fact that it really wasn't very glorious).
I'd be happy if we got rid of Grade II listed status and 'local listing' of heritage assets, and limited statutory regulation to what are currently Grade II* or Grade I.
rlw said:
craigjm said:
The doorway change probably needs listed building consent. Other than that you can change the bathroom as long as the bathroom fittings themselves are not part of the listing
Wrong.But you can do an awful lot of things you really shouldn't as no-one will ever know what is actually listed upon a later inspection. Unless you have sneaky neighbours.
Equus said:
Depending on where you draw the line on that principle, you might not need Listing at all, though.
(snip)
I'd be happy if we got rid of Grade II listed status and 'local listing' of heritage assets, and limited statutory regulation to what are currently Grade II* or Grade I.
I fundamentally agree with the principle of Listed Buildings (because otherwise owners and architects could run riot), though my comments around being more relaxed were aimed more at the 92% of listed properties which are Grade II and as I indicated I think these should be much more permissive of "period pastiche" rather than strongly contemporary additions. I agree with the previous poster than wondered whether future generations will thank us for these impositions. Personally - I would never put a contemporary extension onto a period property. Just looks wrong to my eye.(snip)
I'd be happy if we got rid of Grade II listed status and 'local listing' of heritage assets, and limited statutory regulation to what are currently Grade II* or Grade I.
Griffith4ever said:
Indeed. I'm in a G2 listed building of flats and no one pays any attention to the listing internally.
Theoretically...you should ask for permission for any changes which fall within scope. But as you say, no-one actively checks on listed buildings for unapproved works so if it's not brought to their attention you can get away with it. If it's Grade II then it's very likely the sort of thing you might seek to do would be allowed anyway. Depending on the property, at resale time a conveyancer might ask for Listed Building Consent for any works done and as the penalties for infringement don't time expire and the problem passes to the next owner, indemnity policies aren't the answer.PhilboSE said:
I fundamentally agree with the principle of Listed Buildings (because otherwise owners and architects could run riot)...
I agree that genuinely historically or architecturally important buildings should be protected, but there's an awful lot of old tat on the list that frankly isn't all that significant.PhilboSE said:
...the penalties for infringement don't time expire and the problem passes to the next owner....
This is only partly true.The offence (under Section 9 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine) is committed by the person who undertook the work, and they remain liable even if the property has changed hands. The current owner cannot be prosecuted under Section 9, if it wasn't them who undertook the work: the offence is 'executing or causing to execute' unauthorised works.
The LPA has the powers to serve a Listed Building Enforcement Notice requiring the restoration of the building to its former state (or such works as they deem necessary to alleviate whatever harm has taken place), and that falls upon the current owner... but depending on the circumstances, it's quite possible that they will be able to make a claim for the cost of doing so against the person who originally did the work.
Interesting topic. I fully appreciate it can be hugely frustrating, confusing and feel like a real mystery. Having been colleagues with numerous conservation officers over the years, they are all different and learning the person is as important as the system sometimes.
What is frustrating is when a conservation officer would rather the listed building fall down rather than be saved with some potentially unacceptable (to them) changes. Having to see this conservation officer squirm under a long examination from a Planning Inspector for their dogma in this and other views was quite satisfying.
I can only advise not to do any works before discussing the proposal with your conservation officer and, if possible, see what other information they may have on the building in the local records. Then, work with them, and build a relationship.
What is frustrating is when a conservation officer would rather the listed building fall down rather than be saved with some potentially unacceptable (to them) changes. Having to see this conservation officer squirm under a long examination from a Planning Inspector for their dogma in this and other views was quite satisfying.
I can only advise not to do any works before discussing the proposal with your conservation officer and, if possible, see what other information they may have on the building in the local records. Then, work with them, and build a relationship.
roscopervis said:
...they are all different and learning the person is as important as the system sometimes.
Which is a problem in itself, of course.It is fundamentally inappropriate that state control over the ability to do something to privately owned property should be at the personal whim of a single individual.
Equus said:
roscopervis said:
...they are all different and learning the person is as important as the system sometimes.
Which is a problem in itself, of course.It is fundamentally inappropriate that state control over the ability to do something to privately owned property should be at the personal whim of a single individual.
dickymint said:
Right of appeal?
Perhaps, but why should you be obliged to go that far?Also, the appeals system acknowledges that there is a degree of subjectivity in some aspects of Planning decisions, and so tends to favour the Conservation Officer's decision unless it seems wholly unsupportable.
And at best, the appeal will simply add another single individual's opinion to the first's. Beyond the initial appeal, your rights are limited to testing whether the decision was made in a way that was procedurally correct under law.
Re my earlier comment, the Cornish cottage we bought was G2 listed but the owners were unaware of this until they tried to sell it. The local conservation office did a drive by listing, without any consultation or any idea as to the interior, and then sent the documentation to the wrong address - also The Cottage - which was a new infill build down an alley and invisible from the road.
Adding to the fun, the owners also had put on a PVC extension at the back BEFORE it was listed and this had to be removed. Not an issue for us as we hated it, and we were given ten years to remove it.
We, wrongly we now know, put in secondary double glazing, made a cupboard under the stairs with a door in the hall, moved the bathroom door and refitted the bathroom with modern kit rather than knackered old sixties fittings and lots of tongue and groove pine.
We, legally, had a very modern extension built in place of the PVC conservatory and took the opportunity to continue the wood floor into the tiny dining room to replace the hideously uneven and dangerous, unoriginal, slate floor. A large number of these slates went into the garden, which was the best place for them.
While this was being done, the builder discovered that the original slate floor - huge slabs - was about six inches under the slates we replaced.
We decided to sell and our solicitor picked up that we had extended the wood floor into the dining room which wasn't in the PP for the extension. She did nothing but the purchasers solicitor also picked it up and queried it with the council who immediately sent the conservation officer around to arrest us and charge us.
Now, until this point, not a single planning officer or conservation office had ever seen the interior of the cottage so had no idea what it looked like on the day it was listed. For all they knew, the wooden floor could have been original but for the fact that the PP stated that the new wooden floor had to sensitively butted up to the slate floor - but it didn't say where and could have meant the hall slate floor.
After much argument, stating that the slate floor was not original and had been fitted, cheaply, in the seventies, and that the wooden floor was much safer and more likely to have been in keeping with the front room and the hall floors, both replaced with concrete under tiles and carpet, we agreed to fit a new slate floor using Cornish slate. We requested to use the original slate floor but this wasn't permitted as it was covered by the later floor when the listing took place.
We ended up with a well fitted and good looking slate floor, fitted in a modern style, which looked absolutely nothing like the one we had removed and nothing like an orginal floor.
You can get away with all sorts in many ways but if you try and change something the proper way, make sure that your tracks are extremely well covered. I'm not suggesting that this is a good thing to do - we made our changes quite ignorantly of procedure - and no-one would have been any the wiser had we not chosen to sell.
Our attached neighbour, who was a complete arse, built an extension, moved bats, remodelled the ground floor, changed the chimneys, and redid the slate hung front with concrete and not a word was ever said. They also built a ten foot high fence so that we couldn't see into their, lower, garden.
Needless to say, they were not supportive of us and actually made a noise complaint, saying that they could hear us walking past an open fireplace and that it was disturbing their enjoyment etc etc.
I would buy another G2 property but it would have to be something quite special.
Adding to the fun, the owners also had put on a PVC extension at the back BEFORE it was listed and this had to be removed. Not an issue for us as we hated it, and we were given ten years to remove it.
We, wrongly we now know, put in secondary double glazing, made a cupboard under the stairs with a door in the hall, moved the bathroom door and refitted the bathroom with modern kit rather than knackered old sixties fittings and lots of tongue and groove pine.
We, legally, had a very modern extension built in place of the PVC conservatory and took the opportunity to continue the wood floor into the tiny dining room to replace the hideously uneven and dangerous, unoriginal, slate floor. A large number of these slates went into the garden, which was the best place for them.
While this was being done, the builder discovered that the original slate floor - huge slabs - was about six inches under the slates we replaced.
We decided to sell and our solicitor picked up that we had extended the wood floor into the dining room which wasn't in the PP for the extension. She did nothing but the purchasers solicitor also picked it up and queried it with the council who immediately sent the conservation officer around to arrest us and charge us.
Now, until this point, not a single planning officer or conservation office had ever seen the interior of the cottage so had no idea what it looked like on the day it was listed. For all they knew, the wooden floor could have been original but for the fact that the PP stated that the new wooden floor had to sensitively butted up to the slate floor - but it didn't say where and could have meant the hall slate floor.
After much argument, stating that the slate floor was not original and had been fitted, cheaply, in the seventies, and that the wooden floor was much safer and more likely to have been in keeping with the front room and the hall floors, both replaced with concrete under tiles and carpet, we agreed to fit a new slate floor using Cornish slate. We requested to use the original slate floor but this wasn't permitted as it was covered by the later floor when the listing took place.
We ended up with a well fitted and good looking slate floor, fitted in a modern style, which looked absolutely nothing like the one we had removed and nothing like an orginal floor.
You can get away with all sorts in many ways but if you try and change something the proper way, make sure that your tracks are extremely well covered. I'm not suggesting that this is a good thing to do - we made our changes quite ignorantly of procedure - and no-one would have been any the wiser had we not chosen to sell.
Our attached neighbour, who was a complete arse, built an extension, moved bats, remodelled the ground floor, changed the chimneys, and redid the slate hung front with concrete and not a word was ever said. They also built a ten foot high fence so that we couldn't see into their, lower, garden.
Needless to say, they were not supportive of us and actually made a noise complaint, saying that they could hear us walking past an open fireplace and that it was disturbing their enjoyment etc etc.
I would buy another G2 property but it would have to be something quite special.
Edited by rlw on Saturday 27th April 18:12
Equus said:
Which is a problem in itself, of course.
It is fundamentally inappropriate that state control over the ability to do something to privately owned property should be at the personal whim of a single qualified individual.
Working for a local authority with political and managerial checks and balances to also consider. And of course, the right of appeal. What do you propose to safeguard the country’s heritage? It is fundamentally inappropriate that state control over the ability to do something to privately owned property should be at the personal whim of a single qualified individual.
roscopervis said:
What do you propose to safeguard the country’s heritage?
Well, just saying, like... but that heritage came into being and survived long enough for the bureacrats to start interfering, without any intervention.Local Government bureacrats are like rats and double glazing salesmen*... the trick is not to let them in, in the first place. Once they're in, you've the Devil's own job getting rid of them.
But if you feel that you must have nanny-state intervention, then as I have said, I think that in common with most bureacreacy, it has become bloated over the years. I appreciate that it is a radical suggestion, but if it were up to me, I'd get rid of Grade II and 'locally listed' properties at one fell swoop, which would give you the resources to apply proper heritage assessments to the remaining Grade II* and Grade I buildings that would do what Joe Public thinks Listings do already: provide a detailed analysis (as part of the Listing) of what is important about the building and what can or cannot be changed.
* Edit: It occurs to me that I'm being a tad unfair. Rats are quite intelligent creatures, with an important role to play in the ecosystem.
Edited by Equus on Saturday 27th April 21:02
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff