Anyone Restoring or Restored a Historic Building?
Discussion
Equus said:
kurt535 said:
In my case, I've been in and around property for about 25 years.
Then you should have known that the Listing applies to the whole property, not excluding that 1970's extension. 
kurt535 said:
There is not consistency across the CC's planning and conservation officers. One CC sanctioned replacement bespoke wood replacement double glazing, this lot wouldn't.
Whilst I agree that building conservation is perhaps less consistent, and more subject to the personal views of the individual Conservation Officer, than planning generally, you do need to recognise that every single Listed Building is different. The glazing of one might be absolutely critical to the buildings character and importance (a friend of mine lives in a farm that still has some of the original Elizabethan glass in some of its windows - which is incredibly rare - and perhaps the most important thing about the whole building), whereas with another it might not matter at all. Have you ever considered just how difficult it is for the Conservation Officers to try to make consistent judgements in such circumstances? Do you think that you could do a better job?
It's very difficult to assess such inconsistencies without a very detailed understanding and comparison of the buildings involved.
ETA: Perhaps, in the context of this thread, the fact that there can be both an LPA Conservation Officer and a Historic England Officer involved in the process offers useful checks and balances?
Edited by Equus on Thursday 15th November 20:17
My house is grade 2 and I realised many years ago that conservation department decisions are down to the individual officer's interpretations at the time. Some things will be passed by some that others would not.
We haven't really had any issues with the them but there have been a few ridiculous decisions they've made that simply cannot be justified. For example the bloke who lived in our house before was the ultimate bodger. He started to construct what looked like a conservatory out of huge timbers bolted to the walls with wedge anchors and studding. It never got further than this framework, which I think he really put there to hold up what was a subsiding house that wasn't insured because he was skint. Conservation wouldn't let me take it down because it might cause more damage. What? More damage than the rusting fixings that are expanding in the stonework and leaving streaks down the wall? I took it down and am happy to pay the price if they ever want to pursue it. They also wanted to leave the undersized guttering that allowed the rain to cascade down the building. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it was right in the first place!
What the department needs to recognise is that we're in the 21st century. History is full of mistakes that make fairly small historic buildings uninhabitable if the current owner can't make 'reasonable' upgrades. They would therefore fall into disrepair and ruin as they would become white elephants that no one would want. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about fitting uPVC windows in a Georgian house! I'm not a philistine, otherwise I wouldn't have bought it. But you cannot have cascading water down the face of the walls or unapproved cowboy works suddenly becoming protected.
We haven't really had any issues with the them but there have been a few ridiculous decisions they've made that simply cannot be justified. For example the bloke who lived in our house before was the ultimate bodger. He started to construct what looked like a conservatory out of huge timbers bolted to the walls with wedge anchors and studding. It never got further than this framework, which I think he really put there to hold up what was a subsiding house that wasn't insured because he was skint. Conservation wouldn't let me take it down because it might cause more damage. What? More damage than the rusting fixings that are expanding in the stonework and leaving streaks down the wall? I took it down and am happy to pay the price if they ever want to pursue it. They also wanted to leave the undersized guttering that allowed the rain to cascade down the building. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it was right in the first place!
What the department needs to recognise is that we're in the 21st century. History is full of mistakes that make fairly small historic buildings uninhabitable if the current owner can't make 'reasonable' upgrades. They would therefore fall into disrepair and ruin as they would become white elephants that no one would want. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about fitting uPVC windows in a Georgian house! I'm not a philistine, otherwise I wouldn't have bought it. But you cannot have cascading water down the face of the walls or unapproved cowboy works suddenly becoming protected.
I couldn't agree more, there's a massive lack of consistency in the positions taken by CO's between different LPA's and even within the same and this is a very real problem in practice which creates a lot of cynicism in the public eye.
One case in point is GII buidling I am dealing with now where the LPA consented to new double glazed timber sash windows in the main facade (the part of most interest) 5 years ago. We are now seeking approval to replace some rotten single glazed sash windows in the outshut with double glazed units which reside in entirely new openings which were formed 20 years ago (and consented)
The same CO is saying - 'no' they must be single glazed replacements. This position would almost certainly not stand up to an appeal but it just makes the process damned hard work and costs the client!
One case in point is GII buidling I am dealing with now where the LPA consented to new double glazed timber sash windows in the main facade (the part of most interest) 5 years ago. We are now seeking approval to replace some rotten single glazed sash windows in the outshut with double glazed units which reside in entirely new openings which were formed 20 years ago (and consented)
The same CO is saying - 'no' they must be single glazed replacements. This position would almost certainly not stand up to an appeal but it just makes the process damned hard work and costs the client!
Another problem I encountered was the need for architect's drawings so I could rebuild a chimney stack. Our house is symmetrical, so as far as I was concerned the new stack should be the same as the old and its twin can be used for dimensions if necessary.
I provided photographs of the collapsing stack and of the twin, as well as measurements.
'Nope. We must have drawings'.
'Err, when the house was built there were no cameras but there are now. So look, this is the actual chimney and measurements, so what's wrong?'
'Nope. We must have drawings'.
So I did the drawings to scale myself.
'Nope. We must have architects drawings'.
So they wanted me to spend probably a four figure sum on a drawing of a chimney. The replacement stone cost me £2.5k. In a crumbling house haemorrhaging money I wasn't giving a load of cash away for a drawing, so I did the sensible thing and 'repaired' the stack. I replaced every stone block down to the second course. This was deemed a repair because I didn't replace it entirely! Utter madness!!
I provided photographs of the collapsing stack and of the twin, as well as measurements.
'Nope. We must have drawings'.
'Err, when the house was built there were no cameras but there are now. So look, this is the actual chimney and measurements, so what's wrong?'
'Nope. We must have drawings'.
So I did the drawings to scale myself.
'Nope. We must have architects drawings'.
So they wanted me to spend probably a four figure sum on a drawing of a chimney. The replacement stone cost me £2.5k. In a crumbling house haemorrhaging money I wasn't giving a load of cash away for a drawing, so I did the sensible thing and 'repaired' the stack. I replaced every stone block down to the second course. This was deemed a repair because I didn't replace it entirely! Utter madness!!
bernhund said:
'Nope. We must have architects drawings'.
There is some misinterpretation/misrepresentation going on here, somewhere.They can't legally insist that drawings are prepared by an Architect.
They can insist (under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990, if you must know) that the drawings and other information submitted in support of the application are of an appropriate standard.
My guess is that your drawings simply weren't considered good enough.
Note the wording under paragraph 2 of the link that the application "shall contain... such other plans and drawings as are necessary to describe the works...' (my bold). No mention of photographs or alternative media, there, so they were quite proper in insisting that drawings were required.
They were also quite proper in drawing the distinction between rebuild and repair.
If you told them that you wanted to demolish and rebuild the chimney, they quite rightly wanted drawings of existing and proposed, so that they could approve any differences (or confirm that there would be none). I've just had the same conversation with the Conservation Officer on the church I mentioned further up this thread, to discuss with him where he wished to draw the line between rebuild and repair. He actually gave me a more flexible answer than I would have, if I were in his shoes (we're going to have to replace some ornately carved stonework where the original has badly eroded; if it were me, I'd have insisted on detail drawings of the proposed carvings... he's happy to look upon this as like-for-like 'repair', even though there will be a degree of interpretation as to what the carvings originally looked like) .
Sometimes it's about knowing what to ask, and how to ask it.
PS: If you ever want to spend a 4-figure sum on drawings of a chimney, I'm yer man.
Equus said:
bernhund said:
'Nope. We must have architects drawings'.
There is some misinterpretation/misrepresentation going on here, somewhere.They can't legally insist that drawings are prepared by an Architect.
They can insist (under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990, if you must know) that the drawings and other information submitted in support of the application are of an appropriate standard.
My guess is that your drawings simply weren't considered good enough.
Note the wording under paragraph 2 of the link that the application "shall contain... such other plans and drawings as are necessary to describe the works...' (my bold). No mention of photographs or alternative media, there, so they were quite proper in insisting that drawings were required.
They were also quite proper in drawing the distinction between rebuild and repair.
If you told them that you wanted to demolish and rebuild the chimney, they quite rightly wanted drawings of existing and proposed, so that they could approve any differences (or confirm that there would be none). I've just had the same conversation with the Conservation Officer on the church I mentioned further up this thread, to discuss with him where he wished to draw the line between rebuild and repair. He actually gave me a more flexible answer than I would have, if I were in his shoes (we're going to have to replace some ornately carved stonework where the original has badly eroded; if it were me, I'd have insisted on detail drawings of the proposed carvings... he's happy to look upon this as like-for-like 'repair', even though there will be a degree of interpretation as to what the carvings originally looked like) .
Sometimes it's about knowing what to ask, and how to ask it.
PS: If you ever want to spend a 4-figure sum on drawings of a chimney, I'm yer man.
I think the conservation departments could be much more flexible if they had more resources. Someone could have visited site and seen quite clearly what needed doing and avoided a lot of unnecessary expense and time on my behalf. I got the impression there were about two people responsible for the whole of Kent's listed buildings!
bernhund said:
I think the conservation departments could be much more flexible if they had more resources. Someone could have visited site and seen quite clearly what needed doing and avoided a lot of unnecessary expense and time on my behalf. I got the impression there were about two people responsible for the whole of Kent's listed buildings!
Yes, for sure. And one Conservation Officer per LPA is par for the course.The whole Planning system is overloaded, but try asking if people wouldn't mind increasing their Council Tax payments so that the owners of listed buildings could have a bit more flexibility when they want to make alterations, or so that big housebuilders can get their applications processed more quickly...
There has been extra money in recent budgets intended to clear the Planning log-jam for housing supply, but the way that Local Authorities work, it gets put into a general pot and very rarely reaches the Planning departments intact.
Spare a thought for the poor bloody infantry who run our Planning services on a day-to-day basis... they're generally a pretty demoralised bunch, putting up with criticism from all sides for a lot less money than if they were working in the private sector (which means many of the better ones have already jumped ship to work for developers and private consultancies, leaving only a handful of dedicated idealists among the second raters and those marking time for their Local Authority pensions).
Sorry... I came across all reasonable for a minute, there. I'm forgetting this is PistonHeads. I'll go have a lie down.
Escort3500 said:
Elderly said:
Equus said:
Elderly said:
….. (under the specific circumstances of this build) …..
Then Building Control and the very experienced contractors who had done projects for the National Trust and Natural England (does that mean they were experts on Squirrels as well?) were in the wrong, and thank heavens for the Conservation Officer!Escort3500 said:
Escort3500 said:
Elderly said:
Equus said:
Elderly said:
….. (under the specific circumstances of this build) …..
If you had been privy to "the specific circumstances of this build", you might not be so pedantic?
.Why would I have mentioned 'specific circumstances' if there were none?
I was not the client and so I felt that I had said enough on a public forum.
Elderly said:
Why would I have mentioned 'specific circumstances' if there were none?
To try to avoid yourself looking like an idiot for making a a big fuss about how 'stupid' the Conservation Officer was, when in fact they were quite correct in their approach?I'm genuinely curious as to why you'd feel the need to introduce movement joints on a 100+ year old wall, when you're doing work on it using a mortar that is inherently more flexible than the one it's survived with for the last century.
This is a purely technical issue, so I see no problems of client confidentiality - we're not asking you for the address of the property, the client's name, or how much they paid for the work.
Equus said:
Spare a thought for the poor bloody infantry who run our Planning services on a day-to-day basis... they're generally a pretty demoralised bunch, putting up with criticism from all sides for a lot less money than if they were working in the private sector (which means many of the better ones have already jumped ship to work for developers and private consultancies, leaving only a handful of dedicated idealists among the second raters and those marking time for their Local Authority pensions).
I quite agree - and I would spare a thought for the "handful of dedicated idealists", but what are the chances of coming across one of them amongst all the rest who you imply are "second raters and those marking time ….".Equus said:
The whole Planning system is overloaded, but try asking if people wouldn't mind increasing their Council Tax payments ……
I've had a lot of experience of dealing with related matters at both County & District levelsand I am staggered at the vast amount of tax payers' money unnecessarily spent.
Elderly said:
Why would I look like an idiot?
The construction joints were recommended by the contractors and the L.A's. Building Control - NOT ME
Because it was you who was using it as an example on a public forum of how 'useless' Conservation Officers are.The construction joints were recommended by the contractors and the L.A's. Building Control - NOT ME
You gave us two examples; one where you said that 'compromises were reached' (good... that sounds fair enough to me?) and another where, by the best account you've been able to give us so far, the Conservation Officer was right, and BC and the contractor were wrong.
Which doesn't sound 'overwhelmingly and consistently NEGATIVE (your caps) from where I'm standing?
My boss has a grade 2 listed cottage, the history buildings magazine seemed a good read over his shoulder.
We have just bought and started work on a reasonable size 1910 Edwardian house. Very livable condition but nothing much done for 50 years bar a re-roof so full re-wire, plumbing update, decorate.
Ageing and failing lime render and lack of any wall insulation is next in the research list!
Daniel
We have just bought and started work on a reasonable size 1910 Edwardian house. Very livable condition but nothing much done for 50 years bar a re-roof so full re-wire, plumbing update, decorate.
Ageing and failing lime render and lack of any wall insulation is next in the research list!
Daniel
Willhire89 said:
Murph7355 said:
Equus said:
Murph7355 said:
To an earlier post, are you allowed to just let a listed building collapse? And even if you do, would you be allowed to do what you wanted with what's left?
Short answer: no, you are not.Liink
Built in 1839, designed by Archibald Simpson.
Equus said:
bernhund said:
I think the conservation departments could be much more flexible if they had more resources. Someone could have visited site and seen quite clearly what needed doing and avoided a lot of unnecessary expense and time on my behalf. I got the impression there were about two people responsible for the whole of Kent's listed buildings!
Yes, for sure. And one Conservation Officer per LPA is par for the course.The whole Planning system is overloaded, but try asking if people wouldn't mind increasing their Council Tax payments so that the owners of listed buildings could have a bit more flexibility when they want to make alterations, or so that big housebuilders can get their applications processed more quickly...
There has been extra money in recent budgets intended to clear the Planning log-jam for housing supply, but the way that Local Authorities work, it gets put into a general pot and very rarely reaches the Planning departments intact.
Spare a thought for the poor bloody infantry who run our Planning services on a day-to-day basis... they're generally a pretty demoralised bunch, putting up with criticism from all sides for a lot less money than if they were working in the private sector (which means many of the better ones have already jumped ship to work for developers and private consultancies, leaving only a handful of dedicated idealists among the second raters and those marking time for their Local Authority pensions).
Sorry... I came across all reasonable for a minute, there. I'm forgetting this is PistonHeads. I'll go have a lie down.
I recently tried to find out whether I'd be allowed to knock down my garage and workshop and build one combined unit on a different footprint.
'We need drawings'.
'But is this simply a no go project whatever the plans because it is on the site of a listed building?'
'We can't say without drawings'
'But to go to great expense employing an architect to design and draw this if there is no way anything will ever be allowed is ridiculous. Surely you could say whether or not permission 'could' be granted if the right design is submitted though?'
'Not without drawings'.
I really just needed a yes or no answer. Yes would mean I could take a punt and spend time and money trying to find the right plan. No would mean that I go to the pub instead.
bernhund said:
I'm sure on the whole the people who work for planning are just trying to do their job but in a system governed by red tape and budgets. A job where you're not allowed to stray off the path and use your loaf!
I recently tried to find out whether I'd be allowed to knock down my garage and workshop and build one combined unit on a different footprint.
'We need drawings'.
'But is this simply a no go project whatever the plans because it is on the site of a listed building?'
'We can't say without drawings'
'But to go to great expense employing an architect to design and draw this if there is no way anything will ever be allowed is ridiculous. Surely you could say whether or not permission 'could' be granted if the right design is submitted though?'
'Not without drawings'.
I really just needed a yes or no answer. Yes would mean I could take a punt and spend time and money trying to find the right plan. No would mean that I go to the pub instead.
You should have asked on here.I recently tried to find out whether I'd be allowed to knock down my garage and workshop and build one combined unit on a different footprint.
'We need drawings'.
'But is this simply a no go project whatever the plans because it is on the site of a listed building?'
'We can't say without drawings'
'But to go to great expense employing an architect to design and draw this if there is no way anything will ever be allowed is ridiculous. Surely you could say whether or not permission 'could' be granted if the right design is submitted though?'
'Not without drawings'.
I really just needed a yes or no answer. Yes would mean I could take a punt and spend time and money trying to find the right plan. No would mean that I go to the pub instead.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that permission could be granted (I'm working on proposals that are a hell of a lot more contentious than that on a Grade II* listed building, as we speak, which has already received a tacit nod of approval from the LPA and HE, and there's certainly no fundamental policy or legislative reason that it shouldn't be acceptable in principle), but it will need to be the right design... therefore the net result of their guidance is correct: you will need drawings before they can give you a meaningful answer.
In truth, the answer to that one is so basic that they were probably bemused (or suspicious that you were trying to trick them) at being asked the question.
Give me a PM... I'm reckoning that if you're willing to pay a four figure sum for a drawing of a chimney, this could well be my retirement package?
Seriously, though: we can sort that.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff