Building control

[Lostgardensof]

Hi

Does anyone have any experience of dealing with building control in a listed building? How does it work? Who wins on priorities?

 

[Socksitis]

Hi, we have a listed building and have carried out extensive work, including new ceiling joists, some underpinning, insulating and replacing concrete floors lime a limecrete system. Complete plumbing and new water supply, electric wired throughout. Also window repairs. Almost forgot - new roof.
So we had the planning permission and LBC.
Started with the building regs when the roof was done and some new timber was required in the roof and new collars - there weren't any on the A frames. Membrane and insulation all done with the approval of building regs. The floor was all done with complete discussions with building regs, kept them in the loop over the limecrete system and the underpinning.

I have needed to play a trump Listed Building card just once, get outable windows in the first floor - this was an original casement, so we came up witha compromise of not having a flying mullion.

Build a relationship, understand where building regs are coming from and hen talk everything through. Generally I believe the listed building has the trump card and it is about improvement.

Hope that helps?

 

[Lostgardensof]

That is very useful. We have a building which was originally a house, then made into an annex to a halls of residence in the 1970s and then offices more recently. We have had planning permission granted to convert back to a house but aren't undertaking any building work, only redecorating and fitting a new kitchen etc. I suspect we need to have a chat with building control to see if the building meets current regs for houses, which it probably won't! Bit concerned it will cost a fortune to get it up to spec.

 

[Abi Cott]

I'm not in this position, but I've read pretty much every post on the forum on the subject (and pretty much every other subject except thatch and chickens, I got bored of them) I get the impression that if you introduce your conservation officer to your building control officer you can sit back and watch whilst the wrangling takes place and generally the conservation officer has the trump card.

 

[Flyfisher]

That has been my experience (of one listed house!), though I wouldn't describe the CO-BCO relationship as one of 'wrangling' as it was all perfectly amicable in my case. And frankly I'm not really surprised because the BCOs role is one of mainly ticking boxes to prove that everything about the works is compliant with the regs. It's a bit like structural calcs - the BCO will want a copy for their file but not to actually check, just to tick the box that they have been done and that someone is responsible for them. Similarly, if the CO vetos something then that's good enough for the BCO - why would they bother to argue about it? Besides, they probably share the same office and know each other quite well.

One other point. Any work on a listed building must surely require Listed Building Consent first, in which case the CO should be involved well before building control. I would say it's the relationship with the CO that is of greatest importance for any listed building owner. Get that right and there really shouldn't be any issues with building control further down the line.

Indeed, there may be no actual need to involve building control at all. For example, I've had LBC to replace windows. As I understand things, new windows require 'sign off' to prove they meet the building regs and this can be done by building control or (more usually) a FENSA-registered installer. Except my replacement windows were single-glazed (so do not meet the building regs) and I installed them myself, so the work was not signed off. But building control don't know that because I didn't notify them about the work. Should I have done? Or perhaps the CO's veto in favour of SG windows was automatically registered during the LBC application? Though if it was (which I doubt) I knew nothing about it. Either way, I have no piece of paper 'signing off' my SG windows. But I'm not losing any sleep over it :wink:

 

[MikeG]

.......Does anyone have any experience of dealing with building control in a listed building?

Yes, lots.

How does it work?

Very well, generally, particularly if you have an experienced building inspector.

Who wins on priorities?

Listed buildings, every time.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I'd have thought that if you don't plan on changing anything, then elements of your house don't need to conform to building regs. New elements (such as replacing a roof covering or changing windows) will need to conform, unless the conservation officer determines that a like for like non conforming replacement is needed (in which case repair might be better anyway).

My house is not listed but I still have single glazed sash windows and solid walls that wouldn't conform if they were built now but have never been changed so are perfectly fine. The roof was re slated by the previous owner and insulation had to be brought up to current regs as it was a new element.

 

[Flyfisher]

The roof was re slated by the previous owner and insulation had to be brought up to current regs as it was a new element.

I've read similar things about 'thermal elements' having to be improved if a complete wall (or some percentage thereof) is replastered, but presumably this only applies if building control is actually involved.

I got LBC to strip our pantile roof, do necessary repairs, add a breathable membrane and replace the pantiles using reclaimed ones to replace the broken originals. No discussion about insulation and no involvement with building control.

 

[88v8]

I suspect we need to have a chat with building control to see if the building meets current regs for houses, which it probably won't! Bit concerned it will cost a fortune to get it up to spec.

There is a chap on here who has been converting a pub to a house. Insulation requirements have caused him a world of woes. If you have PP for change of use, I would not engage in any chats.

Ivor

 

[plasticpigeon]

The roof was re slated by the previous owner and insulation had to be brought up to current regs as it was a new element.

I've read similar things about 'thermal elements' having to be improved if a complete wall (or some percentage thereof) is replastered, but presumably this only applies if building control is actually involved.

I got LBC to strip our pantile roof, do necessary repairs, add a breathable membrane and replace the pantiles using reclaimed ones to replace the broken originals. No discussion about insulation and no involvement with building control.

I suppose building control doesn't have to be involved, but I believe it is a legal requirement that they are. In your case, doesn't LBC trump building control? However my main point was that if things arten't altered then surely the regs aren't applied retrospectively.

 

[Flyfisher]

It's all a bit vague isn't it?

I'm not sure if LBC trumps building control because I also needed LBC for our kitchen extension and that required building control. But that work also required planning consent and when granted I was automatically sent information about building control, so perhaps BC works closely with Planning but not with the LBC process?

I've often thought the LBC process is a bit unsatidfactory in a way because, unlike the Planning/BC process, there is no procedure to certify that LBC works have been correctly implemented to the satisfaction of the CO. Thus, while I have a signed-off LBC/PP and BC for the kitchen extension, I only have two separate LBCs for other works, with nothing to show that they have been done correctly.

For a system that is intended to protect the nation's important built heritage, it all seems rather less rigorous than that required to alter non-listed buildings.

 

[Lostgardensof]

We have applied for lbc for some slight alterations to the windows and are waiting to hear back. No plans for anything else other than some repair and a bit of decorating so I think I will leave building control alone for the time being.

 

[Bogart]

Has anyone on this forum ever had somebody, of authority, come around and say " hey this does not look like it did when it was listed"?
I reckon you can get away with quite a lot before it becomes noticeable externally. Internally you can basically do what you want who is ever
going to find out? I am not for one minute suggesting you go around ripping out beams etc but removing a wall adding a wall etc nobody will
have a clue.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Has anyone on this forum ever had somebody, of authority, come around and say " hey this does not look like it did when it was listed"?

I haven't, but only this week I was the one, in authority, saying it. Ruined a house sale. Fun. :twisted:

Though frequently there's little or no record, sometimes there is. I'd advise against assuming that "removing a wall adding a wall etc nobody will have a clue."

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . but only this week I was the one, in authority, saying it. Ruined a house sale. Fun. :twisted

Fun, perhaps, but ultimately destructive. Making a house unsaleable will result in its slow dilapidation and ultimate destruction.

Bogart is essentially correct. The listing descriptions are not detailed enough to prevent lots of unapproved alterations going unnoticed and even when someone suspects an alteration has been made proving it absolutely would not always be easy, and without near-certainty how many local authorities would risk starting legal proceedings?

Seems to me that if the powers that be wish to impose care-taking duties on owners of private properties then they should focus more on helping and supporting those private owners rather than making things increasingly difficult and costly for them.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

. . . but only this week I was the one, in authority, saying it. Ruined a house sale. Fun. :twisted

Fun, perhaps, but ultimately destructive. Making a house unsaleable will result in its slow dilapidation and ultimate destruction.

Doesn't make it unsaleable at all. Vendor will, however, have to reduce the asking price by the (considerable) sum that reversing the changes will cost the purchasers.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Bogart is essentially correct. The listing descriptions are not detailed enough to prevent lots of unapproved alterations going unnoticed and even when someone suspects an alteration has been made proving it absolutely would not always be easy, and without near-certainty how many local authorities would risk starting legal proceedings?

More than you'd think. Here's a selection from the database as at January last year
http://ihbconline.co.uk/prosecutions/#1

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . but only this week I was the one, in authority, saying it. Ruined a house sale. Fun. :twisted

Fun, perhaps, but ultimately destructive. Making a house unsaleable will result in its slow dilapidation and ultimate destruction.

Doesn't make it unsaleable at all. Vendor will, however, have to reduce the asking price by the (considerable) sum that reversing the changes will cost the purchasers.

Depends on circumstances. Vendor might decide to just withdraw it from the market and not bother, just stay there until they die by which time it's a very likely a major project for someone, if anyone is prepared to take it on that is. Or it might just mysteriously burn down one weekend while the owners are away and they use the insurance payout to move as they planned. Either way it's the property that suffers and we all know that's the only thing that can't be replaced.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Fun, perhaps, but ultimately destructive. Making a house unsaleable will result in its slow dilapidation and ultimate destruction.

Doesn't make it unsaleable at all. Vendor will, however, have to reduce the asking price by the (considerable) sum that reversing the changes will cost the purchasers.

Depends on circumstances. Vendor might decide to just withdraw it from the market and not bother, just stay there until they die by which time it's a very likely a major project for someone, if anyone is prepared to take it on that is. Or it might just mysteriously burn down one weekend while the owners are away and they use the insurance payout to move as they planned. Either way it's the property that suffers and we all know that's the only thing that can't be replaced.

You have basically said that regulation is pointless. I think it is a fallacious argument.

 

[Flyfisher]

Bogart is essentially correct. The listing descriptions are not detailed enough to prevent lots of unapproved alterations going unnoticed and even when someone suspects an alteration has been made proving it absolutely would not always be easy, and without near-certainty how many local authorities would risk starting legal proceedings?

More than you'd think. Here's a selection from the database as at January last year
http://ihbconline.co.uk/prosecutions/#1

All quite significant alterations though, whereas I assumed Bogart was talking about the odd wall or similar. Plus, some of the fines & costs could be seen as fairly reasonable by owners with very deep pockets, especially if their overall works were quite major anyway.

I'm most certainly NOT advocating ignoring the LBC process but I stand by my point that its better to actively support listed building owners than to simply threaten them. We've all read too many tales of frustration on here about owners not being able to contact their CO, some councils not even employing COs, owners having to pay to meet with COs and COs being, shall we say, less than helpful - all of which creates an adversarial relationship between the respective parties instead of a cooperative one. And it's always the buildings that will ultimately suffer the most.