Changing a Listing

[MatthewC]

This was first raised on the "Lost Listing" thread (http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14907&start=15) which is where the quotes are from, but I've started a new thread for clarity.

As for MatthewC's point about amending a listing description, I would guess that would have to be something discussed with the CO. However, it does rIse the rather worrying point about the risks of raising such inaccuracies if they have been the result of unauthorised alterations. I suppose it depends of the nature of the inaccuracies.

You may recall the issues I had with the CO a few years ago! There is no way I would approach that office with such question - let sleeping dogs lie...

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/amending-an-entry

Thanks for the link Gareth. I don't think that my observed inaccuracies are covered as it says that it covers "Minor amendments to List descriptions, if these do not concern the Reasons for Designation". The Listing heading says it was listed "for its special architectural or historic interest" but doesn't say what this was. The listing for my house is dated 22 July 1976 and all the data is under the List Entry Details; every other field says "Legacy Record - This information may be included in the List Entry Details".

The "List Entry Details" entry for my house says "Coursed squared limestone with stucco dressings; Welsh-slate roofs with rendered ridge stack. Double-depth central block with recessed wings. 2 storeys. 2-window central section has stuccoed bay windows with cornices and tripartite sashes, and has segmental-arched first-floor sashes with moulded architraves and margin lights. Narrow wings each have a doorway with a stucco pilastered doorcase below a narrow round-headed architraved sash. Shallow-pitched hipped roofs have boxed eaves and there is a large central stack. Interiors not inspected."

This implies that the entire house is coursed squared limestone whereas in fact only the front facing walls are, the rest being random rubble limestone with a Victorian brick extension at the back on either side. The three references to stucco may have been correct once but by the time of listing in 1976 (which I can prove) this had all been replaced by cement render looking like stucco, even including the cornices above the bay windows. The above also mentions only one chimney stack whereas there are two central 4-chimney stacks, a single on the upstairs rear corner and a very tall single one on each Victorian extension.

Some of these errors are fairly fundamental to the Reason for Designation, so I reckon they would not go through on the nod, would they? It's clear to me that the person doing the listing only looked at the front of the house!

 

[xanthe]

I don't know if it is true, but my parents were told that at various points, a load of people were sent out to List anything that looked old, even though they weren't actually particularly qualified to do so.

One house that they had, my father moved a whole fireplace from a first floor bedroom down to the sitting-room because it looked too imposing upstairs and much better downstairs. A few years after they sold the house, it was Grade II Listed, and the listing actually mentions the original Georgian fireplace in the ground floor sitting-room. He said it was perfectly obvious that it had been recently done if you knew anything about buildings.

The listing for the property we are buying has failed to list some of the most important features (ones the CO made a point of showing me) and lists some of the more mundane.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

This was first raised on the "Lost Listing" thread (http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14907&start=15) which is where the quotes are from, but I've started a new thread for clarity.

As for MatthewC's point about amending a listing description, I would guess that would have to be something discussed with the CO. However, it does rIse the rather worrying point about the risks of raising such inaccuracies if they have been the result of unauthorised alterations. I suppose it depends of the nature of the inaccuracies.

You may recall the issues I had with the CO a few years ago! There is no way I would approach that office with such question - let sleeping dogs lie...

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/amending-an-entry

Thanks for the link Gareth. I don't think that my observed inaccuracies are covered as it says that it covers "Minor amendments to List descriptions, if these do not concern the Reasons for Designation". The Listing heading says it was listed "for its special architectural or historic interest" but doesn't say what this was. The listing for my house is dated 22 July 1976 and all the data is under the List Entry Details; every other field says "Legacy Record - This information may be included in the List Entry Details".

The "List Entry Details" entry for my house says "Coursed squared limestone with stucco dressings; Welsh-slate roofs with rendered ridge stack. Double-depth central block with recessed wings. 2 storeys. 2-window central section has stuccoed bay windows with cornices and tripartite sashes, and has segmental-arched first-floor sashes with moulded architraves and margin lights. Narrow wings each have a doorway with a stucco pilastered doorcase below a narrow round-headed architraved sash. Shallow-pitched hipped roofs have boxed eaves and there is a large central stack. Interiors not inspected."

This implies that the entire house is coursed squared limestone whereas in fact only the front facing walls are, the rest being random rubble limestone with a Victorian brick extension at the back on either side. The three references to stucco may have been correct once but by the time of listing in 1976 (which I can prove) this had all been replaced by cement render looking like stucco, even including the cornices above the bay windows. The above also mentions only one chimney stack whereas there are two central 4-chimney stacks, a single on the upstairs rear corner and a very tall single one on each Victorian extension.

Some of these errors are fairly fundamental to the Reason for Designation, so I reckon they would not go through on the nod, would they? It's clear to me that the person doing the listing only looked at the front of the house!

in the grand scheme of things, those are likely to be seen as too trivial to warrant the effort of correcting them - the description is sufficiently accurate in terms of what's visible from the road to differentiate between your listed house and the neighbours, which is still the only purpose of the list description, though the changes needed for the degree of accuracy you desire are greater than can be accommodated in the minor amendments procedure. But if you scroll down the page I gave a link to, you'll find more on making more substantial amendments to the list.

 

[Flyfisher]

If a listing description needs only be sufficient to identify the property from its neighbours, I.e. a fairly cursory 'drive-by' description, wouldn't that make it pretty difficult to protect anything except the facade from an insensitive owner ripping out internal features, rear-facing windows and other alterations?

 

[LadyArowana]

If a listing description needs only be sufficient to identify the property from its neighbours, I.e. a fairly cursory 'drive-by' description, wouldn't that make it pretty difficult to protect anything except the facade from an insensitive owner ripping out internal features, rear-facing windows and other alterations?

:lol: and rear facing doors......

 

[garnett]

Hi

Some authorities also have their own photographic survey of buildings. Particularly if they have visited as part of an application for LBC. There can also be drawings 'as existing' on pervious applications. We have used this type of evidence for prosecutions. Also it gets rather obvious with earlier listed buildings. People claim that they were listed with plastic windows in 1948! Replacement windows are reasonably easy to date. I had one chap swearing blind that they were there when the building was listed. They still had the manufacturers stickers on them showing the exact date they were made 2 years before!

Things have got much easier for COs in the last few years, The aborted HIPs legislation meant that both estate agents and solicitors got much more savvy with listed buildings. Fortunately the days when agents said that grade II listing meant the outside only appear to have long gone! They are all much more risk averse as they understand their liability. Sellers are asked to provide evidence that works inside the building which look recent have the necessary consents. The burden of proof is back with the owner. In many cases, when I see obvious breaches, I simply have to point out that the house is effectively unsalable without the need for enforcement.

Garnett

 

[MatthewC]

Some authorities also have their own photographic survey of buildings. Particularly if they have visited as part of an application for LBC.

I was very surprised that the CO never visited my house when I started refurbishing it in 2010, when I made (I think) 4 separate LBC applications in 9 months. The house was fairly well known, being on a well used road which leads to the town's market place, and it was quite overgrown and very neglected (hence zero LBC applications since listing, apart from one for next door which is still assigned to us on their database!). I really thought they would want to visit just out of interest, but all I got was poorly grounded decisions based on no facts at all - hence I am very relieved at the thought of never troubling them again!

 

[Flyfisher]

I hesitate to suggest anything that increases bureaucracy and costs but I'm also surprised that there is no review or sign-off procedure regarding LBC. Structural works require building control oversight and we are constantly reminded that there could be problems arising during a sale if the correct paperwork is not in place, so why not a similar thing with LBC? How can prospective buyers satisfy themselves that duly authorised alterations have actually been correctly implemented to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities?

 

[garnett]

Hi Matthew

There is a very easy answer to that one. There probably isn't anyone there anymore. The cuts since 2008 have been savage and quite a few local authorities don't have a qualified Conservation Officers anymore. Many are sharing with other authorities to meet their statutory role. It is a really hard balance to strike. If you stop fixing the pavements, you get sued by people having trips so you can't afford to fix the pavements. There is a point at which it is a false economy. It is rather similar in Conservation. LAs are required legally to access to expert conservation advice. There are cases that have been judicially reviewed for this reason and fault is found. The pay-outs are far in excess of the salary bills.

I don't envy the councillors who have to get this balance right. They loose whatever they choose.

Flyfisher - you raise a very valid point. The difficulty is that we could if paid, confirm that an LBC has been correctly implemented. It would be more difficult saying everything at a house was hunky-dory. I don't think that it is legally within our gift. I think that is why the Penfold Review looked at potential Certificates of Lawfulness for LBs. Nothing emerged yet though.

Garnett

 

[Flyfisher]

But would that be any different to building control? If BC signs off, say, a new extension to a property, it doesn't imply anything about the rest of the house, but it does complete the PP - BC paper trail, I.e. Permission was granted and the work has been done correctly and duly approved. This should make it a clear cut case for any future purchaser.

But LBC can be granted with no need for any follow up and no formal approval process, leaving a future purchaser having to take things on trust.

I have little doubt of the pressures on COs and am sure they are often placed in a difficult position, but it seems strange to acknowledge the need to protect our historic buildings but then implement a less than ideal system. The more I learn about such things, the more I feel blessed at how well provided I am in my area of the country.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Also it gets rather obvious with earlier listed buildings. People claim that they were listed with plastic windows in 1948! Replacement windows are reasonably easy to date. I had one chap swearing blind that they were there when the building was listed.

Except, of course, that a house listed in 1948 spent the first 20+ years of its listed status in a very different planning regime, where consent was not required for many alterations where consent would now be required.