CO Advice ..confused and little frustrated

[Mickey]

Apologies if this is rather long winded but want to give background as context to our situation. We have bought a rather unloved and murdered (pre listing) old school circa 1846. Having lurked here for some time, attended a one day lime course, followed the works of SPAB and consider myself to be passionate about period properties and our built heritage I was very excited to become the custodian of this lovely building indeed couldn't wait to get the CO round to have a look. Basically the school was converted quite unsympathetically after the school closed early 1980's and it was then listed. The listing amongst other things states the roof was Delabole (local Cornish slate) slates etc etc. During our purchase it became clear the roof had been v. poorly replaced at this time, excessively long lengths of lead applied to gullies, of course now splitting and allowing water ingress, no lead flashings properly applied to parapets and chimneys, felt and battens applied over the top of existing battens creating insufficient upstand....you get the idea. Anyway, we are anxious to get the roof sorted out since rather like no hoof no horse, my view is no roof no house, I duly paid our 150 quid to get CO to come round for verbal and written pre application advise prior to applying for listed buidling consent to re-roof. 45 minutes later we were advised by CO the roof was not covered in Delabole and indeed advised 'lucky for you' since we would not have to put this back on and that we would be adivsed in the written report what we could apply. The written advise we received however, states we should re-roof in Delabole and we could if we wished put Argentinian slate on the rear cross-wing, over the kitchen which is a more modern addition. This brings me neartly to the other advise given in that we had asked if we would be able to install a couple of narrow (original roof joist width) proper conservation roof lights above the kitchen (the same roof we would be allowed to re roof in Argentinain slate presumably because it cannot be viewed at all from any angle apart from above) which is frankly a bit cave like but written advise stated this would not be supported due to the fact that we should reinstate two high level once mullioned windows on that gable wall (person that converted cut the mullions in half then blocked up with modern block work and render, to allow the back door and window arrangement to be installed..yes criminal I know), currently now a modern window and door arrangement.. This would mean the whole of the back gable wall would have to come down and then be reinstated, with new sections of mullion carved Basically the crux of the matter seems to be that we are being asked to reinstate features etc which are no longer in existence and therefore not a like for like replacement certainly where the slate is concerned, albeit I realise the roof lights are a different matter. We were in addition advised today that our roof 'does not comply' and we are legally bound to reinstate it as per the listing. I just wanted to ask advice, is this correct, surely they should be going after the berk who wrecked these features in the first place. I'd be relatively happy to reinstate Delabole slate (I dont want a mix of slates on the roof) if could be allowed the minimum light via proper rooft lights..realise this sort of bargaining wont get me anywhere even if there is already a velux on the opposite side of this roof elevation. What can we do, we have been told we will have to pay again for more advise.. :x

I am having a little difficulty swallowing all this in light of the period extensions thread :shock:

Kit kats all round if you have got this far.
Many thanks for any advise.
Micky

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I am horrified to find there's a local authority that's charging for pre-app advice on listed buildings.
However, the responsibility for putting right what was done by the previous owner, post listing, falls to you, following a House of Lords case. Your solicitor should have made you aware of this.
If the work was done before listing, get the evidence together to prove that's the case.

 

[GRADE_II_MONEYPIT]

Re insurance, you can get cover that protects you against previous vandalism 'breaches in listing' carried out by previous owners. I have such cover provided by LARK that do the LPOC insurance (unfortunatley this will not help you on this occasion).

 

[MatthewC]

As regular readers will know, I had trouble with my CO, so you have my sympathies. I had so much hassle that I can see why people decide to do things without permission if they think they can "get away with it" (sorry Gareth).

One thing about the listings is that they can be inaccurate in detail. The description for mine is only about 120 words and lists about ten specific details, of which at least four are incorrect and three others vague (and hence arguable). I think whoever did the listing only looked at the front and never went round the side or back. If your listing detail is equally poor, that could be to your benefit, as it would give lots of scope for argument about exactly what the state was at listing.

Good luck

Matthew

 

[worms]

If I've got this right, the roof light issue revolves around the CO's view that there is a better solution to the problem by reinstating an original, but pre-listing, feature. Better for the historic integrity of the house...but clearly not better for your wallet or perhaps for your envisaged use of the building.

I would imagine that, if pressed, this would come down to some form of test for reasonableness and that if you were to apply for consent for the change you could argue your case before the Planning Committee, where the sort of bargaining that you mention might carry more weight, given that the committee members will see that you have the best interests of the building at heart but that some compromises may be reasonable. However, I am not a CO or Planner, so this course of action may be naive, factually incorrect or carry risks that I am unaware of...(plus all the other legal caveats that i need to mention lest you follow my advice and want to sue me!)

 

[GRADE_II_MONEYPIT]

The description for mine is only about 120 words and lists about ten specific details, of which at least four are incorrect and three others vague (and hence arguable). I think whoever did the listing only looked at the front and never went round the side or back.

My listing text is very similar and vague.

I was lucky that a former owner gave me a box of photos from early 50's that provide fantastic pre-listing evidance.

This was perfect when questions were raised about our rear conservatory materials (tadaa! Photo of 1953 conservatory during construction and then completion).

 

[Flyfisher]

However, the responsibility for putting right what was done by the previous owner, post listing, falls to you, following a House of Lords case. Your solicitor should have made you aware of this.
If the work was done before listing, get the evidence together to prove that's the case.

What's the situation where it can be proved that the previous owner (who is still alive) made the unapproved changes that need to be put right?

Would the relevant authorities pursue them for the reparations or is it still the legal responsibility of the owner, with them being lumbered with the rigmarole of chasing the previous owner for compensation? i wonder how the courts would deal with such a situation? After all, it's a ccriminal offence so it ought to be taken seriously, but it seems a bit unfair to chase the existing owner if the actual person who did the deed is still alive and there is plenty of evidence available.

Sonyaclegg's tale of woe regarding her doors would seem to be highly pertinent to this question.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It's the legal responsibility of the new owner to comply with any enforcement action the local authority may choose to take, though the criminal liability rests with the person who carried out the works.
The new owner could have recourse to take action again his solicitors who should (if a full search was carried out prior to purchase) have been aware that unauthorised works had been carried out. However, in this case it would appear that the works were carried out before the building was listed and therefore the local authority is being unreasonable if it insists on reinstatement to a state as pre-listing.

 

[andrew gayton]

G.H is correct.

Also, list descriptions - aside from the most recent ones - are intended for identification purposes only, not a finite list of all that is covered by the listing. A listing will cover the exterior, the interior and any object or structure which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1st July 1948.

 

[Mickey]

Thank you all so much for your replies, exceptionally helpful as always. It really is a case of living in somewhere before making big decisions and also a case of being able to see your way through things with these houses and not getting so fixated on etcsomething that CO advises they would not support. I have no idea why it never occured to us before but last night re-looking at the old windows CO wants us to open back up it all looks so much simpler and like we can simply take out the block work and reinstate the windows, rather than having to take down the entire gable. CO had advised during visit to move door underneath and extend the windows down but I dont think that these windows ever extended down that far (we'll get up in the loft and try to see how far the mullions extend down on the inside, outside is cement rendered )and we are hoping that this compromise will be accepted and we can forget all about the need for roof lights. We are also going to push for reslating in reclaimed Delabole to put back the roof to how it should be so we are really hoping this with satisfy the CO.

Thank you all so much for the invaluable advice, especially appreciated from Mr Hughes for obvious reasons.

Mickey

 

[Mickey]

Sorry just also wanted to say that I did indeed try to engage with the CO prior to purchase of our property since it was listed and I wanted to start a dialogue but I was informed that they did not provide pre purchase advise and indeed post purchase our 150 quid paid for around 45 minutes of rather sour faced advice due I am presuming to all the horrors carried out during conversion prior to listing. What is even more galling is the plastic windows put in the school in the next village, roughly same age and same fairly eminent architect...at least ours are wooden even if they are not original and they do leak!

Mickey

 

[Keithj]

The COs here will know more precisely how the rules work, but our (very helpful and friendly) CO took the line that "unless there's evidence to the contrary, what's there now is what was there when it was listed". He also took the line that since we were doing extensive and expensive repairs to what was clearly bodged work which may or may not have been done before it was listed, he would go along with what we planned to do as long as it made sense. We didn't have to keep the ghastly concrete tiles from the 1950s, for example. The result is far closer to the intent of the listing than what we bought.

If the CO makes stipulations that are unreasonable, there is an appeal route. On the one item where we were at first not in agreement with our CO (we soon realised we were at cross-purposes) I was told by a large company that well-reasoned appeals against CO rulings are very often upheld. If he's being bolshie, bolsh back!