Conservation officer site visit?

[MattW]

Someone just asked me an obvious question to which I embarrassingly didn't know the answer: during or after completion of works on a listed building does the conservation officer usually visit to check that works have been completed in line with the LBC?

I'd welcome them to drop by so I could show them what a great job my builders are doing, so have nothing to hide, but I just find a bit curious that all the effort goes into the permission stage and at least around here no one seems to follow up on it, or is that my number hasn't come up for a spot check yet?

 

[Penners]

In my experience, the answer is usually no. On some of my very small collection of Listed Building projects, I've had a CO who has occasionally popped his head around the door and said, "All going well, then*?" But I have never experienced a formal "final inspection" to make sure that I've done everything that my LBC application detailed.

Others may have had different experiences.

The Building Inspector is, of course, a horse of a different colour (with apologies to all BI's for a slightly unfortunate metaphor!). They have a standard schedule of inspections at various stages of a project, culminating in a final inspection and certification if they are satisfied at the end of the job.


* One, in particular, used to do this. He always arrived wearing a bow tie and a velvet jacket, peeped through the door to see what I was up to, then retired to the warmth of our mobile home to be entertained by Mrs P with coffee and chocolate cake.

 

[MattW]

I think that my the time my project is over I will had the BI onsite at least 6 times (we're at 5 current count), so have got to know him very well!

 

[Flyfisher]

Good point, and one that I've discussed with my CO. There is, it seems, no official follow-up to LBC works, which is a ridiculous state of affairs really.

Non-listed building: (so, presumably, of no great worth to the nation's heritage)
- any significant changes require planning permission
- any significant works are done under building control regulations
- professional BCO approves all work
- owner is provided with certification paperwork
- if challenged about the works, owner has official paperwork to defend themselves

Listed building: (so, presumably, of some worth to the nation's heritage)
- any significant changes require LBC
- no need for building control, indeed actively discouraged by (some?) COs
- no monitoring of works
- no approval of works
- owner is provided with no certification paperwork
- if challenged about the works, owner has nothing to defend themselves with except inspection of the actual works

Add 'zero-rating-VAT-for-listed-building-alterations' into the mix and we have a 'heritage protection' system that provides financial inducements for altering listed properties while at the same time exempting such works from any formalised system of quality control.

Having said that, our CO has been of great help throughout our works and has visited a number of times, both before and during the works so I know he's OK with the work - although each visit was by invitation so perhaps there was no need for a 'spot check'. But, apparently, he has no procedure available to formally 'approve' anything that has been done and I dread to think of potential difficulties that could arise if there was a change of CO during a project.

Funny old world.

 

[middi]

Having had a reasonable amount of dealings with different CO's I can say that I NEVER had a final inspection. What i did notice though was that these CO's have plenty of opportunities to satisfy themselves that the end product is what is expected and as detailed in the approved plans, they " patrol" (by default !!) the area and always take a peep at your project on the way to another inspection.

After all it is your responsability if you deviate from any approval.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Good point, and one that I've discussed with my CO. There is, it seems, no official follow-up to LBC works, which is a ridiculous state of affairs really.

Non-listed building: (so, presumably, of no great worth to the nation's heritage)
- any significant changes require planning permission
- any significant works are done under building control regulations
- professional BCO approves all work
- owner is provided with certification paperwork
- if challenged about the works, owner has official paperwork to defend themselves

Listed building: (so, presumably, of some worth to the nation's heritage)
- any significant changes require LBC
- no need for building control, indeed actively discouraged by (some?) COs
- no monitoring of works
- no approval of works
- owner is provided with no certification paperwork
- if challenged about the works, owner has nothing to defend themselves with except inspection of the actual works.

Um, no. If works require permission, inspection and approval under the Building Regulations, then they require permission, inspection and approval under the Building Regulations, listed or not.

Building regulations and listed building controls are two completely separate things, with completely separate purposes.

But stuff that just requires planning permission, for example, is the same as listed building stuff - it doesn't get checked up on from a planning permission point of view either - unless there's a complaint about it from the neighbours.

I'm not sure what the problem is here - there's a piece of paper giving you listed building consent to do certain works, in accordance with the drawings supplied by the applicant in their application. The documentation exists, the piece of paper giving permission exists, so if anyone in future is concerned that what's been done doesn't have permission, they can compare what the application documents show against the building on site.

 

[MattW]

I'm not sure what the problem is here - there's a piece of paper giving you listed building consent to do certain works, in accordance with the drawings supplied by the applicant in their application. The documentation exists, the piece of paper giving permission exists, so if anyone in future is concerned that what's been done doesn't have permission, they can compare what the application documents show against the building on site.

No problem at all from my perspective - it's great to see a section of government operating entirely sensibly without assuming that everyone is a potential criminal. I guess my surprise was really just it is not something you normally see these days, hence why I was curious whether it was typical.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm not sure what the problem is here - . . . . so if anyone in future is concerned that what's been done doesn't have permission, they can compare what the application documents show against the building on site.

From my perspective, the problem is the lack of overall closure. I agree that the building can be compared with the actual LBC document, but that would require quite a bit of on-site investigation at some later date. If the CO were able to 'certify' the works in a similar manner to BC then it would formally close the project.

If works require permission, inspection and approval under the Building Regulations, then they require permission, inspection and approval under the Building Regulations, listed or not.

That's not always the case though, is it? What about replacement windows? SG windows do not meet BC requirements, so how can they be legally fitted to listed buildings?

I understand that planning permission and building regs are different things with different purposes, both entirely laudable. My point is that building regs are often deemed unnecessary, or overridden, for much work on listed properties, so the formal inspection and final approval of the works doesn't happen.

it's great to see a section of government operating entirely sensibly without assuming that everyone is a potential criminal.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think it's more by accident than design.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I'm not sure what the problem is here - . . . . so if anyone in future is concerned that what's been done doesn't have permission, they can compare what the application documents show against the building on site.

From my perspective, the problem is the lack of overall closure. I agree that the building can be compared with the actual LBC document, but that would require quite a bit of on-site investigation at some later date. If the CO were able to 'certify' the works in a similar manner to BC then it would formally close the project.

If works require permission, inspection and approval under the Building Regulations, then they require permission, inspection and approval under the Building Regulations, listed or not.

That's not always the case though, is it? What about replacement windows? SG windows do not meet BC requirements, so how can they be legally fitted to listed buildings?

I understand that planning permission and building regs are different things with different purposes, both entirely laudable. My point is that building regs are often deemed unnecessary, or overridden, for much work on listed properties, so the formal inspection and final approval of the works doesn't happen.

Re quote 1: a final "sign off" would only relate to the building as it was on the day of the inspection, which doesn't have much practical use, as the problems start years later when the listed building comes up for sale. I've cheerily waved the Building Inspector off on his leaving a new build house after the final inspection, then stood there while my instruction to the builder to remove the handrails he'd just approved was complied with. A "final inspection" by the CO for LB purposes would just add another layer of pointless red tape.

re quote 2: there is a specific exemption for certain historic buildings in the Building Regulations, so they do meet the requirements insofar as they apply to those buildings. All work that falls under the regulations still has to be approved, even if it is approved under the exemption.

 

[Flyfisher]

Re quote 1: a final "sign off" would only relate to the building as it was on the day of the inspection, which doesn't have much practical use, as the problems start years later when the listed building comes up for sale. I've cheerily waved the Building Inspector off on his leaving a new build house after the final inspection, then stood there while my instruction to the builder to remove the handrails he'd just approved was complied with. A "final inspection" by the CO for LB purposes would just add another layer of pointless red tape.

A very fair point, examples of which have been discussed here before. But, if it's "pointless red tape" for a CO to sign-off LBC works isn't it also "pointless red tape" for a BCO to sign off against building regs? My real point is the inconsistency between the procedures for listed and non-listed buildings.

re quote 2: there is a specific exemption for certain historic buildings in the Building Regulations, so they do meet the requirements insofar as they apply to those buildings. All work that falls under the regulations still has to be approved, even if it is approved under the exemption.

Does this mean that an SG window, installed with LBC, requires a BCO to sign them off as exempted from latest regs to be strictly legal? In which case - and I'm straying into delicate territory here - should a CO advise that BC need not be involved?

 

[headgear]

FYI
English Heritage publish a useful booklet (downloadable PDF) on Building Regs and historic buildings. They are the ultimate authority in these matters. I recently removed and replaced as was a large oriel window on a listed house; normally this would have meant a lot of part L and part N work. Not only did the CO clearly state that BC oversight was not needed, he also gave consent to proceed without a formal LBC application; as it was a repair.
He did require to me measure and draw the existing prior to demolition though.

 

[Flyfisher]

Ridiculous! Not the story itself, the fact that such a thing can happen.

So an alteration to a new property of no particular importance to the country's architectural heritage requires a complex planning process involving many different agencies, each with their own skilled and experienced people, and, if granted, the implementation must be carried out under the aegis of Building Regulations legislation, which itself is the result of many skilled and experienced people in various disciplines, and overseen by an appointed inspector. In short, a vast agglomeration of rules, regulations, procedures, public funds and public jobs to ensure a private homeowner can't do anything 'unnacceptable' to their own home.

But, a listed property of national architectural importance can have a key feature completely replaced on the say-so of a single person. Amazing.

As I said before, it's the inconsistency in such matters that I find truly astounding.

 

[MattW]

English Heritage publish a useful booklet (downloadable PDF) on Building Regs and historic buildings. They are the ultimate authority in these matters.

Legally this is incorrect. Part L of the building regulations require that the guidance in that document should be taken into account in determining the appropriate energy performance standards for work requiring permission. The whole section of The Building Regulations 2000 Conservation of fuel and power Approved Document L1B that sets out the practical implementation of the act states:

9 When undertaking work on or in connection with buildings with special historic or architectural value, the aim should be to improve energy efficiency where and to the extent that it is practically possible. This is provided that the work does not prejudice the character of the host building or increase the risk of long-term deterioration to the building fabric or fittings. The guidance given in the English Heritage publication10 should be taken into account in determining appropriate energy performance standards for such building works. Particular issues relating to work in historic buildings that warrant sympathetic treatment and where advice from others could therefore be beneficial include:
a. restoring the historic character of a building that has been subject to previous inappropriate alteration, e.g. replacement windows, doors and rooflights;
b. rebuilding a former building (e.g. following a fire or filling a gap site in a terrace);
c. making provisions enabling the fabric of historic buildings to ‘breathe’ to control moisture and potential long term decay problems.
10 In arriving at a balance between historic building conservation and energy efficiency improvements, it would be appropriate to take into account the advice of the local authority’s conservation officer.

As you can see, it goes on to state that the advice of the local authority's conservation officer should be be taken into account. The BCO takes the ultimate decision and the CO legally definitely cannot waive it - all they can do is to advise the BCO that the proposed approach to the work is the right balance from a conservation perspective.

 

[Pford75]

Another major difference I can see between Planning Permission and LBC is that most councils publish full details of the planning conditions on their websites. This enables neighbours and others to observe if there has been clear deviation from what was agreed (eg. a group of houses constructed in our village had conditions imposed about colours of woodwork, type of roof tile etc. and these were published and villagers spotted that the conditions had not been met.

Whereas with LBC, whilst the application/drawings may be available at the council offices, there is often a great deal of detail which is verbally agreed and may not feature in the official documents (I'm not saying that's a bad thing - I happen to think this is one of the strengths of a CO...that they can use their expertise and advise on the spot).

I do wonder how long it will be before a vendor challenges the current system when they come to sell....ie. "I did all the works as advised...the council inspected x years ago and gave it the okay". When we were looking to purchase a house before we bought our current abode, the vendor provided a series of letters he had written to the council confirming his understanding that 'no consent required' based upon site meetings with the CO.....obviously we had no way of checking the veracity of those claims....when we called the council in question, they claimed that they had no system for filing letters older than 4 years.

I do think that for everyone's benefit, there should be a more formal 'sign off' of LB works (even if just to confirm that the works have been completed to the agreed plans).

 

[headgear]

Thanks for the clarification Matt. Legally there is tremendous wobble room in those words. In the case of the oriel window there was no doubt that the work was a repair, and that there was no appropriate way to include new double glazing for example. I did try on behalf of the occupants, but was firmly overruled by the CO. There may be an opportunity later to install shutters or secondary glazing in the plane of the inner wall surface. The other possible part L work would have been to insulate the remainder of the inner wall surface where it was made good; a trivially small proportion of the total shell. I concur that a sensible solution was arrived at for all interests.

I can see more real issues arising as the cost of energy ramps up and owners of traditional masonry dwellings struggle to keep them at contemporary comfort levels.

I learned a great deal about the trade off between Planning, Conservation and Building Control when I was working on Nimmer Mill; the owner of that project was truly gifted! www.nimmermill.org.uk