DCMS consults on reform of listing regime

[MatthewC]

This subject is probably of interest to lots of us: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2012/aug12/020812/020812_1

The consulatation runs until 23rd August, and the document is at http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/9236.aspx. There are four options for change:

A system of prior notification
A system of local and national class consents
A 'certificate of lawful works to Listed Buildings'
The replacement of local authority conservation officer recommendations for LBC by those made by accredited agents.

NB Options 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.

I know the devil is in the detail which I have not yet studied, but in my view anything that makes the system clearer and more consistent has surely got to be a good thing?

 

[JoceAndChris]

I don't see how they can possibly write a list of rules or guidelines for listed buildings to get out of the individual, case by case nature of it all. What are they going to say? Roofs don't need LBC? Extensions of a certain size are OK? Poor properties (like mine) that have not yet been ruined with the wrong roof or extension.

Let's say there were three lawful works allowed - changes to flooring, internal walls and new ceilings permitted. Within 50 years BC could be open plan with laminate flooring on concrete, the reed ceilings pulled out rather than lovingly repaired, and smooth plaster ones installed. It would still look the same on the outside but the character and charm and Georgian fabric of the inside would be largely gone.

I can't see any other system working other than the present one, with all its faults.

 

[Flyfisher]

I haven't read the details either but I agree with Joce that it'll be quite a challenge to put firm rules in place for listed properties (or any period property really) because of their individual nature, though I can see that guidelines could be written . . . but then there are plenty of guidelines already, together with the oversight of COs and sometimes EH, so is it all really necessary?

However, I do quite like the idea of a 'certificate of lawful works' for listed buildings, along the lines of building regs approval. We can't so much as change a window in a modern box without the appropriate certification yet once LBC has been granted for something deemed an important part of our national heritage there is no formal inspection or approval process to ensure the work is done correctly.

But the concept of replacing CO's recommendations (and subsequently the COs themselves, I would guess) by those of 'accredited agents' sounds like a recipe for real disaster as it has all the potential for replacing real expertise and experience with a 'tick box' dummy who has been on the one week 'accreditation' course and is then put in charge of the well being of our national heritage.

I'm suddenly feeling thoroughly depressed.

 

[JoceAndChris]

You said it all much better than I can FF - I do agree.

I think Matthew had a bad experience from what I recall, but most of the stories on here regarding COs and recommendations and approvals are positive. It's a very highly skilled job, that rightly comes with a multitude of standards for experienced historic building specialists who have a thorough grounding in architecture and conservation.

 

[Keithj]

That sounds a bit like the extension of the HIPs process to LBC. It would be a disaster for the nation's heritage buildings - but hey, since when did Government care if there was an opportunity to sell off the company silver or extract more tax?

I heard an interesting comment about COs from an architect doing work on our church. He said "Some are former architects with a passion and an interest in historic buildings, and they are outstanding. Others are plannig officers put there to fill a job vacancy." Luckily, ours is one of the former.