First post - a bit of a tricky one!

[mje2k]

Hi,

This is my first post so please be gentle.

We're currently looking at a 16th century Grade II listed residential property with two 19th century extensions, which was originally listed in 1967.

However, some time between 1967 and the mid-80s when the current owner took over, the roofs on the 19th century extensions were replaced with 20th century tiles on one side, and corrugated asbestos on the other. The listing states both were low pitch 19th century slate.

Both of these later roofs are in pretty poor condition and need replacing (unlike the main building's original tiled roof!) which poses three interesting questions:
1) Would planning permission be required to return them to their original state?
2) No doubt the replacement roofs (new and old) would ring alarm bells with National Heritage; since the original replacements would have contravened the Grade II listing, who would be responsible (and therefore potentially get a fine)?
3) If there was a fine, would it be at 1970s prices, or 2016 levels?

And there's another couple of interesting ones about the windows - the windows at the front of the house meet the original listing specs to the letter, but appear to be a late 20th century design. Would this still be a contravention since there's no record of the original window design? They could have been anything from C16 original wood sash frames, through 19th century design to 20th century mock-Tudor.

Finally, the property has several modern-ish (I'd guess 1950s-1960s but I'm no expert) leaded light metal framed windows which weren't mentioned in the original listing, are hidden from public view, are in poor condition, and are plainly out of keeping with the rest of the house. Would National Heritage insist they were restored to their original incongruous design, or might they consent to them being replaced with windows which match the rest of the house?

I don't want to let a surveyor near it at this stage in case the current owner gets fined for things which were out of their control, but do you think there's any chance of rescuing this property without ending up with large bills and potential fines, or should I run a mile?

 

[mje2k]

I've answered my own questions by reading through a lot of past enforcement cases - the chances of getting a fine are pretty minimal since there's no way of knowing who made the alterations or when they were made.

However, the local authority could serve an order requiring the current owner to (aka the new buyer) to restore the house to it's original listed state, which might involve 3x replacement windows for the front, 2x slate roofs, 1x 19th century half glazed front door, potentiallyy 4x rear windows and possibly one bathroom depending on whether they decide the alterations were made prior to 1969 or contravene the rather vague listing. I'd guess that little lot could cost well over 100k and make the place uninhabitable for quite some time.

Since I could almost guarantee the local authorities will become involved as soon as asbestos removal is mentioned, that makes it a 'run away fast' job, esp as it's being sold at the high end of the market and not as a 'full resto' job. That's a real shame since it's a very pretty (except for the asbestos roof), quirky old house. Oh well, maybe it'll come on the market again at a more reasonable price in a couple of years after the iffy 70s roofwork has collapsed :wink:

 

[MatthewC]

1) Would planning permission be required to return them to their original state?
2) No doubt the replacement roofs (new and old) would ring alarm bells with National Heritage; since the original replacements would have contravened the Grade II listing, who would be responsible (and therefore potentially get a fine)?
3) If there was a fine, would it be at 1970s prices, or 2016 levels?

Hi there

Welcome to the forum - you'll get lots of opinions here so you have to judge which ones you think you like! Any photos please?

My take on your questions:
1. Not sure about planning permission (doubt it), but you would need Listed Building Consent and speak also to Building Control
2. They could only fine the person who did it, and if you can prove it wasn't you then you don't need to worry!
3. No idea

Three things matter about listing: (a) the condition as listed, (b) the condition as purchased if different and (c) the present condition (same as b. in this case). In theory, wanting to restore something to its original (or as listed) condition should be welcomed, but after my experience with a Conservation Officer, that is not necessarily true!

As regards the other questions about windows, if you have not done the "improvements" then no-one can insist you do anything such as restore them. However, if you are doing something like wanting to replace the windows then the replacement has to be with consent - so if you want to replace, find what you want to fit and then get permission. The risky approach is to put it back to the listing condition anyway and trust they don't notice... (I am not a lawyer).
HTH
Matthew

 

[mje2k]

Hi there

Welcome to the forum - you'll get lots of opinions here so you have to judge which ones you think you like! Any photos please?

My take on your questions:
1. Not sure about planning permission (doubt it), but you would need Listed Building Consent and speak also to Building Control
2. They could only fine the person who did it, and if you can prove it wasn't you then you don't need to worry!
3. No idea

Three things matter about listing: (a) the condition as listed, (b) the condition as purchased if different and (c) the present condition (same as b. in this case). In theory, wanting to restore something to its original (or as listed) condition should be welcomed, but after my experience with a Conservation Officer, that is not necessarily true!

As regards the other questions about windows, if you have not done the "improvements" then no-one can insist you do anything such as restore them. However, if you are doing something like wanting to replace the windows then the replacement has to be with consent - so if you want to replace, find what you want to fit and then get permission. The risky approach is to put it back to the listing condition anyway and trust they don't notice... (I am not a lawyer).
HTH
Matthew

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the reply, you're right on that - I did a bit more research and it looks like the local authority could potentially ask for all alterations since the 1967 listing to be put right if they're feeling evil, but since there's no way to trace who did the alterations or when, there's very little chance anyone would get a fine.

However, we've decided it'd be too much of a risk to take it on - I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving an asbestos roof on a living area, and removing asbestos would definitely bring the property to the attention of the local authorities. Also it's got truly dreadful broadband, no mobile signal, and they're building a solar farm a couple of fields away, so the negatives unfortunately outweigh the positives for us now.

I've got better than pictures - the house is actually on Rightmove now: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-56029630.html

You may notice some of the front windows look a bit too modern for a 19th century refurbishment, and though some of the rear windows are definitely original, some of the others look decidedly iffy.

The pictures and listing don't do it justice tbh - it really is stunning inside and a really quirky design. It looks out over fields, is in a tiny hamlet in relatively easy reach of London, and is near a church built by one of William the Conqueror's relatives. Even the village name is quirky - it's called Nasty :lol:

 

[MikeG]

.........2. They could only fine the person who did it, and if you can prove it wasn't you then you don't need to worry!........

Hmmm. Not so sure. Certainly they can't fine you, but, after jumping through a few hoops they can require you to return the building to the condition at listing, at your expense. In extremis, I believe they can actually undertake the works themselves and send you the bill, although I've never actually heard of that happening.

If you are considering buying but haven't yet signed contracts, then your solicitor should have asked whether there were any works done to the building without permission. The seller should have answered this properly, and you are well within your rights to request that they either restore the rooves (and any other such unapproved works), or make an allowance to the sale price such that you aren't bearing the cost yourself..........even if your seller wasn't responsible for the works in the first place. Why should he get away with something you probably won't get away with? This is something he should have dealt with.

 

[Flyfisher]

Welcome to the forum with, as you say, a 'tricky one'.

As I understand things, it is the person who makes unauthorised alterations who commits the offence. However, it is the current owner who is responsible for correcting such unauthorised alterations, if the authorities decide to pursue the matter.

Thus, if you bought this property you can rest easy that you will not held responsible for its current condition but you may be held responsible for making whatever remedial changes that MAY be required by the relevant authorities. As such, your risk revolves around the 'MAY' condition. As previously mentioned, I'd have expected your solicitor to have investigated all this and advised you about the risks.

I would not hesitate to have the property surveyed. I appreciate your concern for the current owner's position (though you should, perhaps, be less concerned about that than your own position if you were to buy!) but I can't see how a survey would compromise the seller because the surveyor is acting on YOUR instructions and his report should be confidential to you, so YOU would be in full control of any disclosures.

Besides, I'd suggest that you NEED to have a full understanding of the risk you are running if you do purchase and, at a minimum, this would be the risk of being forced to revert the property to it's original condition before the unauthorised changes were made. This risk need to be turned into a cost and a surveyor (and perhaps builder) estimate is a good start.

I'd also strongly suggest contacting the person responsible for listed buildings at your local council, usually known as a 'conservation officer' or 'historic buildings officer'. Your local council planning department will help you find the right person. Arrange a meeting with them, discuss your plans for the property and ask their opinion about any likely problems.

When you have all this information you can decide how to proceed. Perhaps the safest option is to simply deduct an appropriate amount from your offer price to cover the restorative works you run the risk of incurring. Of course, the seller may not accept this, in which case you must decide to either walk away or take on that financial risk yourself. The easy answer is don't, but we all know that houses are really our homes and there is a large emotional element involved, so it will likely depend on how risk-adverse you are.

Another possibility is some form of indemnity insurance (paid for by the seller), though you should seek expert advise about this and exactly what it would cover. For example, you KNOW that unauthorised alterations have been illegally made to the property and I don't believe you can insure against a known fact. But I'm certainly no expert so be careful to find someone who is to advise you in case you end up with an essentially worthless policy.

As for your specific questions:

1) Would planning permission be required to return them to their original state?

No planning permission as such but Listed building Consent, which is a sort of planning permission for listed buildings and administered by the Conservation Officer at your local council. I suppose it could be argued that they would be unlikely to take any action against you for reverting the building to it's exact condition before the unauthorised alterations, but you'd likely run the risk of a difference of opinion with the CO about what constitutes the original condition, so why take that risk?


2) No doubt the replacement roofs (new and old) would ring alarm bells with National Heritage; since the original replacements would have contravened the Grade II listing, who would be responsible (and therefore potentially get a fine)?

As mentioned above, the person making the changes committed the offence. Incidentally, are you completely sure that the present owners did not make the changes? Might they just be saying that as an excuse. Either way, it is the current owner who could be forced to make reparations, should the authorities decide to pursue the matter.


3) If there was a fine, would it be at 1970s prices, or 2016 levels?
I would guess that the authorities would be more concerned with reparations to the property than a fine. As such the cost would be at 2016 prices for the works that would be deemed necessary.

I don't think you need to overly concern yourself with the who, what, why regarding any fines for the criminal offence of unauthorised changes to a listed property, because whoever it was it wasn't you, but you should be concerned about buying such a property with unauthorised changes as you run the risk of being required to reverse them at your cost, even though no blame would attach to you personally.


Good luck with your deliberations and do, please, let us know how things progress.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

First off, there's no such thing as "National Heritage", you mean what is now called Historic England, who have responsibility for compiling the lists. However, as it's Grade II, not II* or I, they don't have an involvement in any applications for Listed Building Consent unless significant demolition is proposed.
So, it would be down to the local council's planning department, hopefully on the advice of their Conservation Officer, to determine any application for altering the roof or windows.
Regarding the roofs, if you are putting them back the way they ought to be, I can't see there being any major problems (though there'll always be one or two COs who think keeping every shoddy change is more important than doing what's right, you may or may not be unlucky with yours)
As for the past unauthorised alterations to the roof, etc., at the time the building was listed, 1967, the rules on what required consent and how it was to be obtained differed from the way the rules work now - it may well be that at the time the alterations were made, permission wasn't actually required for them.
On the whole, I wouldn't worry too much.

 

[mje2k]

Thanks for the replies all, my posts are a little held up in moderation at the moment, but we ended up pulling out before it got too serious, and yes I am regretting it a bit.

Chances are, unless I manage to pull a miracle out of the bag in the current slow housing market, we're going to end up moving into a bog-standard post-60s semi

I think, if you don't mind, I might carry on hanging around here though; I've always liked unusual houses (and cars), so the tips on here might come in useful in a couple of years. We're currently living in a late 20's terrace which isn't listed but probably will be one day - it's pretty standard Edwardian fare in most respects (tall chimneys, slate roof, no cavities, etc) but it is rather pretty, was built using some form of early prefabricated blocks, and was built on a site with the sort of gruesome history they make horror movies about. For example, the accomplices of a notorious 18th century highwayman who staged a violent gaol break were hanged 100m up the hill from our house, and the site has variously served as an asylum, an isolation hospital, and a hard-labour workhouse! Most other places will seem rather dull compared with here...

 

[88v8]

We looked two years for a house.
Good luck in your search.

Asbestos... hard asbestos roofing sheet, or tiles, will do no one any harm. Although it may not look that great

Ivor

 

[Penners]

hard asbestos roofing sheet, or tiles, will do no one any harm.

Unless you start cutting, drilling or breaking it up. This can be a bit more controversial, and requires precautions.

 

[Penners]

we ended up pulling out

What a shame! It's a beautiful house, and I really don't think you would have had the problems that you were (understandably) concerned about. Still... let us know what you manage to find in the end (however dull!).

 

[Flyfisher]

I did a bit more research and it looks like the local authority could potentially ask for all alterations since the 1967 listing to be put right if they're feeling evil, but since there's no way to trace who did the alterations or when, there's very little chance anyone would get a fine.
.
.
.
Even the village name is quirky - it's called Nasty :lol:

Your post must have been delayed under the new member moderation rules as I didn't see it before my long-winded post, but you seem to have come to the same basic conclusions anyway. Having now seen the details I agree with Penners that it's a shame because it's a lovely property. I wouldn't be worried about the danger aspects of an asbestos roof. Removal can be a DIY job, unlike other types of asbestos materials that should only be dealt with by licenced operators, and most local council tips will accept the waste as long as it is double-wrapped. As mentioned above, the important thing is to take appropriate precaution when breaking it up to avoid release of fibres. There's lots of advice about this online.

As for 'Nasty', I used to live about 10 miles away and loved the rural location with the convenience of easy access to London. There are a few quirky names in the area - 'Cold Christmas' comes immediately to mind.

Good luck with your searching.

 

[Penners]

As for 'Nasty', I used to live about 10 miles away and loved the rural location with the convenience of easy access to London. There are a few quirky names in the area - 'Cold Christmas' comes immediately to mind.

Another village not too far away is called 'Ugley'! It's always been rumoured that they have a Women's Institute called the..... no, I mustn't - work it out for yourself!

There's yet another nearby village called Ugley Green. I wonder whether they also have a Women's Institute. :shock:

 

[Flyfisher]

Quite right, well the village name anyway.

 

[piper]

I haven't posted anything here for years, but this discussion of village names has tempted me back.
There's a village in Galicia, NW Spain, called Feas - which in Spanish means 'ugly women'. When we drove past the village name sign (many years ago now) there was a car stopped, and a young man was photographing his two young female friends who were standing grinning over the top of the sign. In fact they were quite attractive....

 

[Penners]

There's a village in Cornwall called Indian Queens.

I'll say no more.

 

[mje2k]

There are some real corkers down in Dorset - Piddlehinton, Scratchy Bottom, Sh*tterton, Dungy Head, and just across the border, Old Sodbury and Sandy Balls

 

[mje2k]

hard asbestos roofing sheet, or tiles, will do no one any harm.

Unless you start cutting, drilling or breaking it up. This can be a bit more controversial, and requires precautions.

Must admit I'm not at all concerned with the asbestos roof on our current home's garage. But this did look quite weathered and was over a living area, and besides it'd be silly to leave that nasty thing in place but sort out the roofing problems at the other end of the house; at that end the eave timbers are fully exposed where the wasp's nest is, and the whole roof looks suspiciously saggy, presumably because 19th century slate was replaced with heavier tiles.

 

[Penners]

mje2k, you've just been introduced to our most regular visitor on this forum - Fred Drift.

Congratulations on having participated, and then gently steering the thread back on track.

 

[mje2k]

mje2k, you've just been introduced to our most regular visitor on this forum - Fred Drift.

Congratulations on having participated, and then gently steering the thread back on track.

Thanks, and hi