Grade II listed buildings

[Anonymous]

Ver happy to hear it, just sad that they are not in my area. I've met 2 and both were poor. Is there any way of receiving inviting external opinion? Or some kind of ombudsman aprt from appeal? Our CO views seem to mirror their opinions not policy of any kind.

 

[Anonymous]

No, sorry, rather further north than that.

 

[Anonymous]

I sympathise with you Eddy, there are some 'job'sworths' around here! (We're in S.Som!) I got moaned at for my hanging basket(without LBC), but was told that "as it was attached to an 19thc bracket" he would "let me off". Can recommend an excellent conservation/historic building architect based in S. Mallet who has a wonderful way with CO's if you are desperate!

 

[Anonymous]

From Mid-Suffolk's website:

Buildings are listed in their entirety: there is no such thing as just a listed facade or interior. *Some parts of a listed building may however be more important than others and this could be significant if you are considering applying for listed building consent for partial demolition or alteration.*

Go on, make your CO make the case for preserving some 60s and 70s tat.

 

[Anonymous]

Did you not post on this subject previously?

I seem to remember that certain posters on this forum actively encouraged you to go ahead and put glass panels into the door without consent. Of course, they did not have to live with the consequences.

It looks to me as though someone has been vindictive and reported your door alterations to the CO. Not very nice of them, and rather cowardly too.

Did you see Restored to Glory (BBC2), where an lovely old vicarage was gutted and almost completely rebuilt with the active encouragement of the CO? On TV. With a panel of "Historic Building Experts" on hand to advise.

Hardly fair is it, when you've only put a couple of glass panels in a door?



http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/cgi-bin/discussing/forum2.pl?read=49075

 

[Anonymous]

"It looks to me as though someone has been vindictive and reported your door alterations to the CO. Not very nice of them, and rather cowardly too."

Presumably you would feel the same about anyone reporting any criminal offence to the appropriate authority? How major does the offence have to be before a busybody is allowed to complain?

I sympathise with Dianne but I had forgotten (or not seen) that previous thread. There was already a fanlight, and she seemed to think (back then) that having to put the timber panels back wouldn't be too big a deal if it came to it.

 

[Anonymous]

"Presumably you would feel the same about anyone reporting any criminal offence to the appropriate authority? How major does the offence have to be before a busybody is allowed to complain? "

Oh really Gareth? Is that so? You presume rather too much don't you? What I may or may not do is not the point. I'm talking about Dianne's case of a (trivial) change to a door, not a case of theft, or assualt or serious criminal behaviour. Let's keep this in proportion.

Dianne will probably never know how the authorities found out about the door. Perhaps it was coincidence, but posting her intentions on this website was probably not such a good idea.

"I sympathise with Dianne but I had forgotten (or not seen) that previous thread. There was already a fanlight, and she seemed to think (back then) that having to put the timber panels back wouldn't be too big a deal if it came to it. "

It shouldn't be a big deal, but it is now, for Dianne anyway. The earlier thread makes interesting reading. Dianne was encouraged to take the course of action that's lead to her current troubles. Where are all those 'helpful' advisers now? Well, they're not having to deal with the consequences, are they.

 

[Anonymous]

Didn't the same authority allow you to replace your (original?) single glazed Georgian windows with new double glazed replicas?

If so, it seems a bit rich that they are now whining about a couple of panels in a door, also replaced 'like for like'.

There is something very strange about this whole saga.

Surely you can appeal and cite the case of the windows? You'd think that if they are so keen about the door, they would have insisted that you kept the original windows and repaired them.



http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/cgi-bin/discussing/forum2.pl?read=51564

 

[Anonymous]

Ian.

Just I did post on it before. I'd have gone ahead anyway given that I do not intend to have a black hallway for anyone.

I don't think anyone reported the door. Unfortunately for us the CO passes our house regularly and I think he has spotted it.

 

[Anonymous]

But - we've all already told Diane all this - in another thread - if she did the work without consent, why is she surprised at an enforcement notice?

 

[Anonymous]

Ian - Diane's door was a total replacement, along with the glass changes.

The local authority is acting within its rights and within the law.

She needs, as we have already told her, to apply for retrospective consent - angry rants here won't help, and the health and safety aspect has already been covered, too - one swallow ie accident does not a summer make.

 

[Anonymous]

That might be useful as I think I will go down the intermediary route. Best to have someone who knows what buttons to push. Thanks, if you can pass that on to me.

 

[Anonymous]

You're not telling me anything I don't already know.

If you read the thread, you'll see that certain people actively encouraged Dianne's course of action. In fact, she says she'd have put the glass panels in anyway, regardless.

Where are those people now, who were actively backing Dianne's proposal? Nowhere to been seen, of course, but quite prepared to dish out advice at the time.

 

[Anonymous]

You did tell her, but if you look at the thread that I linked earlier you'll see that that advice was completley ignored. There were several others actively envouraging Dianne to put the panels in.

According to Dianne, the CO let her replace all the windows with DG replicas. It seems rather odd to allow this and then kick up a fuss about the door panels.

 

[Anonymous]

The windows may not have had any historic merit which were being replaced - and in that case it's hard to argue against DG. Obviously had the CO not allowed that, then accusations of being unreasonable may have followed...

I didn't either encourage or not encourage Dianne in her glass panel saga - I pointed out that LBC should have been applied for, and that it still needs to be applied for retrospectively. Then the local authority can consider the merit of the application. Unless that happens, then they have little choice legally but to enforce.

I also point out I have been known to report to my local authority breaches of LBC (see Jackson's Shop in Haltwhistle for example...) I don't know if I'm an interfering busybody or someone concerned about the fact that we are supposed to have laws end policies to protect the historic environment. Little point in having these if they are ignored.

 

[Anonymous]

"The windows may not have had any historic merit which were being replaced - and in that case it's hard to argue against DG. Obviously had the CO not allowed that, then accusations of being unreasonable may have followed... "

How are we to know whether or not the windows had any historic merit or not? Too late now, they've gone.

"I didn't either encourage or not encourage Dianne in her glass panel saga - I pointed out that LBC should have been applied for, and that it still needs to be applied for retrospectively. Then the local authority can consider the merit of the application. Unless that happens, then they have little choice legally but to enforce. "

I didn't suggest that you did either of those things, in fact you weren't mentioned until you joined this current thread!

"I also point out I have been known to report to my local authority breaches of LBC (see Jackson's Shop in Haltwhistle for example...) I don't know if I'm an interfering busybody or someone concerned about the fact that we are supposed to have laws end policies to protect the historic environment. Little point in having these if they are ignored. "

Well who mentioned interfering busybodies? It was your 'friend' Gareth, so take it up with him!

Dianne seems to think that the CO happened to wander by and see the unauthorized work, so noone actually 'grassed her up'.

However, it does look as though she has dropped herself in hot water with the authorities. And for some reason, she has also published the whole sorry saga on this website for anyone to read, including COs. Seems a strange thing to do.

My response with the link to the original postings on the door hopefully provided some background to Dianne's complaint. Job done.

 

[Anonymous]

The point is - Dianne had apparently applied for and received LBC for the windows, which she claimed were beyond repair. I've rarely come across period windows which couldn't be repaired, but I have come across owners who think rip out historic fabric and glass is an acceptable way to go with listed buildings. Some fabric is more worthy of retention than others of course. Whatever - consent was granted, and that's a done deal.

My views on double glazing are fairly well known, and I believe a like for like replacement (if repair was not possible) would possibly have been better here. However, no doubt if DG had not been allowed there would have been a great deal of 'single glazing is simply unacceptable in this day and age' moaning.

The door was apparently done without LBC, and it has been brought to the attention of the local authority. So it has felt it had to act. It possibly may grant retrospective consent, but until Dianne applies who can say? Until then, this door is an illegal alteration.

I feel, as do many others apparently (see threads on 'Restored to Glory') that rather too many people buy listed buildings without a great deal of thought regarding what that means.

If Dianne cannot get permission for the glass, then she says she will move house. Not sure who she will be spiting there, but so be it. Maybe someone may buy with more sympathy for history, maybe not.

 

[Anonymous]

I was on holiday when Dianne posted at first about the glass panels. Had I seen the post I would have said that LBC was required - although that surely was obvious?

There is another thread where the enforcement action is discussed.

 

[Anonymous]

There are often times when a part of a listed building present at the time when the LB citation was drawn up was not appropriate to the original, such as full panel doors when, perhaps, a part-glazed door may well have been in the original building. 'Restoring' a listed building isn't always about restoring it to its original state, but to that present when it was listed.

 

[Anonymous]

A few years ago my son renovated a cottage in the Nene Valley area (Peterborough) and discussed with his very helpful CO the double glazing of the new windows I was making for him. She had no objection in principle "as long as I can't see the silver foil". Windows were made, double glazed units made. My son also wanted to restore the chimney stacks an earlier owner had removed and so asked to discuss the work with the CO. HE arrived and, on seeing the d/g units and the windows, asked where they were intended for!! My son gave him the obvious answer to which he said "You're not fitting double glazing." My son told him that the previous CO had agreed and quoted her comments. "Where's your letter?" asked the nice CO man.