House purchase - Listed Building Consents

[hatonon]

Hi there

I am new here, and to listed property, so apols in advance if I am asking 'daft' questions.

We have had an offer accepted on a GII* listed property, which forms part of an annexe to a larger property. The front of 'our' house is Victorian, the back is Elizabethan, and formed part of the original larger property. The Elizabethan part was derelict until the 1950s when it was renovated, and the whole of the larger property, including annexe, was listed in 1951.

Our impression is that not much has been done to the basic structure and interior of 'our' house probably since the 50s when it was originally renovated. The only alteration which is obviously more recent than this is an attic room, which has a velux window. I think this was probably done in the 80s.

So in terms of LBC, when our solicitor does the searches, should we only be worrying about consent for the window? Or the attic room itself?

I've done some online research and am unclear about the things a Conservation Officer can raise retrospective objections to - e.g. if the roof and windows were part of the 1950s renovation and so were in place at the time of listing, but would not now be considered sympathetic to the building, could a Conservation Officer still require it to be changed? Or if it can reasonably be assumed that something was extant at time of listing then is beyond challenge?

I have read lots of dire warnings online about 'running a mile' from listed properties where there is no LBC for alterations. I suppose we are unclear which level of alterations this would relate to, and how realistic it is to expect LBC for everything that is done to a house over the course of 60+ years?

Many thanks in advance for your patient advice!

 

[livias]

You can get (or ask your seller to get) retrospective lbc. If the conservation officer didnt like something then you would then know the extent of changes you need to make. I am told that retrospective lbc is easier to get than advance lbc :?:

If something was there at the time of listing it is beyond challenge.

The attic room will have needed lbc and building control consents. I wouldnt rely on the solicitor, just look on the council website and see if they were in place

 

[hatonon]

Thanks so much, that's really helpful.

Have had a look on the planning portal and the only thing I can see is permission for a garage. I suppose it's possible that the alteration pre-dates the portal. Fingers crossed. Either way hopefully not a deal breaker.

We had a purchase of another listed place fall through due to lack of consents, this sounds more hopeful.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Hatonon,
don't worry about asking questions the only thing stupid is not asking!!

My opinion and it is only that, is to ask this question.... "who knows when the attic room was constructed?" your conservation office almost certainly won't and if my experience is anything to go by, they have done absolutely nothing about the changes that have been made up until that point.

If you want to get sniffy and PC about things then you should consult your overworked really busy frankly (probably) stroppy CO and they'll tell you all the things you don't want to hear.

My view is that you shouldn't worry too much about things you already have as no one can say it wasn't done before the listing. In your case the listing was done in the 1950's mine was in 1982 so technically the concrete floor with the DPC, the bitumen sheet covered plaster and various other cement based "repairs" are all covered which makes the whole thing ridiculous.

As far as I'm aware my attic room was probably constructed after the listing, doesn't conform (and as far as I'm aware doesn't need to) to building regs... so I'd relax and enjoy your new purchase. CO's are far too busy to worry about what someone may have done to your property in the past!!

Paul.

 

[Flyfisher]

Might be worth asking your conveyancing solicitor about insurance against possible future costs if all the LBC/Planning consent paperwork is not available. I believe such policies are available but I'd be very careful to check for exclusions.

Alternatively, if you know there are issues that you might be required to correct in future then another option is to obtain estimates for the cost of such works and then reduce your offer price accordingly. Of course, the seller might not accept such an offer so it's a risk, but so is buying a listed property with unauthorised alterations - it all depends on your attitude toward such risks.

As far as I'm aware, it's the current OWNER who is directly responsible for any remedial works that may possibly be enforced in the future, even though they may not be the actual person responsible. The owner would then have a legitimate grievance against the previous owner who made the unauthorised alterations and could, in theory, sue them for any costs incurred, but you can just imagine the hassle in terms of legal fees and sheer time in pursuing such a case, not to mention the difficulty of actually proving it was the previous owner. They might simply claim it was the owner before them, who may now be dead - true or not, the burden of proof would be on the current owner of the property and I'd suggest would likely be a fruitless endeavour!

In the words of Dirty Harry - do you feel lucky?! :wink:

 

[hatonon]

Many thanks all, some really helpful (and pragmatic) advice here. A great antidote to all the alarmist stuff out there. I have been thinking to myself that surely most people buying a property listed post-war wouldn't get copies of LBCs for everything that's been done over the years? And I've seen a few recently converted listed properties on Rightmove, which look to all intents and purposes like they've had everything of the interior ripped out and a completely modern interior put in. Have they either not sought LBC, or is there more flexibility than the web-based advice would let me believe? I can't balance this in my own mind with the horror stories I've read of having to consult over paint colours, plaster finishes etc.....

In an ideal world there are a couple of partition walls we'd want to take out - one from kitchen to dining room (there is currently a serving hatch and the walls seems to be just plasterboard or equivalent) and one at the end of the kitchen which has a separate pantry which I think were part of the 50's conversion. These are the areas where I assume we'd need to get LBC. We'd also want to replace a dated kitchen and bathrooms. I assume as this is replacing what's already there then LBC isn't required for that.

So this would be the point where the CO may need to visit the property, albeit it's a few years off yet due to budget constraints. So worst case scenario is that the skylight would have to go and the resulting hole retiled, and the loft room..........what would we have to do to that? Take it back to....whatever 'lies beneath'?

Would the CO always visit a property when a LBC request is submitted, or is it sometimes granted unseen depending on their workload?

I have so many questions.....thanks in advance.

 

[Hobden]

Might be worth asking your conveyancing solicitor about insurance against possible future costs if all the LBC/Planning consent paperwork is not available. I believe such policies are available but I'd be very careful to check for exclusions.

Our solicitor told us they're not worth the paper they're written on. And in particular you wouldn't be covered for anything you already knew about at the time of purchase. Caveat emptor!

 

[Mickey]

Hi there,

Our house is listed and I think I would have thought long and hard about the purchase if I had wanted to do anything structural i.e. remove walls (even if they are plasterboard) I think you need to ask yourself if would still purchase the house knowing you could not take out those walls, because your CO might not agree to it. Can you get the CO to come round for pre advice prior to your purchase, some Councils don't do this anymore and some do but charge.

Good luck with it.

Mickey

 

[hatonon]

Yes we totally appreciate not a forgone conclusion (although of course half a wall of plasterboard with a serving hatch doesn't really add anything to the integrity of the house - but it seems there's not much rhyme or reason to what is allowed and very much on CO's whim)

It's absolutely not a deal breaker, but a 'nice to have'.

Will def investigate the possibility of pre-advice.

Thanks!

 

[Flyfisher]

Good points. We contacted our CO before deciding on our house and he was a great help. We explained our plans for the house, what we wanted to do in broad terms and he was in basic agreement. Some things he wasn't keen about but in those cases he was able to suggest an alternative, most of which were better than our ideas! I've forgotten how many times he has visited over the years - basically whenever we've asked for advice and help. As things have turned out, we have done more things than we had originally thought of, mainly because the CO's advice was better than us at such things . . . Which I suppose is how it should be, given that he's the professional. As such we must have saved a great deal in design/architect fees!

We may just have been lucky I suppose, in that our vision for the house was basically acceptable in the first place, but anyone wanting to make outlandish changes to a listed building is probably the wrong sort of purchaser anyway. In any event, anyone contemplating buying a listed property with a view to changing it will have to deal with the CO eventually so they might as well make a start as soon as possible. If it turns out the CO is very disapproving or hard to deal with (for whatever reason) then it's probably a sign of difficult times ahead!

 

[hatonon]

I thought I'd replied but my message seems to have vanished!

We are quite happy with the house layout as it stands, the couple of tweaks mentioned previously are 'nice to haves' but certainly aren't deal breakers for us. Some years down the line anyway

Will def pursue the idea of pre-advice from CO.

 

[hatonon]

....and now both my replies have appeared - sorry for the repetition

 

[Hobden]

mainly because the CO's advice was better than us at such things . . . Which I suppose is how it should be, given that he's the professional.

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know what sort of training COs get?

 

[TheForge]

I'm sure one of the COs, or ex COs, on here will be able to give you more detail but in my limited experience with COs most come from a professional background in related disciplines like surveying, planning, structural engineering or architecture. Most CO jobs advertised require certain professional qualifications and many have additional qualifications in conservation, heritage etc.

As LA budgets have been slashed I wonder if the same priority is still given to ensuring COs are well qualified/experienced as I've heard of some councils where there is no specific CO now but the responsibility falls to the broader planning department who may not have specific heritage knowledge.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

mainly because the CO's advice was better than us at such things . . . Which I suppose is how it should be, given that he's the professional.

Just out of curiosity, does anybody know what sort of training COs get?

Nothing compulsory, as yet. And that was a strength rather than a weakness. COs were one of the last refuges of the amateur, in the true sense of the word, combining connoisseurship with pragmatism.
Over the last 15 years or so there have been moves to "professionalise" the role, originally in part because of the low regard COs often had among planning colleagues (not that they have compulsory qualification requirements either).
But a result of that has been a tendency to "managerialise", with the setting up of would-be professional bodies which (as happened with architects in the early 20th century) always start out with good intentions but quickly become opportunities for egomaniacs to dictate everything and confine a broad and complex process of decision making to a tick-box format. That has well served the various degree courses in things called "Heritage Management" and an increasing number of COs seem to be coming from that background with no wider experience.
I'd be willing to bet that 9 out of 10 of all the horror stories involve someone with a paper qualification who went straight into being a CO.
But I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

[Hobden]

I'd be willing to bet that 9 out of 10 of all the horror stories involve someone with a paper qualification who went straight into being a CO.

Not confined to COs I suspect! Sadly we never seem to hit a happy medium - either something's a complete free-for-all and it's quick, cheap and highly dangerous or it's regulated to death and it's slow and very expensive and the old hands quit in disgust.

Apologies if I've hijacked this thread

 

[hatonon]

As a novice I am finding it a minefield as hard and fast rules (with the possible exception of no UPVC) seem to be really difficult to come by and things seem very much down to the discretion of the particular CO. That's great if you have a particularly progressive and flexible CO, but the other side of the coin.....

In this connection I have heard horror stories of works given tacit approval by a CO who is then replaced by a different CO who does a complete about-face.

This can't be a good way to go on, can it? The system seems ripe for reform, IMHO.

 

[Flyfisher]

The difficulty with 'hard and fast rules' is that period properties tend to be unique in their features and settings so proposed works have to be considered in context rather than from a strict rule book. For example, old buildings often only exist in their current state because of various alterations, in various styles, during their existence. Thus it would be difficult to define a rule-driven approach to every situation. Disallowing any further changes might be seen as one way to preserve old buildings but in practice it would never work because if such buildings are not deemed fit for modern living standards then no one will buy them, no one will live in them and they will simply decay and eventually be lost forever. Imagine a 'truly original' Tudor house - who would be prepared to live in it if there was no plumbing, heating, sanitation, electricity, etc?

It's a difficult issue involving informed judgement and as such there will always be disagreements, even among the experts and professionals. What would be your proposals for revamping the current system?

As for 'tacit approval', in a formal sense that really counts for nothing and it is only the formal LIsted Building Consent that counts, after which a new CO might not agree but cannot actually withdraw that consent. Anyone carrying out alterations to a listed building without LBC is taking a risk of future problems, regardless of whether the CO agrees with it or not.

 

[MatthewC]

Going back to the original question, I think that you need to find out:

(a) When was the building listed?
(b) Is there any work clearly later than that date?
(c) Are there any building control approvals later than the listing date? (Bear in mind that Building Control and Planning (where the CO works) are separate departments and often do not speak to each other!)
(d) Has the CO identified any works as not having LBC?

As I understand it, the planners and CO do NOT have a statutory right of access*, so you need to think about "how will they find out if there is something wrong done by the previous owner?" My CO never visited, for which I am now grateful; I am sure that in my naive state when I started I would have shown them everything but now, I am wiser and would be careful what I let them see if I was doing this again.

I'm not condoning illegality, nor am I a lawyer, but look at the practicality of the issues. If they know about it already, then it needs sorting; if they don't know and can't find out, why worry?

Matthew



* I'm sure one will correct me if that has changed!

 

[hatonon]

Thanks - building was listed in 1952? I think? It forms a wing of a larger, grander property. The bit of the listing which specifically refers to 'our' property is pretty vague.

The vendor told me the previous owners had made a loft room (in the 80's-90's), which has a velux window. These are the only things (apart from an electric oven built into the chimney breast) which seem obviously newer than the listing.

Building Controls approval. Hmmm. When I checked the local council planning portal the only thing I could see on there was permission granted for a double garage. Is there anywhere else I should be looking?

We have not been in touch with the CO yet so we don't have an answer to (d).

I take your point about 'how will they find out' - the only thing we may wish to have the CO look at is the kitchen, so it may not be necessary for him to see the loft room......I guess I'm just thinking about what happens when we come to sell on.