How to locate changes to listed building requiring LBC during pre-purchase enquiries

[Tom&Amy]

Hello,

My wife and I are in the process of purchasing a grade II listed farmhouse. It will be the first time we have owned a listed building, though we have lived in period homes all our lives.

We have been doing a lot of research on how best to approach this purchase. One piece of advice that seems to be churned out everywhere is to make sure that any alterations, additions, ammendments, etc have had the correct LBC authorisation by the previous owners, as we become responsible for this once we become owners of the property.

That makes sense. However, when I approached our surveyor (who is a specialist in listed buildings) about this, their response was that a survey would not cover this issue, and it is the responsibility of our solicitors to address any such issues as part of the searches and pre-purchase enquiries. When speaking to my solicitor about this, they did say that pre-purchase enquiries should reveal where LBC had been applied for (and given). But they are not familiar with the property themselves (nor would I expect them to be) and so the whole process seems to be somewhat reliant on previous owners having applied for consent to carry out work and therefore a record of this with the relevant planning authority that would then be found by the legal team during enquiries.

My question is (and not wishing to suggest anyone has done anything underhand here) what happens if work has been done to the property where the owners didn't bother to apply for LBC? How would my solicitor know about this? And how would I be expected to flag any concerns to them given that I dont have specialist knowledge of historic buildings, and having only been in the property for a couple of short viewings with the estate agent?

I'm probably missing something really obvious here. But it seems to me like the only person with any specialist knowledge who would be spending any significant time at the property and able to locate anything that didn't look like a "like for like" repair is the surveyor. And this is apparently not a task that they include in the building survey.

Any advice gratefully appreciated.

 

[noj]

Whilst your specialist surveyor won't know exactly what alterations have been made with or without LBC, he (or she) can, and certainly should, flag any 'inappropriate' structutral materials/processes. Couple that with the solicitors getting a list of LBC applications (which you may be able to find online yourself depending on the local council's planning portal?) and it should highlight any major issues.

I know it's not 'law', but my feeling is that anything that obviously pre-dates the last job done with a succesful LBC application is pretty safe from any repercussions...

 

[Flyfisher]

Firstly, I'd want to know when the property was listed. For example, I believe there was a 'round' of listings made in the late 1980s and if that's the case then the property could have quite legally had all manner of horrors inflicted upon it, e.g. ripping out original panelled door and replacing them with obscured glass ones (a favourite 60/70s fashion I believe) or a nasty, inappropriate extension or replacement windows. In such cases you might well want to reverse such abominations but you'd certainly have no liability to do so. Indeed, now that it is listed you would require LBC to make such alterations, no matter how 'right' for the property.

As for the surveyor, you could try explicitly intructing him/her/them to advise on possible unauthorised alterations and then confronting the vendor with any observations and ask for an explanation.

I agree that it's not really the solicitor's job to determine if unapproved alterations have been made but I would say it is the solicitor's job to protect you from possible future issues, including those arising out of unapproved changes. So I would ask the solicitor a slightly different question, i.e. what can you do to protect me from possible future lisbilities arising out of unauthorised alterations? I've heard about insurance policies for such things but I believe they are not valid for known issues (which seems fair enough). I'd expect the solicitor to know about any such insurance policies and whether they'd be appropriate - but I'd certainly read the policy small print in great detail!

 

[Penners]

I endorse what Flyfisher has said. It is possible to insure yourself against the possibility that some unauthorised alteration to a listed building took place before your tenure, and that you might be held liable for rectifying this. It's not unusual, where the vendor of the property is unable to give clear answers to the pre-purchase enquiry questions on this matter, for them to be asked by the purchasers to pay the premium for this kind of policy. I once had to pay for an indemnity like this when I was unable to give unequivocal assurances about a listed property that I was selling. It was an annoyance, but it cleared a log-jam in the selling process for a relatively modest amount of money as a single, one-off premium.

 

[Lostgardensof]

This might be terrible advice but we asked our conservation officer to come and look around once our offer had been accepted. Our theory was that she could see what the previous owners had done and give us an idea about what we needed to put right and would be reasonable about timescales for enforcing any changes. She was horrified by the victorian alterations to our georgian house but seemed OK about most other bits. Obviously the victorian bits are staying.

 

[Lostgardensof]

Obviously this would invalidate any insurance so don't attempt to do both.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Firstly, I'd want to know when the property was listed. For example, I believe there was a 'round' of listings made in the late 1980s and if that's the case then the property could have quite legally had all manner of horrors inflicted upon it, e.g. ripping out original panelled door and replacing them with obscured glass ones (a favourite 60/70s fashion I believe) or a nasty, inappropriate extension or replacement windows. In such cases you might well want to reverse such abominations but you'd certainly have no liability to do so. Indeed, now that it is listed you would require LBC to make such alterations, no matter how 'right' for the property.

Despite the horror stories (and some terrible conservation officers), that's not strictly the case - LBC is only required for works which would affect the character of a listed building as a building of special architectural or historic interest. . However, I would (as CO) want to know what was going to replace the removed alteration, and the easiest way to do that (and the easiest way to reassure future potential purchasers that everything is above board) is through the LBC route.

 

[Tom&Amy]

Many thanks all for your helpful comments.

Firstly, I'd want to know when the property was listed.

Flyfisher - the property is late-Georgian and was listed in the mid-1950s. I cant see that there has been any update to the listing since then (according to the listing information from Historic England).

The information the listing gives is fairly sparse. It refers to a couple of notable features to the exterior of the property, particularly the roof, and only partially inspected interior (looks like perhaps just one room was checked), again referring specifically to a couple of features. All of the features mentioned we would want to keep - we are buying the house because it is a historic, characterful property and we aim to keep all of the original features and/or update/repair them if they need it, but on a like for like basis.

My ideal solution would be to invite the CO round shortly after completion, have a chat about the property, what we can and cant do and how to go about it. We want everything to be above board, and we are planning for this to be a comfortable family home for many years if not decades, and anything we would want to do to the property we would want to be in keeping with the character. It just makes me a little nervous to think that we could end up with a hefty bill and tonnes of work to do as soon as we move in (I am probably reading too much into the horror stories I have read on this forum!)

 

[Tom&Amy]

This might be terrible advice but we asked our conservation officer to come and look around once our offer had been accepted. Our theory was that she could see what the previous owners had done and give us an idea about what we needed to put right and would be reasonable about timescales for enforcing any changes. She was horrified by the victorian alterations to our georgian house but seemed OK about most other bits. Obviously the victorian bits are staying.

Yes, this is my thinking as well. However, rather than have the CO come round after purchase and give us an idea of what we need to put right, i'd prefer that I knew what needs to be put right prior to buying the property. That's the bit i'm stuck with (hence my original question about how and whether anything can be straightened out before we sign on the dotted line)

If its just a handful of small things that the CO says need to be done, and we would probably want to do them anyway, then all's good and it would be very useful to have the advice directly.

On the other hand, if the CO turns up and says those modern double glazed windows shouldn't be there and its going to cost you £100k to put it right... I'd kinda rather know that beforehand!

 

[Flyfisher]

Fair enough, as a technicality, but I reckon it would be a brave owner who would do such a thing and then try arguing that they've not affected the character of the building in terms of special or architectural interest.

Indeed, should such a case ever get to court how would it be decided if the character had been affected or not? A judge would surely only be able to adjudicate on the basis of 'expert opinion', which would immediately put the home owner on the back foot when confronted with the deemed-to-be-'expert' CO. Plus, as you rightly point out, the owner would have no real defence against a future 'terrible conservation officer'.

Though now you mention it, on the basis of 'not affecting the character', I needn't have bothered applying for two of my three LBCs . . . but I'm glad that I did.

 

[numberwang]

Could you simply ask the EA for the LBC sign off for any recent work off the vendor?

The place I tried to buy the LBC applications were on the planning portal, but the owner also agreed to onsite chat with Conservation officer (I paid fee) and all was fine.

Unfortunately the sale through for other reasons that could not be resolved (flooding liability).

The insurance I think just stops you being fined by Council, you still have to pay to put right if I remember correctly...

My solicitor was all over the LBC stuff, and the mortgage company btw

 

[Flyfisher]

The insurance I think just stops you being fined by Council, you still have to pay to put right if I remember correctly...

That sounds odd to me.

A fine implies an offence and I don't see how a new owner could be fined for an offence committed by a previous owner. Plus, I doubt it is possible to insure against committing an offence.

I've always thought it's the liability to rectify unapproved alteration that is being insured against.

 

[Penners]

I've always thought it's the liability to rectify unapproved alteration that is being insured against.

Me too.

 

[noj]

Found this wording on an insurance site...

Obviously they caveat it with 'minor' and don't define that.

There is no time limit for enforcement action in respect of lack of or breaches of listed building consent. Therefore we provide cover for minor breaches that have taken place at Grade II listed buildings.
The policy would cover legal costs in defending the breaches and if unsuccessful, would pay the costs of rectifying the breach, if it was required by the local authority.

This cover includes the costs of demolition and making good and/or rebuilding/reinstating. The policy would also compensate the Insured for any consequential diminution in value of the property.

 

[Penners]

"Minor breaches" presumably means they would not pay out in the event of a pile of rubble!

 

[Penners]

The information the listing gives is fairly sparse. It refers to a couple of notable features to the exterior of the property, particularly the roof, and only partially inspected interior (looks like perhaps just one room was checked), again referring specifically to a couple of features. All of the features mentioned we would want to keep

One other detail, Tom&Amy, that you're probably already aware of. The listing may mention certain important features of the building, but a listing means the whole building is listed - not just the mentioned features. The curtilage is listed, too.