- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Ask the questions and you may find out 
jocelyn plummer
Member
- Messages
- 2,297
- Location
- North Norfolk
The suspense is killing me-- do continue--
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Go on, ziggy, give it a whirl...
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
ziggy said:
You'd be best off asking your own local conservation officer, but if you haven't got one, fire away...
Sorry !!! I was away.
I'm having huge problems with my CO. It's the first time I've dealt with a listed building ( Grade 2, no star ) and tbh the nub is I don't know if I'm being told the truth or not. So thought I'd see what other CO's would say ( if they were prepared to ).
At the start, I had an informal chat & site visit with the CO. All amicable. A large part of this was to find out what I needed consent for and what I didn't need consent for, and how the CO viewed the items I needed consent for. At this stage there were two things I specifically asked about and was told no consent required.
- Damp proof works.
- Cut-outs in front of two front windows ( flat is a basement, with an area 'cut out' of garden in front of window to allow light in - width 3 ft length 2 ft - I wanted to extend length to 3 ft - currently concrete base & walls disintergrating )
Listed application for internal changes submitted. Four changes - application refused on basis of two of the changes. Resubmitted minus these two rejected changes - informally told will be rejected on basis of one of the previously accepted changes ( I posted a question on this already but don't know how to link it ).
CO said there was a 'misunderstanding'. I think he's just changing his mind constantly so thought it would be prudent to get the above two matters formally agreed 'on paper' that listing consent wasn't required. Agent duly wrote - CO telephoned ( cannot get him to commit anything on paper ! )
- Damp proof works DO require listing consent. Reason given that a dry-lined partition wall needs to be removed in order to expose exterior wall and do works. Current dry-lined partition wall failing and has no consent anyway.
- Changes to cut-outs WILL need consent and this will be refused.
What do people think about the damp-proofing & cut-out issues ? Would you expect them to need consent ?
As I said my CO is changing his mind every day of the week and will not put anything in writing. I appreciate the previous advice about 'talking' but there isn't much point when he's continually contradicting what he said yesterday !
I'm having huge problems with my CO. It's the first time I've dealt with a listed building ( Grade 2, no star ) and tbh the nub is I don't know if I'm being told the truth or not. So thought I'd see what other CO's would say ( if they were prepared to ).
At the start, I had an informal chat & site visit with the CO. All amicable. A large part of this was to find out what I needed consent for and what I didn't need consent for, and how the CO viewed the items I needed consent for. At this stage there were two things I specifically asked about and was told no consent required.
- Damp proof works.
- Cut-outs in front of two front windows ( flat is a basement, with an area 'cut out' of garden in front of window to allow light in - width 3 ft length 2 ft - I wanted to extend length to 3 ft - currently concrete base & walls disintergrating )
Listed application for internal changes submitted. Four changes - application refused on basis of two of the changes. Resubmitted minus these two rejected changes - informally told will be rejected on basis of one of the previously accepted changes ( I posted a question on this already but don't know how to link it ).
CO said there was a 'misunderstanding'. I think he's just changing his mind constantly so thought it would be prudent to get the above two matters formally agreed 'on paper' that listing consent wasn't required. Agent duly wrote - CO telephoned ( cannot get him to commit anything on paper ! )
- Damp proof works DO require listing consent. Reason given that a dry-lined partition wall needs to be removed in order to expose exterior wall and do works. Current dry-lined partition wall failing and has no consent anyway.
- Changes to cut-outs WILL need consent and this will be refused.
What do people think about the damp-proofing & cut-out issues ? Would you expect them to need consent ?
As I said my CO is changing his mind every day of the week and will not put anything in writing. I appreciate the previous advice about 'talking' but there isn't much point when he's continually contradicting what he said yesterday !
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
The problem with expressing any opinion on your situation is that we're only getting one side of the story. I don't mean that to sound in any way derogatory to you, or to suggest that you're being untruthful, but one has to accept that verbal discussions can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, misremembered and just about any other mis- you care to name.
When it comes to proposing any kind of modifications to listed buildings, you are always entering something of a minefield. You have to remember that nothing is written in tablets of stone. By their very nature, all listed buildings are unique, so it's absolutely impossible for a rule book to be written that will cover any and all possible permutations of what is or is not permissable in terms of modification, repair... and so on. For this reason, it's essentially down to the local authority (who carry English Heritage's mandate) to make these decisions, as they relate to Grade II buildings. Within the local authority, the CO will have certain powers to make decisions without reference to a committee.
So, ultimately, your kind of applications will come down to discussion and negotiation between you and the CO. You have the right to appeal against any decision the CO makes, and these rights should be detailed in any letter of refusal that you have received.
Remember that the CO's prime responsibility is to the building - not to what you want from the building. If these two things come into conflict, you will inevitably lose. So it's up to you to try and make your requirements compatible with the CO's view of how the integrity of the building should be preserved.
I'm sorry if that lengthy ramble tells you nothing new, and doesn't help you to overcome your problem, but to be honest I'm not sure how anyone on this forum can do that.
You mention that you're using an agent. Presumably this person is an architect, architectural technician, or similar. And if they practice widely in your area, presumably they know the CO. If this is the case, then really I think you need the agent to sit down with the CO and talk over the whole thing informally to find out exactly where you stand. Hopefully, in an informal, co-operative atmosphere, the CO will then be able to offer some help in bridging the gap between you. Once this has been done, and assuming you reach some sort of compromise, then the agent can make written notes of the meeting for future reference by him/herself, you and the CO.
But I do urge you to try and avoid confrontations and animosity between you and the CO, no matter how aggrieved you may feel about what has happened. Just concentrate on trying to demonstrate to the CO that you have the building's best interests at heart.
Aplogies for a long, rather rambling post, but I hope there's something of help in there! By the way, I'm not a CO or anything similar - just a bloke with a little experience of dealing with them (and invariably finding them co-operative and helpful).
When it comes to proposing any kind of modifications to listed buildings, you are always entering something of a minefield. You have to remember that nothing is written in tablets of stone. By their very nature, all listed buildings are unique, so it's absolutely impossible for a rule book to be written that will cover any and all possible permutations of what is or is not permissable in terms of modification, repair... and so on. For this reason, it's essentially down to the local authority (who carry English Heritage's mandate) to make these decisions, as they relate to Grade II buildings. Within the local authority, the CO will have certain powers to make decisions without reference to a committee.
So, ultimately, your kind of applications will come down to discussion and negotiation between you and the CO. You have the right to appeal against any decision the CO makes, and these rights should be detailed in any letter of refusal that you have received.
Remember that the CO's prime responsibility is to the building - not to what you want from the building. If these two things come into conflict, you will inevitably lose. So it's up to you to try and make your requirements compatible with the CO's view of how the integrity of the building should be preserved.
I'm sorry if that lengthy ramble tells you nothing new, and doesn't help you to overcome your problem, but to be honest I'm not sure how anyone on this forum can do that.
You mention that you're using an agent. Presumably this person is an architect, architectural technician, or similar. And if they practice widely in your area, presumably they know the CO. If this is the case, then really I think you need the agent to sit down with the CO and talk over the whole thing informally to find out exactly where you stand. Hopefully, in an informal, co-operative atmosphere, the CO will then be able to offer some help in bridging the gap between you. Once this has been done, and assuming you reach some sort of compromise, then the agent can make written notes of the meeting for future reference by him/herself, you and the CO.
But I do urge you to try and avoid confrontations and animosity between you and the CO, no matter how aggrieved you may feel about what has happened. Just concentrate on trying to demonstrate to the CO that you have the building's best interests at heart.
Aplogies for a long, rather rambling post, but I hope there's something of help in there! By the way, I'm not a CO or anything similar - just a bloke with a little experience of dealing with them (and invariably finding them co-operative and helpful).
Penners is spot on with that advice.
It must be terribly frustrating. I've just been doing some research in my area, and the amount of unauthorised works to listed buildings is staggering.
There's a listed church down the road opposite the town hall that was absolutely desecrated a few years back - enforcement is only just catching up, and retrospective consents are now in place to undo the horrid mess they made to the building.
And the amount of uPVC windows and doors, gutters, inappropriate roof replacements that go on is staggering. I'm sure that in a lot of cases, and from what I've seen on the files it just ends up with no further action being taken.
It's a shame that going the law abiding route results in so much grief, but you are doing the right thing by getting the consents and hopefully it will avoid future trouble.
It must be terribly frustrating. I've just been doing some research in my area, and the amount of unauthorised works to listed buildings is staggering.
There's a listed church down the road opposite the town hall that was absolutely desecrated a few years back - enforcement is only just catching up, and retrospective consents are now in place to undo the horrid mess they made to the building.
And the amount of uPVC windows and doors, gutters, inappropriate roof replacements that go on is staggering. I'm sure that in a lot of cases, and from what I've seen on the files it just ends up with no further action being taken.
It's a shame that going the law abiding route results in so much grief, but you are doing the right thing by getting the consents and hopefully it will avoid future trouble.
Thanks for the replies.
I understand each situation/property is unique, I was trying to find some commonalities.
I can't see how requiring consent to take down a dry-ined partition ( previous attempt to cure damp ) which was put up sometime in the last 13 years, without consent, is necessary or preserving anything intrinsic/original in the flat.
But the CO says '' since techically it's a wall '' consent is required, therefore that's what I have to do. But that quoted statement implies there are rules, and I was trying to establish those rules.
I've stepped away from this since the last refusal and left it with the agent to discuss/negotiate. He's well respected and known locally, and has dealt with the CO and Council over the past 20 years. The reason I chose him was because he was experienced with dealing with listed buildings and was highly recommended. He's experiencing exactly the same problems, and has told me in confidence that it's across the board with all his clients - something has changed in the Planning Department and he's mistified and frustrated.
I truthfully regret buying and starting on this course. I had stupidly assumed all parties would want the best for the building and that honesty, discussion and negotiation could resolve anything. I've learned otherwise.
P.S. The flat has absolutely no redeeming, original features. The whole building was gutted and converted to flats 13 years ago. It could be a new-build box, apart from the dire lay-out and damp.
I understand each situation/property is unique, I was trying to find some commonalities.
I can't see how requiring consent to take down a dry-ined partition ( previous attempt to cure damp ) which was put up sometime in the last 13 years, without consent, is necessary or preserving anything intrinsic/original in the flat.
But the CO says '' since techically it's a wall '' consent is required, therefore that's what I have to do. But that quoted statement implies there are rules, and I was trying to establish those rules.
I've stepped away from this since the last refusal and left it with the agent to discuss/negotiate. He's well respected and known locally, and has dealt with the CO and Council over the past 20 years. The reason I chose him was because he was experienced with dealing with listed buildings and was highly recommended. He's experiencing exactly the same problems, and has told me in confidence that it's across the board with all his clients - something has changed in the Planning Department and he's mistified and frustrated.
I truthfully regret buying and starting on this course. I had stupidly assumed all parties would want the best for the building and that honesty, discussion and negotiation could resolve anything. I've learned otherwise.
P.S. The flat has absolutely no redeeming, original features. The whole building was gutted and converted to flats 13 years ago. It could be a new-build box, apart from the dire lay-out and damp.
Strictly between thee and me, there was a CO in this region who was notorious for being unhelpful to the point of obstructiveness. Once, when asked (v. politely) why a certain bit of potentially useful information hadn't been given, his answer was "You didn't ask."
He was an isolated case, and all the rest of them were/are unfailingly supportive and understanding, and invariably very generous with advice as to how to solve a problem without compromising the building.
It could be that you've just been very unlucky.
He was an isolated case, and all the rest of them were/are unfailingly supportive and understanding, and invariably very generous with advice as to how to solve a problem without compromising the building.
It could be that you've just been very unlucky.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Indeed, that looks possible/probable. But unfortunately you have to work with what you've got.Moo said:
I think you've done the right thing in stepping back and letting your agent try to sort things out - particularly if he knows the area and the CO, and is well respected. If anyone stands a chance of resolving the matter, I guess he does.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Moo said:
...and 1569 other people. :wink:
I can't add much to the other comments above...but this particular issue is one I recognise from our previous house.
We did all the right things, arranged site visits to ascertain what would require consent and what would not require consent. We then 'replayed' the conclusions in writing to the CO to ensure that we all had the same understanding and that we were cleared to proceed on those items where 'no consent required'. We experienced the same challenge in getting written confirmation.
Given the severe penalties for unauthorised works and the fact that CO's change jobs, purchasers look for written confirmation when buildings are sold etc. this does seem one area where something more structured might be useful.
In the end, in our situation...we wrote following another 'telephone call' from the CO...."As per our telephone conversation...we are writing to confirm.....You have advised us that you are unable to provide written confirmation of 'no consent required'......please advise us within 28 days if you are in disagreement that these works do not require consent"
We then sent the letter to the CO and the head of planning, plus our parish council. We received a response from someone in planning (not the CO) thanking us for our letter and that was all. Far from ideal, but better than commencing work without any documentation trail.
Whilst the CO is the key arbiter on matters of consent (and in fact our current CO proved very helpful on our recent wall application)....there really is no excuse for failing to respond to your requests for written confirmation. I would suggest that if this continues, you copy your local councillor on future communications.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Ziggy - please come back and add another post to this thread when you have any more news. We'd like to know how you're getting on.
Good luck.
Good luck.