LBC again...

[Shippy]

Hello All. This is my first post after keeping an eye on this site for a couple of months after we started the buying process for an mid 18C Georgian town house.

We're nearly at the point of exchange of contracts but there is one issue giving us some sleepless nights and would appreciate the views of people who well may have been there and done that.

This and the neighbouring properties were, we believe, made into residential properties in the early 70's. They were subsequently listed in 1980. Now, what we think happended is that in 1981 there was a job undertaken to sort out rot in the timbers. There is a schedule of works attached to the back of a guarantee that describes the work to be done by the contractors and words to the effect of "the owner will instruct his own builders to remove and re-instate all ceilings and no work will be done the staircase as it is to be replaced". We can find no traces of any consents from this period....

THe current owners are playing dumb.

We have no idea of the previous design, state or construction method of the ceilings and staircase prior to this time.

So, the basic issue we have is that we have no idea where we stand on this! The house is full of exposed beams in the walls and ceilings so still looks the part (if a bit uniformly smooth...) but we're concerned with what we've read about the dreaded re-instatement.

I know the whole house is listed, but the listing text refers to the exterior facade only.

We would like to build a relationship with the local CO as we want to do a couple of things. We're concerned that if he ever saw the inside of the house we might be starting something bad.

Does anybody have any words of advice or comfort?

Thank you for reading!

 

[middi]

Hi Shippy and welcome to the site.


It not very clear what you are looking for from an advisory point of view.

If alterations have been carried out within the building with or without LBC, you must have liked what you have seen to be interested in buying.
In many cases that is the best reason for buying.

If you are concerned that they stripped out a fair bit of the original fabric ,staircase, etc....and you are unable to distinguish what is genuine or what is not, then your own structural survey by an architect which specialises in listed buildings will put your mind at rest, or anybody that understands these period buildings.

If there has been no LBC for any work carried out internally, it is water under the bridge I am afraid.

There is no need to have sleepless nights, Have the building checked by your own survey and make your decision based on the report, it may prove to be money well spend, if only to put your mind at rest.THe CO will not make you reinstate anything wich you have not removed, as long as you can prove it.

 

[Shippy]

Thanks for the reply. The main cause for concern on our part was whether we would be liable for any re-instatement should it be forced upon us. Our conveyancer has pointed out that we probably would be liable, but we're just not sure how realistic a possibility it may be.

We like the house as-is and wouldn't be looking to undo what may have been done just for the sake of it.

We have had a full survey and the chap did note the replacement parts, but he was reasonably happy with them not detracting from the 'feel' of the house. I guess the fact that it is in his report is proof that we didn't do it, but my understanding was that the current owners are responsible for re-instatement (should it be enforced), not the person who did it...

 

[Nemesis]

There is indeed no time limit and yes in theory the current owner of a listed building is legally liable for re-instatement of any work carried out illegally.

However, unless your conservation officer knew the interior of the building before then there is a possibility that he or she would not have any indication that the staircase had been removed after the building was listed. It may be that the local authority did know and considered that this was repair on a like for like basis, and there is no paperwork as this was a verbal agreement.

Such repair was a considerable time ago, and it may be argued that it did not alter the character of the building so was thus not against the 1990 Act.

The possibility of being made to re-instate is probably remote as without evidence of what was there before it could prove a problem. However, if it is obvious that the work is new then your conservation offcer may become suspicious and there is no knowing what could ensue.

So much is guesswork.

I would suggest your main difficulty will be when selling the house - a prospective purchaser may have similar questions.

If you are really worried then before going ahead it may be possible to discuss the issue with the conservation officer, asking for an opinion, and seeking assurances regarding any future action or possible lack of action.

That way, you may rest easily in your bed.

While not quite the same situation, it is worth bearing in mind that prsecutions do occur:

£6,000 fine for savaging a Listed Building

A Silsoe man has been fined £6,000 and made to pay costs of over £1,300 to Mid Beds District Council for work done to his Grade II listed home without Listed Building Consent. On Wednesday 16 November, David Gill pleaded guilty at Bedford Magistrates Court to making unauthorized and illegal alterations to the listed building in Lower Gravenhurst Road, Silsoe that dramatically affected its character as a building of special architectural or historic importance.

Mr. Gill carried out these irrevocable works to the building without the relevant list building consents. These included, amongst other works, the substituting of windows with ill proportioned and inappropriately designed replacements, removing doors, replacing cast iron rainwater features with plastic, removing brick features, fitted CCTV cameras and burglar alarms and re-pointed the brickwork in an inappropriate manner. The damage caused included the permanent scarring of brickwork and demolition of part of the building.

Chris Valentine, Mid Beds Head of Planning said: "We are extremely concerned and disappointed that the unauthorized and illegal works to this important building have left permanent scars and have damaged the fabric of the building. But we are extremely pleased with the successful court action, which clearly demonstrates that owners of listed buildings must seek advice from the local planning authority before carrying out any works. We will not hesitate to prosecute such architectural vandalism when we uncover it."

The property owner was fined £6000 and ordered to pay costs to Mid Beds (amounting to £1384.66).

November 2005



Period Property Agony Uncle query:

SUBJECT: UPVC window double whammy
FROM: Louise Doolin (Gloucestershire)
I recently purchased a flat in a listed building within a conservation area. Four months after moving into the property, the local planning office notified me that the current upvc double glazed windows were installed without permission in 1998 and would have to be replaced within 3 years with timber framed sash windows.

At the time of purchasing I was not aware it was a listed building.

The vendor made a false statement on the Seller's Property Information form. She stated that she did not replace the windows which meant bypassing the question of whether planning permission was granted. I'm pretty sure that the vendor had realised at a later date that she should have sought permission which is why she said she did not replace the windows - had she said yes she had replaced the windows she would have been expected to include a copy of the planning consent in the seller's pack which she obviously did not have. Then this issue would have been highlighted and passed onto me via my solicitor.

Do you think I have grounds to sue her for misrepresentation? I would not have bought the flat in the first place if I knew I would have to replace the windows.

It has been suggested that my solicitor as at fault also; he would have known that the building was listed and apparently he would have received an external photo of the building from the estate agent.

I have spoken to him about this and strangely he gave me an hour of his time for free and told me to pop in any time at no charge. A solicitor giving his time for free!! He suggested I pursue the previous owner through the small claims court, as I had nothing to lose.

I really don't know what to do about this. I've had to remortgage the property already to raise the money for the new windows.

Do you think I am entitled to some compensation. Is so, who is at fault here?



Another:

3 May 2006
Crown Court supports EHDC prosecution for works on Listed Building

A Petersfield man has been ordered to pay a £10,000 fine after carrying out unauthorised building work to a listed building in the town.

David Graver (54) of College Street, Petersfield had appealed to Winchester Crown Court against a £12,000 fine imposed by Aldershot Magistrates in February on the ground that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates was excessive.

The prosecution was brought by East Hampshire District Council after Mr Graver had undertaken work on his property which had not been authorised by the council and which the council believed compromised the architectural and historic interest of the building. The changes included the addition of four rooflights, construction of a staircase, conversion of an attic space, removal of three internal walls and the installation of fitted wardrobes in a bedroom.

On the 19 May 2005, the Council's Principal Conservation Officer wrote to Mr Graver advising him to stop all works. Despite this, Mr Graver carried on working on the property.

At Winchester Crown Court on the 28th April, His Honour Judge Longbotham told Mr Graver that the letter from the Council was 'clear as a bell', and that if he was in any doubt about what action to take, Mr Graver should have contacted the council. The Judge also told Mr Graver that the damage was, in the court's judgment, significant, and he told Mr Graver that, as a property developer with 20 years experience, he should have known better. Furthermore, the changes to 8 Sussex Road had increased the capital value of the property.

The Judge told Mr Graver that the Court agreed with the fine of £15,000 that would have been imposed by the Magistrates had Mr Graver pleaded not-guilty to the offences. However, the Magistrates had made an error in not giving Mr Graver a 33% discount for a guilty plea. The Court reduced the fine payable by Mr Graver to £10,000.

Cllr Patrick Burridge, East Hampshire District Council’s Portfolio holder for Development said:
”The judgement made by the Crown Court again reinforces the hard work and professionalism of officers within the council who endeavour to protect our heritage. The historic environment is an important asset to be enjoyed now and protected for the future. The council will have no hesitation in taking legal action where necessary to ensure that it can be enjoyed by future generations."

 

[Moo]

"the installation of fitted wardrobes in a bedroom"

Surely that's not verboten?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

"the installation of fitted wardrobes in a bedroom"

Surely that's not verboten?

Well, it depends :twisted:

 

[Moo]

Gareth. What a lovely surprise! I thought you'd abandoned the forum since it changed its spots.
(does "the wilds of East Anglia" mean that you've moved from M** Road?)

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Gareth. What a lovely surprise! I thought you'd abandoned the forum since it changed its spots.
(does "the wilds of East Anglia" mean that you've moved from M** Road?)

Oh no, it just wouldn't log me in and I had no way of contacting the administrators to put it right until Evelyn emailed me at work (she's done some detective work to find that address - or should I call it stalking?) about something and I was able to get the details.

And no, "the wilds of East Anglia" refers accurately to what M** Road looked like last week during that amazing thunderstorm, with water over the kerb. I understand several people on S*G** Street had it pretty bad?

 

[Penners]

"the installation of fitted wardrobes in a bedroom"

Surely that's not verboten?

Unlike Gareth, I have no expert knowledge whatsoever on this topic. However, I suspect that the fitted wardrobes debacle was probably a result of all the other sins committed on that property. I'm sure that, under normal circumstances, a CO wouldn't turn a hair at a few screwholes in a listed building, to support fitted wardrobes. But once you start really causing serious damage, then the CO will get his/her magnifying glass out, and throw any and all "technical" infringements into the prosecution pot.

And quite right too.