Listed build - fireplace change

[frustin]

I live in a 1725 Georgian house Grade-II. Someone at some point has added a faux victorian gas-fire surround. It would be nice in the right property, but it's not definitely not in keeping. It just looks...there. I'm thinking about removing it and adding in a marble surround with log burner and getting the chimney lined.

So do i need to get listed permission since i'm changing the appearance to something more sympathetic to the property? Anyone else had experience in getting permission?

 

[Cubist]

Given that you live in an urban area I would suggest you contact your local authority as some are now pushing back on the use of log-burners. Also, have you considered the implications of using a wood-burner? There are onerous supply and nearby storage issues for the fuel together with its movement from that storage for use as well of course as the disposal of ash, both of which will track grime and other detritus through your home.

Frankly put, most wood-burners installed in 'city' homes are more for Show than Go - pretty to look at but entirely useless for anything but gathering dust.

Regardless, you should not need CO or BC approval to replace the old fireplace but its always worthwhile having a word with them just to be sure.

 

[paulc]

There are onerous supply and nearby storage issues for the fuel together with its movement from that storage for use as well of course as the disposal of ash, both of which will track grime and other detritus through your home.

And don't forget the spiders
Nearly every time I bring logs in from outside, there is at least one spider in the bucket. A few years back, I had a very large stack of poplar seasoning outside. During the winter months, I'd get significant numbers of wasp beetles flying around the lounge. Turned out the little darlings had been hiding under the bark on the poplar logs, and thought spring had come early after being brought indoors.

 

[Cubist]

And don't forget the spiders
Nearly every time I bring logs in from outside, there is at least one spider in the bucket. A few years back, I had a very large stack of poplar seasoning outside. During the winter months, I'd get significant numbers of wasp beetles flying around the lounge. Turned out the little darlings had been hiding under the bark on the poplar logs, and thought spring had come early after being brought indoors.

Not to mention the houseflies, bluebottles and other creepy crawlies that often take up residence in the woodpile. Mine frequently plays host to mice and very occasionally frogs and toads too, but I guess the latter are just scavenging for something tasty.

 

[frustin]

Thanks for the answers. I think the vibe I'm feeling is that you dont like log burners, fair enough. That being said, I think you're also saying that I do not need listed consent.

worthwhile having a word with them just to be sure

There's no number to call for that sort of thing, presumably you have to pay for that privilege?

 

[Cubist]

Thanks for the answers. I think the vibe I'm feeling is that you dont like log burners, fair enough. That being said, I think you're also saying that I do not need listed consent.

There's no number to call for that sort of thing, presumably you have to pay for that privilege?

Try the contact details for the Building Control department, the CO is on their payroll as a rule. Typically theres no fee for a verbal discussion and theres a hard schedule of charges for everything else.

 

[Cubist]

I'm feeling is that you dont like log burners,

Not so, I for one have two, the larger of which drives our CH system and the other for 'point' warmth when the weather gets really nippy. However, we do live in the back of beyond with electricity being the only mains service and we are usually independent for the 20 cubic metres of firewood we get through each year.

 

[Sam W]

Letter of the law, you do need formal consent, but you may well find the conservation department are willing to record it as minor works and save you going through the full application process.
We did a very similar piece of work, replaced a modern fireplace in our grade II listed house with a sandstone fire surround that had been in the garden for many years (I assume removed from a different room of our house sometime in the past). I emailed the conservation team with photos of the current fireplace and the one we wanted to put in, they replied saying all was fine and they had added a note to our file recording the decision.

 

[frustin]

Letter of the law, you do need formal consent, but you may well find the conservation department are willing to record it as minor works and save you going through the full application process.
We did a very similar piece of work, replaced a modern fireplace in our grade II listed house with a sandstone fire surround that had been in the garden for many years (I assume removed from a different room of our house sometime in the past). I emailed the conservation team with photos of the current fireplace and the one we wanted to put in, they replied saying all was fine and they had added a note to our file recording the decision.

do you think the decision for them was because the fireplace appeared to be original feature and therefore that helped? i think a sandstone surround or marble would be what we'd be looking for as well.

 

[Kearn]

do you think the decision for them was because the fireplace appeared to be original feature and therefore that helped? i think a sandstone surround or marble would be what we'd be looking for as well.

Technically, regardless of whether you’re removing modern crap and/or reinstating/adding something you think is a better match for a certain period in the property’s history, then you need LBC or at least agreement form the CO that LBC isn’t required. That’s the facts, but you’ll see everyone has a different take on interpretation or application.

IF, that faux Victorian surround was there at the date of listing, it is protected.

If that Victorian surround ISN’T faux after all, then for the evolution of the building, it’s deservedly protected as an iteration of the building. And most conservation professionals would take a similar view that seeing the iterations of time are more important that trying to revert to the initial build period.

However, at the point(s) that listings occurred, a line in the sand got drawn which somewhat contradicts what I just said!

Equally, there’s zero point trying to second guess a COs logic or approach and making a comparison, it is a wildly subjective and therefore ludicrously executed process.

The perspective you take with any old building, is the notion of ‘harm’ to the four categories of historic significance. Either harm created by something you propose to do or alternatively, reversing harm done by someone previously. Possibly your scenario falls into the latter camp…
I would expect that two things would need to be fulfilled for a CO to come close to a judgement; is the current fireplace genuine and evidence of a proposed replacement being more appropriate for the building.

An example from our app - slapping modern materials onto historic fireplaces has caused harm to significant features in the property - visually and physically. By carefully removing and sensitively conserving/repairing/restoring (in that order) what is found beneath we will be improving net harm calculation for the property as a whole.

 

[paulc]

Not so, I for one have two, the larger of which drives our CH system and the other for 'point' warmth when the weather gets really nippy.

I wouldn't be without my log burner either, although I'm not reliant on it as a main source of heating.
The bugs also keeps the cat entertained

 

[frustin]

IF, that faux Victorian surround was there at the date of listing, it is protected.

there's no way it was there. it's a gas fire and the surround (pine) is not original. Someone had a go at putting in something nice, it doesnt look cheap, but it's terribly out of place.

Lets say i find something that i think is more "in-keeping", surely that would be considered subjective and, just like the person that installed my faux-vic, it would just a matter of my own taste. What does the CO look at and do a side-by-side? wouldnt it be their own subjective taste?

 

[Drayton]

'Date of listing' means lots of 1960s, 70s and 80s additions and 'improvements' can be included, it is a matter of chance.

 

[frustin]

mine was listed in 1948

 

[Flyfisher]

I second all the points Kearn made above.

Listing applies to everything in the property at the time of listing - it's not just to protect the original features. Two of our original fireplaces are large inglenooks and over the years they had been bricked up to form smaller fireplaces. They were nothing special, indeed arguably ugly, but removing them and opening up the original fireplace clearly changed the character of the room, which is what listing is (largely) there to protect. In my case I met with our CO to discuss my plans and he was supportive, so I made a formal LBC application and it went through quickly without any problems.

We also have another fireplace that was clearly an addition to the original house, albeit a few hundred years ago, for which the substantial brick chimney stack was insensitively just butted onto the rear of the timber-frame, almost certainly at the same time as the non-original-but-very-old Georgian sashes were cut into the close-studded oak frame - alterations that almost certainly would not be approved these days! This fireplace has a substantial Adam-style marble surround and I'm pretty certain I would not get LBC for it's removal, even if I wanted to, which I don't.

So, the only true answer to such questions is 'it depends'. And the answer to the inevitable follow-up question is 'ask your CO'.

 

[Kearn]

there's no way it was there. it's a gas fire and the surround (pine) is not original. Someone had a go at putting in something nice, it doesnt look cheap, but it's terribly out of place.

Lets say i find something that i think is more "in-keeping", surely that would be considered subjective and, just like the person that installed my faux-vic, it would just a matter of my own taste. What does the CO look at and do a side-by-side? wouldnt it be their own subjective taste?

There’s no way it was there on the date your house was listed?

If that’s true, and you can evidence it, your argument is an easy one as it was done without permission and you are potentially now liable for reversing the previous unauthorised changes.

Our individual taste has little to do with the listed status of a building. However, you’re right, the subjective opinion of a CO does in theory determine the outcome one. Doesn’t always make sense.

Whether folks choose to add to the COs admin for certain things, is a matter of judgement with all things of course, but it this is the way the system works.

 

[Flyfisher]

there's no way it was there. it's a gas fire and the surround (pine) is not original. Someone had a go at putting in something nice, it doesnt look cheap, but it's terribly out of place.

Lets say i find something that i think is more "in-keeping", surely that would be considered subjective and, just like the person that installed my faux-vic, it would just a matter of my own taste. What does the CO look at and do a side-by-side? wouldnt it be their own subjective taste?

There's no way that my Adam-style marble fireplace was original to the close-studded oak timber-frame house of c.1550. There's also no way that the large Georgian sash windows were original either, indeed I have some 1930s photos, with the render removed, that clearly show how the close studded oak frame has been cut away to accomodate these 'insensitive' additions. The house also has a Victorian-style window that is obviously not original, as can be clearly seen because the original oak timber frame studs are no longer vertical due to centuries of movement yet the window has been installed vertically and the studs have been cut at angles to accomodate this.

But the facts of the matter are that the house was listed in 1988 and these items were present at the time of listing and therefore are subject to legally enforceable constraints. Even ignoring any and all subjective opinions, it could easily be argued that the historic value of the house has little to do with how much of it is original and untouched, but more to do with it being an example of how houses were actively altered over time. It is basically a Tudor house that has been given a 'Georgian makeover' plus later additions and whatever anyone thinks about these various changes and additions, it is what it is and it is now listed, so any changes to remove, ie destroy, any 'non-original' features will now require LBC and the first step in this process is a conversation with the relevant CO.

 

[frustin]

Adam-style marble fireplace

please can you show a picture of your fireplace?

 

[frustin]

There’s no way it was there on the date your house was listed?

If that’s true, and you can evidence it, your argument is an easy one as it was done without permission and you are potentially now liable for reversing the previous unauthorised changes.

Our individual taste has little to do with the listed status of a building. However, you’re right, the subjective opinion of a CO does in theory determine the outcome one. Doesn’t always make sense.

Whether folks choose to add to the COs admin for certain things, is a matter of judgement with all things of course, but it this is the way the system works.

The fireplace is new, the surround is new. it's not got any of the wear and tear you'd see, assuming it was installed on or before 1949 (when my house was listed).

I think what we're all agreeing on is that i need to speak to the CO regardless of any of it.

 

[Flyfisher]

please can you show a picture of your fireplace?

. . . only if you excuse the mess