Listed property - past corner-cutting

[gilesforrest]

Hi,

We're in the process of buying a listed building and the structural survey has revealed quite a few things that have been done in the past that have unlikely had consent granted - e.g. cast iron guttering replaced with plastic guttering, some of the wall timbers where they have rotten have been covered with wood panels painted black, in one instance it appears a concrete beam (painted black) has been used to replace rotten wood, and cement has been used to fill over rotten timbers (again painted black). Also the timbers have been painted with plastic black paint and apparently that needs to be removed to let them breathe.

We're getting a quote to have the repairs done properly and might have to renegotiate our offer price, however if the vendor doesn't budge we might take on the property and not be able to afford the repairs for some time, so what happens in the meantime? It would appear these "repairs" were done many years ago and the current owners have not been given an enforcement order to correct them (the conservation officer probably is not aware anyway) but what is the likely scenario if we buy the place and we make the conservation officer aware of these issues? Will they slap us with an enforcement issue to get it done straight away? There's lots of other stuff to be done on the house (heating, electrics, roof, etc) that are a real priority to make it liveable...

Does anyone have any experience of this situation and what happened in your case?

Many thanks!

 

[Kearn]

If this is a timber framed property, then you will not get a realistic estimate for repairs to negotiate. And if it is half sensible, the sellers won’t believe it.

You cannot ever understand the extent of timber frame repairs required until you can investigate expose all four faces of the timber.

Survey with a conservation structural framer.

You say other things are a real priority, but if you have a timber building that’s been treated as you say, this is the biggest expense and upheaval in the restoration process. Bar none.

 

[Kearn]

Hi,

We're in the process of buying a listed building and the structural survey has revealed quite a few things that have been done in the past that have unlikely had consent granted - e.g. cast iron guttering replaced with plastic guttering, some of the wall timbers where they have rotten have been covered with wood panels painted black, in one instance it appears a concrete beam (painted black) has been used to replace rotten wood, and cement has been used to fill over rotten timbers (again painted black). Also the timbers have been painted with plastic black paint and apparently that needs to be removed to let them breathe.

We're getting a quote to have the repairs done properly and might have to renegotiate our offer price, however if the vendor doesn't budge we might take on the property and not be able to afford the repairs for some time, so what happens in the meantime? It would appear these "repairs" were done many years ago and the current owners have not been given an enforcement order to correct them (the conservation officer probably is not aware anyway) but what is the likely scenario if we buy the place and we make the conservation officer aware of these issues? Will they slap us with an enforcement issue to get it done straight away? There's lots of other stuff to be done on the house (heating, electrics, roof, etc) that are a real priority to make it liveable...

Does anyone have any experience of this situation and what happened in your case?

Many thanks!

Also, Photos / listing / building details would help ….

 

[gilesforrest]

Hi - this is the worst part of it

 

[ptchimes]

Hi,

We're in the process of buying a listed building and the structural survey has revealed quite a few things that have been done in the past that have unlikely had consent granted - e.g. cast iron guttering replaced with plastic guttering, some of the wall timbers where they have rotten have been covered with wood panels painted black, in one instance it appears a concrete beam (painted black) has been used to replace rotten wood, and cement has been used to fill over rotten timbers (again painted black). Also the timbers have been painted with plastic black paint and apparently that needs to be removed to let them breathe.

We're getting a quote to have the repairs done properly and might have to renegotiate our offer price, however if the vendor doesn't budge we might take on the property and not be able to afford the repairs for some time, so what happens in the meantime? It would appear these "repairs" were done many years ago and the current owners have not been given an enforcement order to correct them (the conservation officer probably is not aware anyway) but what is the likely scenario if we buy the place and we make the conservation officer aware of these issues? Will they slap us with an enforcement issue to get it done straight away? There's lots of other stuff to be done on the house (heating, electrics, roof, etc) that are a real priority to make it liveable...

Does anyone have any experience of this situation and what happened in your case?

Many thanks!

It sounds like there will be quite a bit of investment to bring the property back to the required standard so it is definitely worth renegotiating the price. I am sure that the vendor will be happy to move because if you are thinking of speaking to the Conservation Officer about the property, they could end up footing the full cost themselves anyway. Of course, that is only if you were to make that call before buying and not afterwards!

It is a gamble contacting the Conservation Officer after purchasing because whilst I would expect that you would be given time to undertake any work yourself, you may feel that you are not given enough time. Material and labour costs are rising quickly and you are likely to find that by the time you get permission to undertake the replacement, the bill will have increased. I do know that the cost of any cast iron rainwater goods will rise come April 2025.

You may also find yourself in a situation whereby your resources are allocated to pleasing the Conservation Officer rather than undertaking the heating, electrics and roof that are needed to make it livable.

 

[Flyfisher]

Seems to me that these renovation projects are so dependent on the conservation officer. We've probably all heard horror stories about intransigent COs but my personal experience (albeit of just one!) is that they can be knowledgable, pragmatic and very helpful. I'm not sure that's particularly helpful in this case but I'm always amazed at how these sort of discussions go. Someone new to old buildings is considering buying such a property in need of significant repairs, doesn't really know how to go about them in detail (not a criticism - we all start that way!), asks relevant 'what-if' questions and receives various 'do this, do that, could be, probably, maybe' answers, all of them well-meaning and all of them based on slightly different experiences, but the one thing they rarely are is definitive. Because they can't be. There's usually a lack of information and, as Kearn, has rightly pointed out, the extent of damage to a timber frame cannot be wholly determined from a purely external examination. Add to all that what the CO might or might not think about the whole thing and what they might or might not allow and the whole discussion can become more confusing than helpful.

In my view, the best way to cut through all this confusion is to contact the relevant CO before committing to take on the property and discuss your plans for the property - the repairs required and the changes you'd like to make. If the CO is well-experienced in such matters they may be able to offer expert advice themselves. If not, they will certainly know of various useful contacts, but just talking with the CO will give you a feeling for how easy (or difficult) it is going to be to deal with them. Of course, it's possible the CO won't meet with a prospective buyer (we've had that on here before now) or that they'll charge for any visits or meetings, but that's also indicative of how the relationship will work if the property is purchased. Even bad news can be useful in terms of assessing the risk of a new project. After that, have the property surveyed by a professional who specialises in old properties and, importantly, be there when they carry out their survey because their reports tend to be more pessimistic than the reality (because of their liability) but by being present at the time they can verbally give a more pragmatic assessment.

I say all that because that's exactly what I did and the CO turned out to be amazingly practical and supportive of my plans for the G2* property, which involved some extensive repairs and changes and four LBC applications, all of which were granted first time. That's not to say that I had carte blanche to do anything I wanted, but whenever the CO was not entirely happy with a proposed alteration, he always managed to suggest an acceptable alternative. In truth, his suggestions were often better than mine! A CO is there to protect listed buildings, but this does not simply mean preventing any changes to it and there is (or should be) recognition that if sensitive changes are not allowed then no one will want to take them on, and nothing decays faster than an unoccupied building.

In short, if you can engage the help and support of the CO then any project will benefit from both parties pulling in (basically) the same direction, rather than having to go into battle over every little detail. If, for whatever reason, you can't get the support of the CO then that, in itself, might be an indication of the possible difficulties ahead.

 

[Robola]

It sounds like there will be quite a bit of investment to bring the property back to the required standard so it is definitely worth renegotiating the price. I am sure that the vendor will be happy to move because if you are thinking of speaking to the Conservation Officer about the property, they could end up footing the full cost themselves anyway. Of course, that is only if you were to make that call before buying and not afterwards!

It is a gamble contacting the Conservation Officer after purchasing because whilst I would expect that you would be given time to undertake any work yourself, you may feel that you are not given enough time. Material and labour costs are rising quickly and you are likely to find that by the time you get permission to undertake the replacement, the bill will have increased. I do know that the cost of any cast iron rainwater goods will rise come April 2025.

You may also find yourself in a situation whereby your resources are allocated to pleasing the Conservation Officer rather than undertaking the heating, electrics and roof that are needed to make it livable.

I'm not sure threatening to shop the vendor to a CO is a constructive negotiation approach. If I was the seller I would be be unhappy about that, to say the least.

 

[jamest]

A lot has been done to that house. It looks as if the ground floor walls have been rebuilt in brick to replace what was once a timber frame to leave the framing partially 'intact' only on the first floor. This is what was done to my current house. Very little of the original frame of my house remains at ground floor level except at the gable ends. Where ground floor frame members do remain along the front and back of my house (there are a couple), they are not doing anything except sitting in the wall (no structural significance any more). All this was done prior to listing.

It looks as if something similar is true in your photo 46: that stud at ground floor level is not doing anything - if it rotted away completely it wouldn't matter from a structural point of view. What does your listing say? My listing actually states that the 'framing' at ground floor level at the front of the house has been 'painted in' - i.e. is sham framing painted onto the brick. It seems likely that the ground floor work in your place was done prior to listing.

What would bother me is the horizontal beam at first floor ceiling level (circled in photo 43) - I've seen these called girding beams - it looks to be a sham beam (brick with cement over), again this is likely to have been done a long while ago (by the looks of it), probably prior to listing (again, may say so in the listing text). This means that the first floor studs aren't attached to anything at their base. This is not structurally sound, especially if they are rotting at the base as well. Ideally the girding beam needs replacing and the studs jointed into it. This is a massive job - very disruptive and very expensive. In my house, the girding beam is intact and so the upper floor is structurally stable - it's as if the plinth has been built up from the ground to ceiling level to deal with the rot in ground floor timbers, so my girding beam is the new sole plate. In the house in your photos, the absence of the girding beam is potentially a real problem. I wouldn't buy it.

 

[jamest]

Another thing is perhaps worth noting. In photo 45 you can see that the ground floor stud/post is directly below the first floor stud and both would have originally been jointed into the girding beam (or else it's one long continuous post from wall plate to sole plate). Either way, there may be an internal ceiling beam that was once jointed into the girding beam (or the long post if that's what it is) at the cross point. Is that the case now? If it is, how is that ceiling beam fixed and supported? If it's supported by that ground floor stud/post, then it would have a structural role and may also need 'fixing'.

 

[Cubist]

A great deal depends on when the property was listed, how detailed and thorough the listing may be, and when any alterations were made and whether appropriate records have been kept by the authorities to allow proper attribution. These can and frequently are a minefield for the owner and big opportunities for the lawyers on all sides of any dispute. Given that the timber frame has seen radical interventions in the past - notably a complete absence of a sole plate and the first foot or so of all the posts - to which further insults in the shape of concrete fillers and phoney cladding and paint jobs, exacerbated by the IceBerg Maxim, suggest to me that - This is a Nikes Moment!

Get your running shoes on and run like hell if you're not buying it for the loose change in your pocket!

 

[mardinor]

Choice 1: inform the CO and incur the wrath of the owner, who is likely to pull out of the sale|
Choice 2: don't inform the CO and take on criminal and financial liability for any unauthorised changes
Choice 3: pick another house

Not much of a choice really

 

[gilesforrest]

Thanks all for the comments so far. As many have already pointed out this house has undergone a number of changes - was three 15th/16th C cottages combined into a house and extended in the 19th Century so the front looks 15th C and the back 19th!. Here's the listing description:

House, now divided. Late C16, extended in C17 and restored in C19 and C20. Timber framed on snecked sandstone rubble plinth with whitewashed roughcast infilling above and plain tiled roofs. Whitewashed brick and tile hanging in fishscale pattern on rear wing. Two storeys with large attics in gables. First floor jettied on right end and large corbelled ridge stacks to left and right of centre. Large through-eaves gable to left with moulded bargeboards, two 4-light diamond pane leaded casement windows on the first floor and one 4-light "cross" window below. Two 2-light under-eaves casements and one 3- light "cross" window to ground floor to right of gable. Large gable to left of centre with decorative half-circle framing and six 2-light diamond-pane casements in two rows of three, on the first floor. Two gabled dormers to right, the left hand one with two single light windows over four small single light windows. Right hand gable with two rows of four lights, two 4-light "cross" windows below. Ribbed door to ground floor of large gable to left of centre with shouldered surround and flanking windows. Flat hood over on metal scroll brackets. Left hand return front - Decorative framing and small square bay to ground floor. Wing at right angles to rear with plain casement fenestration.

Not sure if that changes anything about structural integrity but that might place the changes described above to be 19th C rather than more recent.

 

[gilesforrest]

A lot has been done to that house. It looks as if the ground floor walls have been rebuilt in brick to replace what was once a timber frame to leave the framing partially 'intact' only on the first floor. This is what was done to my current house. Very little of the original frame of my house remains at ground floor level except at the gable ends. Where ground floor frame members do remain along the front and back of my house (there are a couple), they are not doing anything except sitting in the wall (no structural significance any more). All this was done prior to listing.

It looks as if something similar is true in your photo 46: that stud at ground floor level is not doing anything - if it rotted away completely it wouldn't matter from a structural point of view. What does your listing say? My listing actually states that the 'framing' at ground floor level at the front of the house has been 'painted in' - i.e. is sham framing painted onto the brick. It seems likely that the ground floor work in your place was done prior to listing.

What would bother me is the horizontal beam at first floor ceiling level (circled in photo 43) - I've seen these called girding beams - it looks to be a sham beam (brick with cement over), again this is likely to have been done a long while ago (by the looks of it), probably prior to listing (again, may say so in the listing text). This means that the first floor studs aren't attached to anything at their base. This is not structurally sound, especially if they are rotting at the base as well. Ideally the girding beam needs replacing and the studs jointed into it. This is a massive job - very disruptive and very expensive. In my house, the girding beam is intact and so the upper floor is structurally stable - it's as if the plinth has been built up from the ground to ceiling level to deal with the rot in ground floor timbers, so my girding beam is the new sole plate. In the house in your photos, the absence of the girding beam is potentially a real problem. I wouldn't buy it.

I've just been around the house and had another look - the horizontal beam appears to be the width of the wall and is tied to the ceiling beams of the room inside i.e. it's not brick, It appears at some point it's degraded and they've used cement to fill it out in line with the wall. I couldn't see any evidence or movement or damp from the inside (then again I'm not an expert) - but the structural surveyor was comfortable there's nothing of concern structurally with the house (apart from some chimneys requiring reporting) - just that patching up hadn't been done with the correct materials

 

[Cubist]

Sorry to appear so cynical but....no, the new data adds nothing regarding the structural integrity. The fact that some form of cement/concrete has been used both externally and internally to effect a repair to the 'girt' increases the worry. That timber has clearly suffered from a major shake - a large and deep crack along its grain that, in this case, penetrated to its full width.This would have allowed moisture penetration from both external and internal sources to then induce rot. The visible damage and the repairs to the girt also strongly suggest that it no longer contributes to the structural integrity of the house. Any pressures on the timber posts to either side of the girt, say as a result of roof spread under a snow load, could possibly induce a collapse of much of that elevation. If you plan to move ahead I would urge you to seek the opinion of a timber frame specialist. Your surveyor does not appear to have appreciated or discussed this issue - nor the risk that the damage you can see could be less than 10% of its full extent.

 

[Flyfisher]

Choice 1: inform the CO and incur the wrath of the owner, who is likely to pull out of the sale|
Choice 2: don't inform the CO and take on criminal and financial liability for any unauthorised changes
Choice 3: pick another house

Not much of a choice really

Regarding Choice 1, that's a fair point. To clarify my previous advice to discuss plans for the property with the CO prior to purchase, the 'wrath of the owner' wasn't really an issue as the poor condition of the house was due entirely to simple neglect rather than any potentially illegal and/or inappropriate repairs or alterations. Thus, there was no question of anyone incurring liability, but I accept that might not always be the case, making the whole process somewhat 'delicate'.

As for Choice 2, my understanding is that a buyer cannot be held criminally liable for anything done by a previous owner, though they can certainly be liable for the costs of reversing things, should any enforcement action be taken. I've heard that indemnity insurance is a possibility in such circumstances, though I've no idea of the details or how it would work in practice. I'd expect the conveyancing solicitor to be able to advise.

 

[jamest]

I suppose it's somewhat reassuring to know that the girding beam is (in part at least) still there - it just looked to me as if it mightn't be from the pictures. In any case, I would reiterate what Cubist said. The surveyor's structural comments are probably based on the absence of any signs of movement like cracks in the render externally, cracks in the plaster internally or roof spread. As Cubist suggests, the opinion of a heritage timber framer who has dealt with similar houses before would be the person to have take a look before taking on such a house. You'd also want to poke into and knock on that girding beam to see how sound it is and that mightn't be easy with all that cement slathered over it.

There's a place near me that had a seriously rotted tie beam that had been 'repaired' with cement in a similar way. Peter Ward made an interesting video about it a few years ago - it's his Henley Ice Cream shop video on YouTube. Although the tie beam was in a dreadful state, it wasn't completely rotted, which made it possible to repair it with a facing beam, which is less disruptive and expensive than complete replacement- that could be the case for your place too, if you're lucky. Worth watching that video.

 

[jamest]

I just checked the video and it's the original survey of the shop that's most instructive. It's this one:

 

[gilesforrest]

Excellent, thank you

 

[Kearn]

Seems to me that these renovation projects are so dependent on the conservation officer. We've probably all heard horror stories about intransigent COs but my personal experience (albeit of just one!) is that they can be knowledgable, pragmatic and very helpful. I'm not sure that's particularly helpful in this case but I'm always amazed at how these sort of discussions go. Someone new to old buildings is considering buying such a property in need of significant repairs, doesn't really know how to go about them in detail (not a criticism - we all start that way!), asks relevant 'what-if' questions and receives various 'do this, do that, could be, probably, maybe' answers, all of them well-meaning and all of them based on slightly different experiences, but the one thing they rarely are is definitive. Because they can't be. There's usually a lack of information and, as Kearn, has rightly pointed out, the extent of damage to a timber frame cannot be wholly determined from a purely external examination. Add to all that what the CO might or might not think about the whole thing and what they might or might not allow and the whole discussion can become more confusing than helpful.

In my view, the best way to cut through all this confusion is to contact the relevant CO before committing to take on the property and discuss your plans for the property - the repairs required and the changes you'd like to make. If the CO is well-experienced in such matters they may be able to offer expert advice themselves. If not, they will certainly know of various useful contacts, but just talking with the CO will give you a feeling for how easy (or difficult) it is going to be to deal with them. Of course, it's possible the CO won't meet with a prospective buyer (we've had that on here before now) or that they'll charge for any visits or meetings, but that's also indicative of how the relationship will work if the property is purchased. Even bad news can be useful in terms of assessing the risk of a new project. After that, have the property surveyed by a professional who specialises in old properties and, importantly, be there when they carry out their survey because their reports tend to be more pessimistic than the reality (because of their liability) but by being present at the time they can verbally give a more pragmatic assessment.

I say all that because that's exactly what I did and the CO turned out to be amazingly practical and supportive of my plans for the G2* property, which involved some extensive repairs and changes and four LBC applications, all of which were granted first time. That's not to say that I had carte blanche to do anything I wanted, but whenever the CO was not entirely happy with a proposed alteration, he always managed to suggest an acceptable alternative. In truth, his suggestions were often better than mine! A CO is there to protect listed buildings, but this does not simply mean preventing any changes to it and there is (or should be) recognition that if sensitive changes are not allowed then no one will want to take them on, and nothing decays faster than an unoccupied building.

In short, if you can engage the help and support of the CO then any project will benefit from both parties pulling in (basically) the same direction, rather than having to go into battle over every little detail. If, for whatever reason, you can't get the support of the CO then that, in itself, might be an indication of the possible difficulties ahead.

I think picking up the phone to chat to a CO is a distant memory now sadly. But you’re perfectly entitled to submit a paid for pre-app for any property, regardless if you own it, same as LBC/PP.
we did this with the potential previous project before our current one, which I eventually pulled out of for many reasons.
CO there wasn’t making great noises for things that had to be done for the benefit of an elm framed farmhouse. Plus the existing owner was a confusing blend of crazy / alcoholic / forgetful / sneaky and there were just too many skeletons! So we just stopped digging.
Both the agent and seller didn’t actually seem to acknowledge that we had withdrawn our offer and no longer interested - agent asking what it would take to still purchase, and seller passing on increasingly reduced purchase prices. Long story short, we definitely dodged a bullet as that one had moved from asset to liability, regardless of how far along the process we had got, head overruled heart for once. Unlike the current project….!

 

[Kearn]

This means that the first floor studs aren't attached to anything at their base. This is not structurally sound, especially if they are rotting at the base as well. Ideally the girding beam needs replacing and the studs jointed into it.

this would assume that there’s any structural integrity left in studs encased in cement pebbledash, coated in white emulsion, trapping rain underneath it and against the timber.