New windows for a grade 2 cottage

[Nemesis]

I think there is a lot of help can be given, but maybe not in public.

 

[middi]

I don't quite understand Nem, if, as it appears, David has made a mistake by misenterpreting the planning consent , I cannot see what help, public or otherwise, can be offered.

Only the planning authorities can help him the way I see it.

Admittedly we may all be reading between the lines here.

 

[Nemesis]

I am not reading between the lines, but I think David and I will work out something in a less public manner.

 

[middi]

Good on you.

It would be nice to know what exactly happened and what is ( or will be) the outcome .

Good luck.

 

[Penners]

who is the ultimate authority that a listed building owner can turn to when things go wrong or become confused? If building control turns up and says that your nice new single-glazed windows do not meet the building regs, is it always the case that the LBC gives an automatic exemption from their authority?

Surely the right way around this potential problem is to apply for LBC and BRC both at the same time - with the plans showing the windows that your CO will approve. Then, if/when you get both consents, there is no risk of either department restrospectively saying, "Oi - you can't do that."

 

[middi]

Normally an architect would( or should), from the outset, apply for all necessary consents with detailed drawings.

Most of the problems usually happen when there is no architect engaged to oversee the works. An architect is well aware of the "ropes". The same cannot be said if the projects are self-managed with sporadic, barely adequate, drawings.

I don't think we are clear as to how David has approached the initial stages of his development.

 

[DJN]

In March 2007 I approached CO with a view to purchase a cottage with G2 status and change of use already granted.

The property had Had all external historical interest removed, whith shp window at the front with Double glazed door.
Through 3 months of consultation with the CO and copies of examples and the final proposal we agreed on the application; which also whent in for his review and then incorporated comments.

I sent the final application in - in June 2007, and CO rejected it; the saga went on.

Too many further correspondence later and method statement on how I was to proceed went in. I received Consent from Planning. I then went ahead after the head Planner phoned me up to state the permission had been granted, and I stated I would order the windows.
And the only correspondence and visits I received after consent was the BCO. Hence the error.
Now kick me if I’m wrong, but is all this CO supposed to be discretionary.

As the emphasis of control is on protecting the external appearance of a building and the affect of alterations on the character of the area; as the shop front had no historic features and modern materials on the front bricked areas. The matter of putting like for like or window repairs was not an option.
The building is to have its existing concrete render removed and the out side timbers treated and repaired, followed by a natural a lime render on the infill and dark wood stained windows.

 

[Nemesis]

As the emphasis of control is on protecting the external appearance of a building and the affect of alterations on the character of the area

Well it all sounds a bit of a shambles, but that's not the case at all. Listing doesn't only cover the exterior, it covers the whole building. Alterations which change the character of a building require Listed Building Consent. It's not discretionary.

Whether or not this one is actually worthy of its listed status is is a moot point, but as it is...

 

[Moo]

Alterations which change the character of a building require Listed Building Consent. It's not discretionary.

- even if the character (and aesthetic appeal) of a building has been ruined by a pre-listing alteration.

Gareth will know the building in St Giles Street in Norwich which had the original ground-floor windows replaced with some that completely destroyed the regular pattern of the facade when it was used as offices. I understand that, because it was listed after the event, when it was converted into flats the new owner wanted to reinstate the original windows but wasn't allowed to.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Alterations which change the character of a building require Listed Building Consent. It's not discretionary.

- even if the character (and aesthetic appeal) of a building has been ruined by a pre-listing alteration.

Gareth will know the building in St Giles Street in Norwich which had the original ground-floor windows replaced with some that completely destroyed the regular pattern of the facade when it was used as offices. I understand that, because it was listed after the event, when it was converted into flats the new owner wanted to reinstate the original windows but wasn't allowed to.

That'll have been down to the individual local authority's interpretation of the guidance (I'd probably have felt differently about that one).

Looking on Images of England, David Norris' cottage adjoins several others that have had horrible things done to them in the past and frankly they won't physically survive under their cement render (permitted or not) for much longer.

 

[Nemesis]

Well, possibly when David renders his in lime they may take some interest - although there again they'll probably just think it all quite odd.

 

[Moo]

That'll have been down to the individual local authority's interpretation of the guidance (I'd probably have felt differently about that one).

Gareth - does that mean that some future application could meet with approval? It would be comforting to think that there's still hope!

 

[DJN]

So as for Statutory Requirements for Energy Conservation:

All development is regulated under the Building Regulations. Part L 'The Conservation of Fuel and Power' (or Part J of the Scottish Building Regulations) applies strict limitations on the heat loss permissible from new buildings, from extensions where the floor area proposed exceeds 10m², and in some cases from existing buildings affected by alterations.
Part L recognises the need to conserve historic buildings (not just listed buildings):
“The aim should be to improve energy efficiency where and to the extent that it is practically possible, always provided that the work does not prejudice the character of the historic building, or increase the risk of long-term deterioration

So if the building is developed sympathetically with window systems fitted with glazing bars aligned above the spacer on each side with a light defracting baffle (duel Double leading reproduction) of the sealed glazing unit, and follow the profile avoiding the concave/convex double reflection.

And the rest of the house is 15mm Double glazed.

Why would this not an acceptable, as the only reason the CO stated they are unacceptable was I told him they conform to Section L Building regs.

 

[Nemesis]

Ah - well part L can be exempted for listed buildings.

What exactly was the CO's objection?

 

[Penners]

I know this is a non sequitur, but it occurs to me that anyone who was considering buying a listed building, if they read this thread first, would run like hell in the opposite direction!

One could, of course, argue that that's not a bad thing. It would discourage people who take a cavalier attitude to conservation. But - boy oh boy - the apparent complications....!

In truth, my own experience, and I suspect that of many of you, is that the system is not as tangled as it appears here. Yes, it needs some careful navigation, but above all it requires the right attitude on the part of the applicant.

And, as we have discussed many times before, it just cannot be standardised. Listed buildings embody far too many variables for that.

 

[GK]

Regarding applying for Building Regs and LBC at the same time (Penners) it would be possible but a fee would be payable for the building control part.

I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread that planning approval and listed building consent aren't the same. For an internal change, listed building consent (and building regs if applicable) would be sufficient, but for something that affects the exterior, planning may come in as well.

I wonder if the OP in this thread got planning approval for the windows ("I received Consent from Planning") but didn't get lbc. Planning, conservation, different departments, different criteria, they don't always talk to each other. Then there's building regs.

 

[Nemesis]

I do know a bit more about it, but that's up to David to post. It does seem he was told to go ahead by the Chief Planning Officer. I hope he has the correspondence still, as it is possible this could be taken to the Ombudsman.

However, in a case where it is totally new work, probably no idea what was removed originally to make the shop, I suppose it's a matter of interpretation if the windows are single glazed and speculative restoration, or DG and modern ones (although I dislike the sticky on fake leading, I have to say, the windows are simple and timber).

I thought the Parish Council remarks (which have no legal standing) about green oak and infill maybe not the thing to do either, although possibly something like hemcrete blocks would have been a little 'greener' than concrete.

 

[DJN]

Regarding applying for Building Regs and LBC at the same time (Penners) it would be possible but a fee would be payable for the building control part.

I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread that planning approval and listed building consent aren't the same. For an internal change, listed building consent (and building regs if applicable) would be sufficient, but for something that affects the exterior, planning may come in as well.

I wonder if the OP in this thread got planning approval for the windows ("I received Consent from Planning") but didn't get lbc. Planning, conservation, different departments, different criteria, they don't always talk to each other. Then there's building regs.

GK

In reply to above Conservation Planning Consent was required, and also building Regulations. Fee required for the latter.

In short the CO and Planning department have not really excelled themselves. Which may be as a result of my complain!

 

[Nemesis]

It's Listed Building Consent - and really no work should start without it.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

In reply to above Conservation Planning Consent was required,

Sorry David, "Conservation Planning Consent" was not required, as there's no such thing.

Listed Building Consent is what you mean.

This is why so many of us are finding it hard to understand what the problem is.