not a pastiche, but must be in keeping?

[Anonymous]

This may turn into a rant, which I apologise for in advance, but I hope it's because I am feeling very passionate about this. This message is to do with Conservation Officers mainly and if any of them read this I would be delighted to hear your viewpoint, or those of any other people who have had a meeting with a CO regarding extending a listed building. Why are COs unable to actually help? Why instead do they pre-varicate and generally prove absolutely unhelpful? Where is the conversation about what is acceptable and what isn't? Why are some parts of an extension limited by local policy, but others contradicted by it, e.g.; no thatch on new extension (use slate), but ok for stone to match original fabric? And most important of all, why do they stick to this arbitrary date in time, in our case only about 20 years ago, on which hinges all future development of the building. Surely buildings are growing organic things in which we should be adding to and loving, not pickling like a museum piece.
On a slightly different point has anyone thought of using the Human Rights Act to challenge a CO's decision, since in our case they are imposing a sub standard living condition?

yours confused F Kafka

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry to be nosey (well not really but it sounds more polite if I say that), but what exactly is your dispute with the CO?

 

[Anonymous]

We're not all like that.
Tell your story, rather than ranting, and perhaps you'll get some help.

 

[Anonymous]

"On a slightly different point has anyone thought of using the Human Rights Act to challenge a CO's decision, since in our case they are imposing a sub standard living condition?"

I assume you've not been allowed to do some stupid modernising?

Human Rights Act allows a balance to be struck (note, a *balance*, not "giving in to the householders whims") between that Act and other legislation. It isn't a human right to adopt a particular solution to a historic building problem just because you want to do it one way and the interests of the buildong would be better served by doing it another.

So, what's your problem, exactly?

 

[Anonymous]

Of course, it could be that he's got one of the substandard COs that do exist and taint the reputation of all the good ones. But I agree - it would be nice to know a bit more.

 

[Anonymous]

does the c.o have a post graduate diploma specialising in building conservation and/or a member of the institute of historic buildings?

 

[Anonymous]

Eddy, you're ranting all over the place at the moment! Why not do as had been suggested several times, and tell us exactly the nature of your complaint about your CO. What have you been refused consent to do?

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know. Is there mandatory qualifications/ training they must have?

 

[Anonymous]

No. No mandatory qualifications or training. Sometimes (especially in local authorities with relatively few listed buildings and/or a complete lack of interest in them) it's just the tea boy, or at least, one of the planning staff who happens to be vaguely interested in old stuff.

It's a personal view which may upset some others who post here, but I'm not sure that paper qualifications make anyone a better (or worse) CO, they're just something that says "Mr X has jumped through these hoops at some point in his life". Although I do have paper qualifications in a closely related field, I've never thought of them as a substitue for enthusiasm and experience, and I know some very good COs who've never taken an exam in conservation in their lives.

One reason, I suspect, that I'm at the "flexible" end of the scale is that my own background is as an architect in private practice and I have seen a fair few examples of excessive CO theory-over-reality stupidity from the "other side".

I do worry about the increasing numbers of people who go straight into the job from college, with a degree in "heritage management" or some such, and assume from day one that they know all there is to know (and lack the experience ever to know better). I suspect that requiring a specific qualification or training might make that situation worse rather than better.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, there is a tyrany of qualification. I have loads of paper qualifications in stuff I never use and no qualifications is stuff I use every day and that earns me a living.

 

[Anonymous]

hear hear

 

[Anonymous]

A good answer Gareth, you do seem to have the ideal background. The current crop of CO's seem to be middle-class careerists who spent their university holidays touring Europe instead of working on building sites getting an insight into the construction industry. The whole field is open to abuse out of ignorance rather than malice which, when present, is really only a form of defence. Some of the CO decisions I've been involved in (as a tradesman) have been mind-blowingly stupid but, and there's a lesson here, have invariably been reversed when challenged with enough conviction; and I'm not just talking about CO's refusal here but often when permission has been granted for what I knew to be inappropriate alteration or replacement. Where the tradesman is concerned it's not always about money, but where COs are concerned it's always about pride - and professional jealousy.