Payment for conservation advice

[El Greyo]

Hello all

Now our local authority has never been very responsive to requests for advice from the conservation officers and a two-way conversation was pretty much impossible. Well now they charge for the privilege: £60 to respond in writing to a specific written query and £130 if you want them to come out on a site visit. Application for listed building consent is still free; I expect that that is not at the discretion of individual local authorities.

I did think that this might be an inevitable consequence of cuts but it will certainly throw up problems and may well be counterproductive. I can see that, as application for consent is free, people will simply apply for consent for everything when sometimes it's not needed. I’ve also always thought that being able to talk to COs (which has never really been possible or practical in our authority) would actually help save time for both homeowner and CO. A bit of advice from a CO saying something like ‘Yes, you need to apply for consent and I’d advise doing x and y but definitely don’t do z’ would speed the application immensely.

Another problem I foresee is that it’s not always clear at the start what the right questions are to ask. In this procedure it seems to be a case of: write a very specific question; pay money; receive reply; realise that, in light of the answer, you wished you’d asked a different question. So repeat until you run out of money. Being able to actually have a discussion is usually much more productive.

But, well, we’ll have to work with it I suppose. Perhaps we shouldn’t expect that free advice (no matter how poor it was before) could be sustained. It’s sad though and will make it harder for people like us who want to look after their listed property, maintain it in the most sympathetic way possible and generally do the right thing.

 

[MdB]

Our planning department has gone down exactly the same route. You can't now go in with rough plans and get a feel if it is acceptable or not. There is now a £ price to everything.

 

[MatthewC]

I have mentioned before the issues I had with my council's conservation department (and I'm not too far from you, El Greyo). We had a face to face meeting with a CO, accepted suggestions, applied for precisely what was suggested and it got turned down! I wonder what the situation would be if we had actually paid for that advice and received it in writing? I'm sure they would have covered the letter with caveats, but I reckon that turning it down would almost count as taking my money under false pretences.

 

[d49xc]

My employer (& me) used to get this problem in engineering when one of our products was being offered for re-sale in the secondhand market.
Generally we were always helpful with advice on suitability and missing paperwork copies/test results all basically for free.

but.....as ever some started to take the piss with endless requests for sometimes irrelevant data and we found ourselves doing an increasing amount of work for free and unlike a new sales there would probably not be much work in it for us other than than an inspection and supervision of the moving & new installation. Of course all this costed time for the design areas and my employer and diverted us from sales, new designs, development, systems improvements etc.

So we started charging for everything.
Sad to say the fault was not with those coming in with sensible requests for advice, it was those who couldn't be arsed to search out what they did have, or actually do some work themselves, or employ some consultants to get them on the right track whatever, or start to formulate their ideas and options and THEN come and have a talk/ask for advice. They just expected everyone else to do everything for them for free.

I guess the councils have likewise had enough!

 

[El Greyo]

We had a face to face meeting with a CO, accepted suggestions, applied for precisely what was suggested and it got turned down! I wonder what the situation would be if we had actually paid for that advice and received it in writing?

Yes, I wonder how that would have gone if you were paying. I suspect that they probably would now either only give definitive advice that they were very sure about or just give very general advice without a definitive answer. Did you actually get the advice in writing or was it only verbal?

 

[garnett]

Afternoon All.

My authority is just about to implement charging as well. We have had no objection from any of the local architects on the proviso that we respond within 3 weeks which we can do.

The most common call on my time as a conservation officer is when somebody is wanting to purchase a listed building and wants to know what they can or can't do. In the good old days, we would do our best to turn out, but less than 10% ever resulted in an application. Clearly we are spending public money and that is not a good use of a very scarce resource. We will charge £100 for a visit and a letter and do so in a time which is far shorter than the 6-8 weeks that an application for LBC takes.

I'd be interested to hear what people think about this.

Thanks

Garnett

 

[El Greyo]

Hello Garnett

When we bought our property I looked on the council website and it specifically said they would not answer queries from potential buyers of listed buildings. I think this is reasonable as I could imagine you would get huge number of enquiries, often from people who weren't really serious about buying.

 

[Moo]

While I appreciate the points made so far, I do think that it should be incumbent upon local authorities to provide some guidelines for prospective owners of listed (or just old) buildings. Things like "don't do anything irreversible without asking first", using breathable materials, useful sources of further information, either verbal or, more likely, written.
If they could all be fitted on to one side of an A4 sheet they could be provided free of charge; if not, a small fee to cover the cost of printing would not be unreasonable.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well I think it's appalling for government to pass laws imposing restrictions on certain properties and then charge their owners for the necessary services to deal with those restrictions. I'm probably just getting cranky in my old age but it seems to me that we pay ever-increasing amounts for ever-decreasing services.

To be clear, I'm not complaining about restrictions on listed properties but there is, to my mind, an implied 'contract' between the owners of historic properties and the nation. We (the owners) undertake to spend our time and (already taxed) money restoring/maintaining/preserving these important heritage assets and the government should uphold its part of the 'contract' by providing advice and assistance to those owners, if not financial support as well.

Besides, the cost of running a CO service must surely be miniscule compared to the amount spent by listed property owners and, in the absence of CO assistance, how many owners will just go ahead anyway and inadvertently cause irreparable damage to historic buildings?

I'm beginning to wonder why government doesn't just nationalise the entire population, take all our money and just hand us back some basic benefits to live on and tell us exactly how to live our lives. Even basic rate taxpayers have at least 50% of their income taken by the government (tax + NI + VAT) and that's without counting all the additional indirect taxes and duties we have to pay. That's the equivalent of working almost three days every week directly for the government - more for higher rate taxpayers! No wonder everyone looks forwards to fridays, because that's the day they finally get to keep some money for themselves!

I despair!

 

[Nigel Watts]

I havn't seen the statistics, but I would be prepared to bet that listed domestic dwellings are much more common at the top end of the price spectrum than at the bottom. In general therefore, if someone can afford to buy a listed building they can also afford to spend a few hundred pounds on getting advice from their local conservation office. I am also not convinced by the argument that a small fee will encourage more people to break the law by not seeking permission for work which requires it. The reason people dont seek permission is either because they are ignorant of the law or because they are too arrogant to obey it; £100 or so is unlikely to cause someone to flip from being an responsible citizen to an irresponsible one.

 

[robgil]

Just dont tell or ask them anmything. :lol:
Spend your money on your house.

 

[LadyArowana]

Just dont tell or ask them anmything. :lol:
Spend your money on your house.

I thought that policy was something related to being gay and serving in the US military, or maybe I am confused.

 

[robgil]

Just dont tell or ask them anmything. :lol:
Spend your money on your house.

I thought that policy was something related to being gay and serving in the US military, or maybe I am confused.

I thought gay tendencies was a requirement if you wanted to join the US military? :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

I havn't seen the statistics, but I would be prepared to bet that listed domestic dwellings are much more common at the top end of the price spectrum than at the bottom. In general therefore, if someone can afford to buy a listed building they can also afford to spend a few hundred pounds on getting advice from their local conservation office. I am also not convinced by the argument that a small fee will encourage more people to break the law by not seeking permission for work which requires it. The reason people dont seek permission is either because they are ignorant of the law or because they are too arrogant to obey it; £100 or so is unlikely to cause someone to flip from being an responsible citizen to an irresponsible one.

Well, I'd be prepared to bet that charging for COs would result in fewer visits, perhaps to the point where councils can no longer justify their full-time employment, leading to more subcontracting and higher prices and thus fewer visits.

But it's also a question of fairness. The nation has 'requisitioned' our listed homes because they are deemed to be valuable heritage assets, which is fine, yet it is increasingly unwilling to give anything back in return for the increased inconvenience, which is not.

No wonder some houses mysteriously burn down and are replaced by VAT- free new-builds.

 

[sidd]

Like many decisions at this level, I doubt there is a strategy beyond:
1. Having council income trimmed
2. Deciding not to cut back on council staff
3. Increasing charges on whatever they possibly can by trial and error

Round these parts, I have seen the council behaving very self-destructively. Large increases in parking charges resulted in a catastrophic fall in parking revenues which hurt the council directly and many local businesses were mortally wounded by the drop in trade. Doh!

I can do my own plans and simply make applications at zero cost to me, and much larger cost to the council in administration.

But there are bigger questions about why the system exists. garnett is saying:

... less than 10% ever resulted in an application. Clearly we are spending public money and that is not a good use of a very scarce resource. We will charge £100 for a visit and a letter and do so in a time which is far shorter than the 6-8 weeks that an application for LBC takes.

As far as I can tell, COs are there to prevent unsympathetic changes to historic buildings, and that is a good thing. So if 90% of all enquiries about making significant modifications to historic buildings can be curtailed by a quick phone call or an unofficial visit, then I'd call that a resounding success, and a very efficient way of avoiding unnecessary applications which are a drain on householder and council resources (but a boon to architects). Similarly, a pre-purchase consultation should help filter out the sort of purchasers that aren't really up for the care that such a property requires.

Many people have tight budgets and are sorely tempted to go for cheaper modern materials, especially if no one will ever know what is behind the wallpaper, The listed planning regime already puts a major burden on traditionalist householders, both in terms of cost of materials & labour and in restricting the energy efficiency of the buildings (double glazing and solar panels being effectively outlawed). These extra charges just don't seem fair.

I totally get that they must receive far too many timewasting calls, and they want to save the cost of responding to them. But the sad thing is that the public sector is soooo un-commercial that they can't learn from how the private sector handles support. Typically if I want to contact a firm, I can choose between an instant phone call at a premium rate, which makes money for the company and discourages frivolous calls, or a free email, which is slower, and allows the company to answer at a time convenient to them. I'm sure a similar scheme could be done which allows people with time but not much money to get the advice for free, and gives a choice to those who can afford to pay.

I hope these councils have taken legal advice because my understanding is that if they are charging for advice, that they then contradict when rejecting an application, then they could be liable for the cost of the faulty advice, AND the cost of getting an architect to draw up the rejected application. And if they try to wriggle out of it with weasel words in the terms and conditions, it's off to the OFT, where unfair contracts get a grilling.

And if this measure results in fewer site visits to the country's listed properties, then the COs are being deprived of free experience and training.

 

[AMc]

My 2p - I see the job of the conservation officer to be guardian of the listed buildings in the area to help make sure that they are carefully and properly maintained and preserved for the future. To that end I don't see that the "customer" is the person seeking advice, the "customer" is the nation. To that end I would much prefer the CO to be paid for by the whole population and listed building owners to be given the advice and support they need to respect the buildings they hold in trust for future generations.

If you have to pay for advice then it will deter some people and those with the least money to spend are more likely to forgo this step and press on with cheap repairs that damage the building. I can also see that by charging for advice the number of people asking for advice will be reduced which may perhaps lead to a drop in the work load of COs - that might mean they can do "more" on each job and improve their service or it might mean that someone can weigh up the revenue from advice vs. the cost of the officers and make them redundant. Guess which I think is more likely?

A friend of mine was a vicar in Bath and he had hassle with listed building consent for replacing a storage shed next to a community centre he managed. He was quite aggrieved to have to spend charitable funds on application costs, professional advice and copious time to get permission when in most other places his shed would require no permission at all. He pointed out that although many listed buildings are 'higher end' a great deal of Bath has listings and many of the properties are occupied by people in low income groups.

A flat fee seems a little unjust, when I've employed experts (surveyors, structural engineers, heat loss assessors) their rates have been based around the time expended on the work.

It seems to me that it would be very simple to make the charging more equitable by making the service free to private owners/occupiers of domestic listed buildings and require charges for advice for professionals (developers, architects etc.) or advice to prospective purchasers.