Replacing items "Like for like"

[MatthewC]

This is interesting regarding the general understanding of what "listed" means: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-40826095.

Even a public body like BT (OK, I know they are privatised) seemed to think that they could replace it with a modern one as the company said it did not replace damaged kiosks "like for like"" and also they never replaced damaged red boxes as they were "too expensive to maintain". Curiously the effect of listing is not mentioned in the article, but I bet it is the thing that actually caused them to relent, rather than the public opinion as quoted.

I have just submitted a complaint about an old limestone wall (in the town centre conservation area near me) which has been demolished - it's about 10 metres, 2.5 metres high and about 0.6m thick. I bet they think they can rebuild that in a different style without permission.

 

[Minkeycat]

Re the wall you complained about...we live in a listed house in a Conservation Area. A neighbour simply removed the old stone wall that separated or land from his a few years ago. No permission, nothing. Just levelled it and took the stone for his own use one afternoon while we were out. We contacted the conservation officer to ask what was going on because he'd been on site. He was on holiday and his colleague told us that if a wall has been removed in a CA, WE must put it back "Like for Like" which would cost us £7,000. It took over a year of arguing this and we escalated to the head of planning, our MP (utterly useless) and the area planning officer. Eventually, the planners concluded that the wall that separated two listed properties in a CA wasn't t actually in the curtilage of any property so we wouldn't need permission to reinstate whatever we like so it's just a stressful ongoing issue that we don't want and never asked for with the neighbour now. Good luck with your complaint. I hope your council are more reasonable than ours.

 

[MatthewC]

Eventually, the planners concluded that the wall that separated two listed properties in a CA wasn't actually in the curtilage of any property

That sounds like an official lie to save them having to do anything. As far as I am aware the curtilage MUST include the external dividing wall between two listed properties.

Happily the wall that I have complained about does not affect me except as an interested council tax payer who would like to see them enforce some of the flagrant breaches of the law in regard to old buildings. Their approach is to enforce things strictly on those who apply for permission (as I did), but generally ignore those who themselves ignore the law.

 

[Flyfisher]

Their approach is to enforce things strictly on those who apply for permission (as I did), but generally ignore those who themselves ignore the law.

Yes, disappointing isn't it? Mrs FF is a parish councillor and an ongoing issue for a couple of years now has been a number of illegal signs advertising a cafe on a road into our village. The cafe owners have refused to remove them, indeed have replaced them when they have been removed, despite both the PC and DC having written to them a number of times threatening legal action. However, the district councillor who attends the PC meetings has told the PC that the DC has to carefully appraise potential legal action to 'ensure the correct and effective use of public money' (however they decide that!) and it seems that these unsightly signs don't meet their criteria. So nothing has been done and the cafe owners know that nothing will be done so the signs remain.

Without effective enforcement what is the point of laws in the first place? Seems that they only apply to the law-abiding. :evil: