Restoring an outbuilding that was demolished

[sidd]

Oops. I suspect that the previous owner knocked down his garage without permission, and put a terrace and pergola over the foundations.

The thing is, I'd like a garage in that spot, and the terrace and pergola have fallen to bits. I KNOW that all other things being equal, there's no way I would get permission to put a garage there (proximity to a boundary and a view that the CO likes).

But surely if the garage was removed illegally, then I have to reinstate it?

Can someone advise me?

Many thanks.

 

[Flyfisher]

Is the house listed, was the garage there when the house was listed, and do you have documentary evidence? If so, I'd say you're in a strong position for re-building it.

 

[sidd]

Yep. The house is listed. I think it is probable that the garage was there at that time, but you are right. I would have to do some work to date the change.

The CO has already vetoed what I thought was quite a sympathetic plan for a timber framed car port, which would have retained part of the view, so reinstating a full building would be my second choice. Maybe common sense will prevail if I can find some proof!

Thanks

 

[Flyfisher]

Is the garage mentioned in the listing description? Any chance of the previous owner having any photos?

 

[sidd]

Sadly not mentioned. What is interesting is that the listing uses a (inaccurate) description that is dated 1958, but the actual listing was 1985. I'm certain the garage was there in 1958, but I need to check about 1985. I may be able to find photos, and of course if I can persuade the previous owner to confess, then I am home free. Since the responsibility to reinstate lies with the current owner, I don't think he would have much reason not to.

 

[JoceAndChris]

The listings followed on from Pevsner's descriptions of old buildings, which were written between 1954 and 1971, and were called "Buildings of England". As Pevsner wasn't able to visit every building he delegated and Gareth and I are in touch with Mr John Harris, who remembers this house from the 50s! He didn't come inside though, or talk to the owners, so yes, there are errors in Pevsner, including, in my case, the name of the building.

I think that EH make a lot more effort to be accurate these days, but having said that, the listings are peppered with errors.

None of that really helps with your quest for a garage, but yes, getting a letter and/or photo sounds like it might help. Then again, you don't really know whether or not the original garage had the right permissions. I know mine didn't. Good luck.

 

[AMc]

and of course if I can persuade the previous owner to confess, then I am home free. Since the responsibility to reinstate lies with the current owner, I don't think he would have much reason not to.

I thought if you demolished part of a listed building it was a criminal offence? Can you really get away with it if you sell the property and pass on the problem to the new owner?

 

[sidd]

I thought if you demolished part of a listed building it was a criminal offence? Can you really get away with it if you sell the property and pass on the problem to the new owner?

Good point. That needs some thought. My initial reaction is that the garage was not part of the listing, but within the curtilage. Also, if I remember correctly, the criminal sanctions tend to occur if you refuse to reinstate.

Criminal offences have a very high burden of proof, and in some areas of law, the government voluntarily downgrades the offence from criminal to civil in order to make prosecutions easier (insider trading for example). In addition I understand that, while ignorance of the law is no defence, for criminal offences the law has to be clear in advance, so that when you take an action in knowledge of the law, you know whether or not you are committing an offence. I have never seen this argument rolled out in court for listed buildings. However, the lack of clarity over what constitutes a criminal offence makes me think that a criminal prosecution relying on the subjective opinion of a CO would be vulnerable to challenge.

 

[Moo]

Are you sure that the previous owner actually demolished the garage? The situation might be different if he were to state that it simply rotted and fell down.

 

[sidd]

You know, that's probably exactly what happened!

 

[Moo]

In that case, nobody could be accused of doing anything illegal, surely?

 

[sidd]

Well, I know that the previous owner is a fine upstanding man. A pillar of the community. So maybe I was too quick to suggest that something illegal could have happened...

 

[Moo]

In which case I'm sure he'd be only too happy to tell the CO that he'd intended to rebuild it at some time - when funds allowed......

 

[sidd]

I like the way you think!!

 

[JoceAndChris]

But in the CO's defence, and in the wider cause of the protection of our heritage, the situation is probably very different now to when the garage existed. A view is a rare thing these days, they really ought to be looked after. A terrace and a pergola celebrate the building's views and planting schemes. Garages and car ports don't. The house was bought without a garage. In my view, (irrelevant, I accept) sidd ought to make a lovely new terrace and pergola, sit on it enjoying the view and a lovely glass of wine, and park in the street.

 

[sidd]

All good points. But that view of the neighbouring property is going to get closed off by vegetation, if not by building, because the lack of privacy from having almost no barrier between the properties is somewhat disconcerting.

The principal elevations of the house are West and South. This plan would enable us to park the cars behind the house, and out of the way, leaving a better view where it matters.

My fallback plan is to create a pergola that we can drive under, with removable clear sheeting to keep rain, frost and grapes off the cars.