"Scenic Relic"

[Flyfisher]

According to today's EDP (Eastern Daily Press, for those not blessed to live in East Anglia), This property is grade II listed but the council is "unlikely to grant consent for a rebuild" because in their opinion its "residential use has ceased and because it is listed you would have to get permission to demolish it".

According to the report, the council's view is that any new building would be in the open countryside, which is against planning policy. Apparently, the building was adbandoned and derelict when it was listed in 1988 as a "scenic relic".

I thought listing was supposed to be a mechanism for preserving historic properties, yet this one seems to have fallen down a gap. No one is going to look after it if LBC won't be granted and without any care it is just going to rot away, which is what the council seems to want.
Very odd.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Looks like it is already beyond repair to me. I suppose they feel that to bring it up to scratch it would be a virtual new-build. A farmhouse in Suffolk with 2.5 acres for £45,000 sounds too good to be true :lol:

 

[Nemesis]

I can't actually find any listing details.

Pity the local authority hasn't put a repairs notice on it before now! There are at times reasons why they don't however. I know of one house which has been standing empty and getting more decrepit since the elderly owner was taken into a nursing home. She hasn't the cash to repair, if the local authority tried to enforce they would get a great deal of bad press, she hasn't the cash anyhow... yes in the end they could compulsorily purchase but it isn't as yet that bad, and again, see part about bad press.

One policy frequently conflicts with another where planning issues are concerned.

I do know of a recent case where the planning committee overrode the officer's recommendations and their own local plan and gave permission to repair a derelict (unlisted but historic) building in a remarkably similar scenario, but buying at auction in the hope seems very risky.

Sad.

 

[Flyfisher]

Mid-Suffolk's head of planning was quoted in the article as saying "We could have served a repair order but if the owner had declined we would have had to buy the building. Given the authority's resource issues, not many councils serve these things".

To be fair to the selling agent, they are pointing out the risk of buying the property as there is no guarantee of planning consent begin given.

It seems that the council is giving priority to their planning rules at the expense of letting (encouraging?) a listed building rot away. Can they really do that?

 

[Matt Green]

Looks like it is already beyond repair to me.

...a lick of paint...magnolia emulsion...hanging basket...job's a good'un I reckon.

:lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

Full EDP report here

 

[Gareth Hughes]

According to today's EDP (Eastern Daily Press, for those not blessed to live in East Anglia), This property is grade II listed but the council is "unlikely to grant consent for a rebuild" because in their opinion its "residential use has ceased and because it is listed you would have to get permission to demolish it".

I thought listing was supposed to be a mechanism for preserving historic properties, .

No, it's a mechanism for ensuring that proper consideration is given to the historic and architectural importance of the building in assessing any proposals for its future, which is a rather different thing.

The local authority can't serve a repairs notice requiring anything to be done beyone putting it back in the state it was in at the time of listing. In this particular case, if the building was listed when it was already in more or less its present condition, (ie beyond use without complete rebuilding) then this is one of the very few cases case where the correct course of action is to record and demolish.

It's one thing to list a ruined masonry structure, quite another to list a tiomber ruin.

 

[Nemesis]

Heritage protection does tend to be at the bottom of the heap in many local authorities.

5. REPAIRS
5.1 If a local authority consider that a listed building is not being properly preserved they may serve on the owner a 'repairs notice' under Section 115 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. This notice must specify the works which the authority consider reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the building and explain that if it is not complied with within 2 months the authority may make a compulsory purchase order and submit it to the Secretary of State for confirmation. If the owner deliberately neglects the building in order to redevelop the site, the local authority may not only acquire the building, but may do so at a price which excludes the value of the site for redevelopment. If the building is unoccupied, the authority can serve a notice on the owner giving him 7 days' notice of their intention to carry out repairs which are urgently necessary to secure its preservation and recover the cost from the owner. These powers may also be exercised by the Secretary of State.


I'm not sure in the case of the building at Hoxne the person quoted has really been totally accurate about what the local authority could have done. Also, in recovering costs they can force a sale... but again if they don't want the buolding re-used as it would conflict with local policy they won't.

Machiavellian at times what goes on.

http://www.ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/43/listed_dir/listed_s.htm


The problem is here it was apparenly listed as a bit of a wreck...


In my own local authority I note several apps recently for listed wrecks in order to make them into holiday accommodation. Given the closeness of a World Heritage Site this is a good thing I hope, and holiday let use is usually far less demanding on a building and its environment than full time use. It's so much a balancing act.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I can't actually find any listing details.

Sad.

HOXNE DENHAM ROAD
TM 17 NE
2/75 Chestnut Tree Farmhouse
II
Farmhouse. Late C16/early C17, in at least 2 phases, forming L-shape plan.
Lower C18 service wing to right. Timber framed, modern textured render.
Service wing underbuilt in brick on ground floor. Pantiled roof. 2 storeys
and attics. 2-cell front range. 2 windows, C19 3-light casements. C17 plank
door to right. In the left gable end, a C19 entrance with 4-panelled door.
Internal stack with plain C17 shaft (damaged). The frame is very largely
intact, with some good close studding in the 2 main ground floor rooms. Heavy
curved and reverse-curved braces. Several blocked windows with chamfered and
ovolo mullions, one retaining diamond glazing bars and some early leaded
glass. Newel stairs; the upper flight has the original door and a short
planked balustrade terminating in a square newel post with knob finial. Roofs
much rebuilt. One ground floor room has an C18 corner cupboard with glazed
doors. At time of survey (October 1986) the house was in a derelict state
with the attic floor and one gable end partly collapsed.

 

[Nemesis]

Thanks - not sure how I missed that (hic...) was that on IoE or t'other?

Seems rather further gone now...

Not sure if it has ever been put on the BaR Register either... can check that.

Update - no not on SAVE's BaRR.

 

[alice]

Although the written description and the picture both show derelict houses, they almost could be two different places. The picture doesn't see to be much more than a facade!

It's hard to see how (by looking at the picture) this building could be saved, but I've seen some come back from the dead...even if it means taking them apart almost stone by stone.

Just down the street from my house in Lowestoft the council gave permission to tear down a lovely old hotel and flats are going to be built in the spot (luxery flats! supposed to make me feel better to hear that, I guess...). In a few weeks the area (Kirkley seafront) is going to be declared a conservation area, which might have changed that decision. I'm sure that the builder knew that was coming up. Councils are made of human beings with their own agendas and their decisions aren't always logical or follow the letter of the law.

alice

 

[Nemesis]

Yes well - politicians etc etc.

Yes Conservation Area status might have made a difference... but not always. In theory it should. It's the whole point of it really. But... see thread below about EH and theor former HQ... and many another building I could mention.

Luxury flats - would anyone buy them if they said they were rubbish really, you can hear the neighbours peeing in the loo and the rooms are bland and boring and too small to swing the family moggie - and indeed moggies not allowed?

 

[Penners]

Well, it's very sad to see the building go, I entirely agree. And one could argue the pros and cons of what should have been done in the past, until the cows arrive back for their tea.

However, it is as it is. There's virtually nothing left, so anyone who sought to rebuild now (always assuming consent was available) would have to start from scratch.

On the whole, therefore, I reckon it's best to treat it as a bare site and consider planning applications on their merits, from that point of view.

 

[Flyfisher]

I was wondering why it was listed in the first place if it was so run down, but I notice the listing description states that "The frame is very largely intact, with some good close studding in the 2 main ground floor rooms.".

It might well be beyond repair now, but probably not at the time it was listed and, presumably, because it was worth listing surely it was worth saving. Yet, over the last 21 years, it has been allowed to decay and, if the EDP report can be believed, the council would rather it wasn't there at all. Sadly, it seems their wish is going to come true.

 

[middi]

It looks like the sort of project that would make someone like myself very happy.

Definetely not beyond restoration, some good studwork still standing there. One just restores the existing and rebuilds in the traditional method the missing part of the jigsaw.

It sounds like good fun to me ( I may go to the auction !!!!).

 

[Flyfisher]

I have no doubt you could restore it, Middi, but if the EDP report is to be believed, the council won't grant planning permission for it to be restored for residential use

 

[middi]

As far as I understand this listed "relic" which is doomed to rot away will be a distant memory and consequently of no use to anybody.

The challenge would be in trying to persuade EH and planning to preserve, protect, restore and make usefull use of a building and site that has been a home for 500 years or more trough history, surely it would make more sense to revert this "relic" to some usefull dwelling and preserve the site as historical and habitated as it was always intended.

At least the new " keeper" would look after it, even if it would mean open the door to the public every now and then.

 

[Nemesis]

EH doesn't enter the equation sadly. It's not II* or I listed.

Anyone interested in possible purchase I think could contact the press and ask why the Planning bod quoted is not telling the whole truth about what could have been done by the local authority to save the building long before now and that there was a substantial amount more than a 'scenic relic' when listed.

I do know, as I said previously, where this policy was ignored very recently by the councillors on planning and officers' advice overruled and a building at risk given permission to be repaired and re-inhabited. In that case a great deal of public fuss was made by the people who wanted the place to live in, conservation organisations etc got onboard...

The trouble is with local authorities and 'one size fits all' policies, they are at times daft - and this to me is an example. There's enough left that it isn't a new dwelling, although agreed an abandoned one.

 

[middi]

Sadly Nemesis, you are right.

 

[Flyfisher]

EH doesn't enter the equation sadly. It's not II* or I listed.

I've read that EH doesn't get involved with GII LBC applications, but presumably they were responsible for the GII listing in the first place, so wouldn't they care that the council seems to be actively letting a GII property decay to dust?

Which body has precedence in such a matter? Neither are being asked for any money, just LBC for a prospective purchaser to restore the place at their own cost.