Which era to be true to?

[Pford75]

Wow...I hadn't realised that this sort of conflict of interest was possible.

As far as I can see, it's highly unethical for a CO to have any role in a building firm over whose work he might preside. Given that what is permissable is so subjective, it would strike me as open to rampant abuse. I'm aware that most other councillors are not allowed to sit on matters where there is a conflict of interest (but they typically have others in the same role...whereas CO's are probably the only one in a particular council).

I'd be outraged as a taxpayer, if this is how my council tax was being spent. Care to name names of councils/CO's? We frequently name and shame builders who we believe have done the wrong thing, how about these councils?

 

[beka]

edited to remove information (see thread start/end)

 

[beka]

Why is there this fear of CO's ?

I'm sure this isn't true of PPUK regulars, but I suspect that the only people who fear CO's are those who have inappropriate plans for their listed buildings.

perhaps people fear them because .........................CO's are people in a position of some authority, they make decisions which will affect your life in a fairly major way based on criteria you don't have access to, there is little consistancy in the decisions from CO to CO, when asking for advice you are frequently heckled, The form filling (terryfies alot of people) and plans can eat up alot of your time and money..............

and its all over your HOME - you know the thing alot of people have a huge emotional investment in. To have someone else judging, critiscing, telling you what to do in your own home - and having to pay for the privilage (twice, via your taxes to support CO's and then via planning fees etc) is a pretty good reason for feeling some fear and/or resentment.

From talking to local builders and architectual surveyors (including those who specialise in listed buildings) our CO is eccentric, has lots of personal quirks (like a love of wooden floors) that he projects onto the job, is very difficult to get to see, and is an i dotter and t crosser to the nth degree. Can you really blame me for being a bit afraid?

 

[ljn]

Aren't listed building consent applications free?

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, LBC applications themselves are free if you do everything yourself (at least mine have been), but if you use an architect to draw plans and make the submission on your behalf then there will be fees involved.

Beka, have you actually spoken to your CO yet or is your concern solely based on feedback from builders, architects etc? I only have experience of one listed property and I shared many of your concerns about the whole LBC/CO process before taking it on. I also share your dislike the idea of anyone having control over what I can do with my own home but, frankly, that's the deal with a listed property. However, far from being a hindrance and imposing rigid rules, my CO has proposed many options and possibilities that would be acceptable for the property, some of which have quite surprised me, but on reflection are absolutely consistent with the best interests of the property. To be quite honest, I'd say I've had better 'design advice' from my CO than I've had from my previous (admittedly limited) dealings with architects with previous properties. I suppose it's just possible that I've been extremely lucky with our CO, but reading of other experiences I don't really think so.

I suppose there could be the 'CO from hell' out there somewhere (which raises an interesting point about how such a situation could be managed - e.g. is there an appeal process for LBC applications?) but, whatever the characteristics of your CO, you have to deal with him/her eventually and, in my experience, the sooner the better. Keep an open mind about your plans and you may find that your CO proposes even better ideas than you've already thought of - after all, they do spend their entire working lives dealing with listed properties and should be able to bring a lot of experience to the planning table.

 

[Pford75]

I believe Penners is spot on with his comment that 'PPUK regulars don't fear their CO'.....I understand your worries/concerns, but you've taken a great step in coming on here and seeking feedback.

By discussing with others who have been through similar things, it will help to demystify the process and hopefully put your mind at rest that the vast majority of CO's are sensible people, with huge experience in old buildings and who are there to care for the building first. So, whatever you may have heard about your CO, approach it with an open mind (builders who don't get along with the CO are often the wrong sort anyway).

In terms of discussing your thoughts/plans with the CO, I would suggest that you have a think about how you would like to change things in general terms and have a couple of ways of achieving it (eg. I would like more light in this room....what ways can you suggest of acheiving that?) You might get a response that what you want is not possible, but invariably, CO's come up with other ways of acheiving the same goal in ways you might not have considered. An open, flexible approach is required.

I would suggest requesting an onsite meeting (if that means waiting for their next available date, so be it). I would also suggest capturing the discussion at the site meeting in writing to the CO afterwards to ensure that you have understood correctly what does/doesn't require consent.

 

[Nemesis]

What we'd like to do is take it back to its mill heritage

Well, those of who post here and are SPAB Mills Section members would like that, but alas it's not of course possible, as a) the place has long ago presumably lost its machinery and ability to work and b) has been a series of dwellings and not one mill for a considerable period of time, which is now part of the history of the building, and aspects of that should popssibly not be discarded lightly.

Good that the CO is a stickler for detail. It may not please the wrong sort of builder and some surveyors; but I wonder why any surveyor would be upset by a CO?

Unless of course they are those who think destructive treatments are a Good Thing?

 

[Nemesis]

make decisions which will affect your life in a fairly major way based on criteria you don't have access to,

Not really true

there is little consistancy in the decisions from CO to CO,

All buildings are different

when asking for advice you are frequently heckled,

How frequently have you been heckled by a CO?

 

[shelli]

perhaps people fear them because .........................CO's are people in a position of some authority, they make decisions which will affect your life in a fairly major way based on criteria you don't have access to, there is little consistancy in the decisions from CO to CO, when asking for advice you are frequently heckled, The form filling (terryfies alot of people) and plans can eat up alot of your time and money..............

and its all over your HOME - you know the thing alot of people have a huge emotional investment in. To have someone else judging, critiscing, telling you what to do in your own home -

In which case you shouldn't have bought a building that by it's very nature is going to involve you with form filling and LBC and CO's then !!!

I have generally been on your side Beka - but that post there sounded very whingey

 

[Horace]

Slightly at a tangent I know, but there seems to be a godlike veneration of COs on the site. A lot of the posts above seem to say "its up to the CO". Surely this is garbage? Its up to what is allowed by law. The CO is just one person interpreting the law - not the final arbiter. In my experience of COs, some are good and some are bad egotistical control freaks. In my line of business, we spend a log time defending taxpayers from overzealous Inspectors of Taxes who sometimes also believe they are the sole arbiters of the tax laws and use their powers wrongly. COs views should be sought and discussed but their view is not necessarily a correct interpretation of the law. Even more of a tangent but related to this was a discussion about a boiler flue. My then CO ( not the current one) basically said its well within the de minimis provisions where consent is not required. How many people posting asked when they bought their house whether the boiler flue had been granted listed buildings consent?

Personally I am pretty obsessive about retaining fabric but then I have a nice house with lots of nice features. However, I can see the argument here and as Nemesis says its an old arguement. There are pros and cons and the initial poster won't get much sympathy on this site. However, it is nice to see a bit of rightgeous indignation at this goodwill to all men time of year.....

Thats the problem with this world - far too much tolerance

 

[Nemesis]

But of course CO's are intepreting the law and national policy. That's actually their job, on behalf of the nation. I don't know any who are really that dogmatic. I have no doubt many could be very rude about some of those they have to deal with too. I note some who post here haven't bothered to join in this thread... :wink:

However, mostly they will be able to explain why they think a certain course of action is best, and of course there is always the appeals procedure.

When I go to my dentist, I usually accept that he knows what's best for my teeth, as I haven't spent years dealing with them and have no skills and qualifications to draw on to know better.

Also of course at times works to a building are commented on by the national amenity societies, which have a great deal of expertise to draw on.

Yes it's an old argument, and no there are no simple answers, although plenty of general principles and good practice to be drawn on. We say it's up to the CO as we aren't really in any position to have a say on an individual building, so it's all abit pointless really.

But for anyone buying a historic building, I would suggest that if you don't like it don't buy it, once you have live in it, read all you can about conservation, go on SPAB courses, and only then start to think about what's best FOR THE BUILDING.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

OK I have a discussion question... well it has some real world application for us as well

In a property that has had many alterations over time which is the 'original' and what is 'alterations'?

Why is a cheap victorian grate shoved into a Georgian building Ok when a new alteration is looked down on

We have a 1846 property, originally a LARGE mill it was subdivided into workers cottages in victorian times. Conversion was cheaply done with little regard for any historical integrety for example internal dividing walls actually cut across some of the windows.

Chimney breasts were built in and cheap little grates (like those you find in servants attics) shoved in.

Then in the 1950's an extension was built onto the back, most of the fireplaces were taken out and the beams covered over with woodchip. In several other hosues the 12 foot high ceilings (in rooms that are 7ft x 10ft) have been lowered.

half the original flagstones were taken up and the other half have been chipped and generally smashed about so they have to have 2 layers of carpet on top to be safe to walk on.

Now our idea is to rip out pretty much everything from about 1900 onwards, all the crappy, cheap, nasty stuff. And be left with the shell of the original subdivision.
Then to create a modern fmaily home that references the old Mill wherever possible (expose beams, relay new flagstones)

However after reading some comments on this site it seems that there is a bit of a belief that old is good no matter what its condition, historic appropriateness or practicality.

So I'm sticking my head above the parapet to say we're going to try and
install double glazing
Take up old flagstones
put down UFH
take out internal walls
remove chimney breasts
move kitchen from draughty lean to at back of house
put in a shower
have electric light
remove old extension and add a glass sunroom instead

and you knwo what - I think we'll have a nicer looking building at the end of it - plus we wont' be freezing to death by gaslights!

Having followed the clues and worked out which building this is, I'm inclined to suggest that the building's historic character is really that of a row of 19th century workers' houses, with the added interest that it was previously a textile mill, rather than the other way about. So, if it were mine, I'd be looking at traditional Victorian domestic interiors of similar status to use as a model (good excuse for a trip to that very excellent and well-known open-air museum not far away), rather than lots of big open spaces with exposed stone walls and beams (and anyway, the exposed stone is unlikely to have been present in the original mill either)

 

[Nemesis]

Yes, I think I have identified it too. I agree. I suspect the local history society will have a great deal more information on the building.

Was it converted to worker's dwellings I wonder when the other large mills were built? Or converted when they closed c 1870?

 

[Penners]

Thats the problem with this world - far too much tolerance

I do so agree. Intolerance is hateful. Anyone who is the slightest bit intolerant should be flogged mercilessly.

 

[shelli]

I haven't identified it - I haven't a clue where it is - do I get the ignorance prize?!!

Gareth - Are you one of the Magi ? - are you harbouring Myrrh about your person? - your comments about the cottage conversion , not the former mill being the era to be true to make perfect sense and have helped me to visualise how daft Bekas house would look if she tried to recreate an industrial space in a part building - it would also be completely at odds with the other properties in the row

Beka - what is wrong with having a shufty at the rest of the houses in the row if they're occupied? - a) they are all listed too and b) some of the occupants there have presumably done work for which they obtained LBC

You can learn a lot from your neighbours - even if you don't like their taste or style

Shelli

 

[Nemesis]

If it's where Gareth and I think it is, it's part of a wider sector of a historic town, with various buildings showing the rise and fall of the textile trade. I know it well.

Where's there wool there are usually allied industries. There are also places where the people who worked in those industries lived. All are part of the history and development, and in this case it's going not going to be possible to take it back to what it was when built, and the desirability of so doing is doubtful also.

Certainly some adaptation and alteration to suit modern living would be OK, but how much is the question. Ripping it all pre-conversion to something it never was I don't think would be acceptable. But again - we don't have to make the decision.

As I said earlier:

a) the place has long ago presumably lost its machinery and ability to work and b) has been a series of dwellings and not one mill for a considerable period of time, which is now part of the history of the building, and aspects of that should possibly not be discarded lightly.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I haven't identified it - I haven't a clue where it is - do I get the ignorance prize?!!

Gareth - Are you one of the Magi ? - are you harbouring Myrrh about your person? -
Shelli

No, it's merely standard-issue Conservation Officer omnipotence. And also a warning about how easily information made available on the net in various forms and on various sites can be combined to pinpoint addresses and identities, if you know how to use the information. Note that the key piece of information was something Beka will have thought was completely irrelevant when she provided it. Sorry to be obtuse about the details but it's probably better on the whole not to publicise the techniques that can easily be used to find out this sort of information. Some people (and I don't necessarily mean Beka) seem to take it as a massive invasion of their privacy, even thuogh they've freely provided all the info that makes the "invasion" possible.

 

[Nemesis]

Yup.

 

[MdB]

Did you know that Gareth Hughes' father is now called Diane? It must be true as I've read it on the internet...

 

[Nemesis]

Ah but - that's rumour. Some think Gareth is parentless, being a CO.

Some details are easily checked through and with historic buildings, there's quite a bit of documentation available very rapidly!