Window replacement

[roripori]

Hi,

I'm looking at a grade 2 listed property from the late 1600s. The property is listed for it's windows amongst other things, however the original windows have long since gone. There isnt a single window in there older than 30 years old.

Are they usually pretty flexible on window replacement, given that the original ones havent existed for a long time?

I'm assuming that traditional wood frame windows would need to be installed, which are more expensive. Roughly how much do these sorts of window cost?

Many thanks,

 

[Abi Cott]

It depends is the simple answer.

Was the property listed before the windows were put in or after?

Hardwood costs more than softwood, but lasts a lot longer.

They can stipulate style of window and generally don't allow double glazing.

Cost wise I reckon mine were about double what I would have paid for uPVC, but I went for Accoya which was my most expensive option.

 

[MatthewC]

I'm looking at a grade 2 listed property from the late 1600s. The property is listed for its windows amongst other things, however the original windows have long since gone. There isn't a single window in there older than 30 years old.

Presumably you mean "the property listing mentions the windows" rather than "The property is listed for its windows amongst other things"? There is still a belief in some quarters that only certain parts of a property are listed but, once listed, the entire property (and its curtilage) is covered by the listing.

Abi is right - what was the situation with the windows when it was listed? If they have been changed without permission since listing then tread carefully!

 

[Flyfisher]

Welcome, roripori, to the wonderful world of period property!

The problem with this sort of perfectly reasonable question is that it raises more questions than answers, because all listed buildings are unique and what might be acceptable for one might not be acceptable for another. Context is hugely important and we only guess at that in the absence of all the necessary information. One thing that usually helps a lot is a photo, or three, of the item in question.

Ultimately, the only person who can give a definitive answer to questions such as yours is the responsible Conservation Officer (CO). The rest of us can give informed opinions and examples of our own experience but these can only be a guide because the CO is the main authority to decide (ignoring appeals to the Secretary of State!).

I presume you understand that altering a listed building without consent is a criminal offence and that the owner becomes responsible for any prior unauthorised alterations should enforcement action be taken. So, while you cannot be held responsible for a previous owner's illegal alterations, you can be held responsible for correcting them. This is why MatthewC has rightly mentioned treading very carefully when looking to purchase a listed property.

If you have any suspicions that works have been carried out to the property you should discuss them with the vendor and/or your solicitor. The vendor should be able to provide copies of any Listed Building Consents. If they can't and/or become evasive then beware! Your solicitor might recommend imdemnity insurance (should be paid by the vendor), but check the terms very carefully as it's probably not possible to get insurance for any known issues.

I would recommend contacting the relevant CO before commiting to the property to discuss any plans you may have for the property and to check if they know of any authorised works. You might be able to arrange the CO to visit during which you could ask if they have any concerns about the current state of the property. If they don't raise any issues then things are likely to be straightforward. If they do raise any issues then you'd be able to have more informed discussions with the vendor. So, for example, if windows have been replaced without LBC then you could negotiate an appropriate price reduction to cover the cost of replacing them with CO-approved ones.

Please let us know what happens.

 

[CliffordPope]

the owner becomes responsible for any prior unauthorised alterations should enforcement action be taken........
So, while you cannot be held responsible for a previous owner's illegal alterations, you can be held responsible for correcting them.

Can you please elaborate those statements please. The first sentence says "the owner becomes responsible for prior unauthorised alterations" but the second says "you cannot be held reponsible for previous illegal alterations" - they appear to be contradictory?

Or are you making a distinction between "unauthorised" and "illegal" ?

 

[Abi Cott]

the owner becomes responsible for any prior unauthorised alterations should enforcement action be taken........
So, while you cannot be held responsible for a previous owner's illegal alterations, you can be held responsible for correcting them.

Can you please elaborate those statements please. The first sentence says "the owner becomes responsible for prior unauthorised alterations" but the second says "you cannot be held reponsible for previous illegal alterations" - they appear to be contradictory?

Or are you making a distinction between "unauthorised" and "illegal" ?

If someone that owned the house before you has done something naughty, you won't be fined or sent to jail, but you can be forced to correct the naughtiness at your own expense.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, Abi is right - apologies for my clumsy explanation. I should have written “the owner becomes responsible for rectifying prior unauthorised alterations”.

Of course, if the offending previous owner can be found (and is still alive!) then they could be pursued through the courts but imagine the rigmarole involved in that. Also, I wonder if the planning authority would bother when they could more simply just pursue the current owner, leaving them to pursue the real culprit? In any event it would all be a humungous mess and thus something to be very careful to avoid at all costs!

 

[Edward Ian]

I agree that you would need to speak to the conservation officer.
As to the cost aspect, since you say the property is late 17th century, I would guess that the windows were leaded. I had a large late 16th century house which I restored and extended using oak framed leaded light windows. The profiles were much different from what you would have (and much heavier), but they were not as expensive as one might imagine.
That said, you have to shop around. I had the joinery made in a small workshop in East Sussex, the iron work (casement sashes and fixed lights and catches and hinges) made at a small forge next door, and then the leaded lights made at a small traditional glazing company in Tunbridge Wells. They all worked happily off detailed working drawings from my architect.
But if you go to some flash outfit and say "I want that one" you'll pay through the nose.

 

[roripori]

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying, i didnt seem to have notifications activated and was wondering why no one bothered replying!

This is the listing information, and i've also attached a photo of the front. As far as i'm aware, the few features below are the reason it's listed.

"2a C17, plastered, pantiles. 2 storey, and attic, 6 casements at 1st floor, mainly 5-light. Brick base. 4 square headed dormer windows. Two 4-panel doors, one to left without number, and one to right No 86 (Waveny Lodge)."

As far as i know, the whole row of properties were renovated in the 70s, so i would think that these windows are from then (since the front two are rotten). These windows dont look like anything particularly special to me, and i would just replace the rotten ones with new wooden frame windows. But i am no expert, so i appreciate the need to get the CO involved. Would this typcially be done whilst the house is under offer and before getting a solicitor involved?

Unfortunately i dont have any more details, as i've not seen any deeds or anything else as of yet.

 

[roripori]

See attached frontage of the house, and below information about the listing. The whole row of houses are listed, and were all renovated in the 1970s, which i'm assuming was when these windows date from, they dont look like anything special other than wooden frame.

TM 1179 5/12 29.12.50. II GV

2a C17, plastered, pantiles. 2 storey, and attic, 6 casements at 1st floor, mainly 5-light. Brick base. 4 square headed dormer windows. Two 4-panel doors, one to left without number, and one to right No 86 (Waveny Lodge).

It sounds like engaging the CO would be the best next step. Would this be done whilst the property is under offer?

 

[malcolm]

The differing styles of the ground floor windows are interesting. I can't imagine anyone deciding to replace all the windows at once in differing styles so there is probably some history to look at.

Can you find any old photos on the internet to see what it was like before? Council website was helpful for me, but only because some useful person had documented all the listed buildings. There was a local website that had a lot of old photos too.

 

[TheForge]

It’s impossible to tell for certain from the photo but none of those windows look beyond repair. It takes a lot for a frame to be unsalvageable.

The dormers may not have any great age but there’s nothing to suggest the others are particularly modern replacements and as such tell the history of the buildings development.

The front door on the neighbouring property looks modern and out of keeping with the age and vernacular of the row.

Just replacing the window with a wooden one is not really the ethos of conservation. Minimal intervention and the preservation of the maximum of historic fabric should be the aim. Any replacement should replicate details such as style and thickness of glazing bars, the way opening lights recess etc.

It’s impossible to know why specifically the house was listed but the listing text generally only details what could be assessed by a series of surveys undertaken normally from the street by EH. The outstanding features may be internal but not seen by the person who surveyed the listing.

 

[Me!]

The wording of the listing seems strange (wrong?) to me though. However I count the glass, I can't see how those windows are 5-light, and the doors are described as 4-panel which neither are. The listing date is 1972, so I'd guess the door to 86 has been changed since then but the door to 84 could be older or newer than that. The windows though, I'd guess are older than 1972 so I can't understand the 5-light description.
But personally, if it was me, I'd repair those windows rather than replace them. Several of mine were in far worse condition but even the most rotten ones were fixed by replacing the sills and bottom rails, and splicing in sections to the other parts as required. It cost me a fraction of the price of having new windows, and retained the look and feel of the old ones.
I do actually recognise that house as I've been past it many times, so I know that you are only about 10 miles away from an excellent building supplies called Clarkes of Walsham. Clarkes made me all my new timber sills and repair profiles to my own exact patterns for only a few pounds, which made the job of fitting them much easier.

 

[Craig89]

The multi paned groud floor window you would assume is older from its construction but as above it doesnt tie up with the listing details. The other 2 ground floor windows appear to have top hung openers in the middle and from what my joiner told me isnt a very period feature

 

[Pennyviz]

In my experience the CO will simply say that regardless of when items installed, need to be replaced like for like. At some point my window in downstairs toilet was replaced with crappy non opening softwood one. If I want to change it has to be of the same design.

Penny

 

[Flyfisher]

I don’t doubt your experience, but mine has been different.

Our house has/had number of ‘70s style’ windows and was listed in the late-80s. The offending windows were clearly inappropriate and a blanket ‘replace only like-for-like’ approach would ruin the house forever IMHO. Fortunately, our CO was happy for them to be replaced with SG casement windows to match the original ones, for which I obtained LBC.

I guess this underlines how each listed property is unique and why it is so difficult to give definitive advice most of the time.

 

[MatthewC]

I think I would agree with Feltwell. If you possibly can then repair them. You need to speak to the CO and get their view, but as others have said, don't say you need to replace all of them as it will sound as though you have no regard for the history.

The listing date is 1972

Isn't the listing date 29.12.50? That means that the changes have surely been made after the listing - with or without LBC? The CO should know!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I think I would agree with Feltwell. If you possibly can then repair them. You need to speak to the CO and get their view, but as others have said, don't say you need to replace all of them as it will sound as though you have no regard for the history.

The listing date is 1972

Isn't the listing date 29.12.50? That means that the changes have surely been made after the listing - with or without LBC? The CO should know!

The problem is that the whole system of what actually needed consent,back in 1950, was completely different and was only gradually changed to the current wording (and current approaches) over the course of several new parliamentary Acts in the 1960s and 70s up to the current one in 1990. So changes made in, say, 1955, though we might now see them as extreme, may well not have needed permission at the time. And it's likely that any documentation relating to to work that did need, and have, consent prior to the reorganisation of local government in 1974 will be long lost.

South Norfolk's CO is OK though, and the only way to find out what's going to be acceptable is to contact him.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying, i didnt seem to have notifications activated and was wondering why no one bothered replying!

This is the listing information, and i've also attached a photo of the front. As far as i'm aware, the few features below are the reason it's listed.

"2a C17, plastered, pantiles. 2 storey, and attic, 6 casements at 1st floor, mainly 5-light. Brick base. 4 square headed dormer windows. Two 4-panel doors, one to left without number, and one to right No 86 (Waveny Lodge)."

As others have said, the purpose of the list description is to identify which building is listed, not to identify what is important about the building (except for very recent listings, over the last two or three years, which do try to define the special interest).
In your case, if you were standing in the street with a copy of the list description, you'd know that the listed building referred to was the one with six first floor windows and two doors - not [necessarily] that the windows and doors are what makes the building special. (5-light casements is either a typo in the original typewritten description, or one of the many, many glitches that have been produced by scanning the original documents with OCR programmes and then not checking them)

It may be of interest to see what they looked like in 1963. https://historicengland.org.uk/imag...rchtype=englandsplaces&i=0&wm=1&bc=0|1&g=7660

 

[andrew gayton]

I would also question the reduced chimney stack (in comparison to 1960's the pic above) and the (probable) sand and cement render. Sand and cement render will invariably cause problems in traditional solid walled structures.