agree Penny....I think this is what I find so frustrating about the "listing" process.....for example...If a property doesnt become listed until the mid 80's, its possible that many old, original period parts of a property could have already been updated legally....i.e an original period sash window to a UPVC replacement and as it was done before the property became "listed" the owner at the time didnt do anything wrong. I guess the problem then becomes if a property had a double glazing window in place at the time of listing, would the CO still be happy to allow a "like for like" replacement? My listed details are very limited and just mention 2 sash windows and I'm glad to say they are all still in place but I do find the whole "listed building" process to have many grey areas....I personally prefer to repair, than replace but it still causes me to scratch my head when its mentioned that a "whole" property becomes listed, when clearly there are parts that are no longer original and havent been since long before it was added to the historical register...
- Thread starter roripori
- Start date
As a newbie to the world of listed property ive found its never simple!!
Prior to purchasing my house I contacted the CO officer to understand what listed building consents had been applied for. Response was that this would come out when I had searches done. I asked how could i tell if work was actioned that wasnt authorised? Ie if it has PVC windows and no consent thats obvious, but what about if a fireplace was removed. Was it removed in 1989 - Problem, or 1987, no problem as not yet listed. (Listed in 1988)
i couldnt get an answer that made sense. For me, i went through house with an experience surveyor, and we came to conclusion that nothing had been changed that required listed building consent since the building was listed but i guess always a risk.
As an aside, would it be possible to request all details held on a property through a freedom of information request? That way you could at least for example see a building was listed as having fine fireplaces in the front room, and if they are missing then you have an issue?.
Im guessing its not that simple!!.
Prior to purchasing my house I contacted the CO officer to understand what listed building consents had been applied for. Response was that this would come out when I had searches done. I asked how could i tell if work was actioned that wasnt authorised? Ie if it has PVC windows and no consent thats obvious, but what about if a fireplace was removed. Was it removed in 1989 - Problem, or 1987, no problem as not yet listed. (Listed in 1988)
i couldnt get an answer that made sense. For me, i went through house with an experience surveyor, and we came to conclusion that nothing had been changed that required listed building consent since the building was listed but i guess always a risk.
As an aside, would it be possible to request all details held on a property through a freedom of information request? That way you could at least for example see a building was listed as having fine fireplaces in the front room, and if they are missing then you have an issue?.
Im guessing its not that simple!!.
MatthewC
Member
- Messages
- 1,733
- Location
- Central/South England
RogerRoger111 said:
No, it's never really simple - there's always some crocodile waiting to bite you if you relax! But I think the point is that they won't even be looking at the info they have on your house unless you ask them. You do have to think whether you want to throw that stone into the pond, or should you keep quiet.
I could access online the details of past applications in the Council's website - are you not able to do this? As I recall (and I was surprised to learn this), COs do NOT have a statutory right of entry to your house. So if there are no applications in the recent past then in all probability they have never been inside. I humbly submit that if that is the case, it is not necessarily in your interest to move that stone if you don't know what is underneath (pardon the surfeit of metaphors).
In my case the house had hardly been worked on in 50 years and was quite overgrown, so when it came to erecting a wall between the front and back gardens I was quite sure that they had nothing to prove that there had not been a wall there before - it would not have been visible in any photos from the boundary wall. Then when I did the work, I found the old wall foundations!
Matthew
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Yes, it's an imperfect system so there will always be risks (on both sides). Obviously I'm not aware of every enforcement action that has ever been taken across the country but the media reports about the few cases I have read seem to be pretty serious examples of abuse. Hopefully this is representative and that COs do not go out of their way to prosecute listed building owners for trivial abuses.
There's also the issue of LBC only being required for works that alter the 'character' of the building, which presumably means that most minor alterations would not fall foul of the LBC requirements and that it should be fairly easy to spot when something amiss has occurred. Thus, things like PVC windows, missing fireplaces, stone-cladding, concrete floors etc, should be clues worthy of more detailed investigation. In other words, if the property 'looks right' then it probably is - with the emphasis on 'probably'.
There's also the issue of LBC only being required for works that alter the 'character' of the building, which presumably means that most minor alterations would not fall foul of the LBC requirements and that it should be fairly easy to spot when something amiss has occurred. Thus, things like PVC windows, missing fireplaces, stone-cladding, concrete floors etc, should be clues worthy of more detailed investigation. In other words, if the property 'looks right' then it probably is - with the emphasis on 'probably'.
Abi Cott
Member
- Messages
- 561
- Location
- West Yorkshire
Not in my area. A huge number, including mine prior to purchase, are in the hands of "slum" landlords, that couldn't give a toss about the historic value, or even frankly the comfort of their tenants. UPVC means easier to rent, so let's throw it in and strip out original windows. Large slabs of yorkstone are worth quite a bit, so a concrete scree is an awesome idea. Even the stone on the roof isn't safe. Two doors down doesn't have a single chimney breast left and the roof stack is consequently fake and about half the height it should be.
CliffordPope
Member
- Messages
- 982
Pennyviz said:
Same here. We were forced to replace broken 1970-era asbestos slates on a derelict Victorian railway station, even though planning was pending (and eventually granted) for a complete replacement with proper reclaimed slates.
It was a job sourcing the asbestos ones, and the roofer thought we were mad.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Abi Cott said:
That’s a sad tale, but why does the council not prosecute? All that work on a listed building without LBC should be a simple case on the face of it.
Abi Cott
Member
- Messages
- 561
- Location
- West Yorkshire
Flyfisher said:
Money.
A workman once told me that there is only one city in the country with more listed buildings than mine (London). The local metropolitan district council covers several areas with listed properties and multiple conservation areas including a world heritage site with thousands of listed buildings in an area the size of a large village. Prosecutions and enforcement are very hot in that area, but I get the impression the funding can only stretch so far, and the area I live in doesn't appear to be high on the priority list.
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
MatthewC said:
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
88
Rights of entry.
(1)
Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may at any reasonable time enter any land for the purpose of surveying any building on it [F1or any other land] in connection with a proposal to include the building in, or exclude it from, a list compiled or approved under section 1.
(2)
Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State, a local planning authority or, where the authorisation relates to a building situated in Greater London, the Commission may at any reasonable time enter any land for any of the following purposes—
(a) surveying it [F2or any other land] in connection with any proposal by the authority or the Secretary of State to make, issue or serve any order or notice under any of the provisions of sections 1 to 26, 38, 40, 46, 54, 55, 60, 68, 75 or 76 or under any order or regulations made under any of them, or any notice under section 48;
(b) ascertaining whether any such order or notice has been complied with [F3in relation to the land or any other land];
(c) ascertaining whether an offence has been, or is being, committed with respect to any building on the land [F4or any other land], under section 9, 11 [F5, 26J] or 43;
(d) ascertaining whether any [F6building on the land or any other land] is being maintained in a proper state of repair.
(3)
Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State, a local authority or, where the authorisation relates to a building situated in Greater London, the Commission may at any reasonable time enter any land for any of the following purposes—
(a) ascertaining whether an offence has been or is being committed under section 59 [F7in relation to the land or any other land];
(b) ascertaining whether any of the functions conferred by section 54 should or may be exercised in connection with the land [F8or any other land]; or
(c) exercising any of those functions in connection with the land [F8or any other land].
.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Abi Cott said:
I get the money thing and can understand why some prosecutions might be tricky, risky, require loads of preparatory work etc etc. But where, say, windows have been ripped out and replaced with plastic ones that don’t even attempt to match the originals, I’d have thought - or at least hoped - that a prosecution would be a relatively easy matter and really ought to be self-funding in terms of fines and costs in awarded against the culprit.
It’s sad to learn otherwise.
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
The fines don't go into council coffers.Flyfisher said:Abi Cott said:
I get the money thing and can understand why some prosecutions might be tricky, risky, require loads of preparatory work etc etc. But where, say, windows have been ripped out and replaced with plastic ones that don’t even attempt to match the originals, I’d have thought - or at least hoped - that a prosecution would be a relatively easy matter and really ought to be self-funding in terms of fines and costs in awarded against the culprit.
It’s sad to learn otherwise.
And just have a look at the comments on this article to see why our local political masters don't like to endorse action. They read the comments on local news websites and realise that the morons who are allowed to vote keep them in comfy allowances. Time to end the Disastrous Democratic Experiment
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/norwich-landlord-window-planning-row-1-6451961
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Fair point about any fines, though costs would go to the council wouldn’t they?
As for the comments, I know what you mean about the ‘DDE’ :wink:
As for the comments, I know what you mean about the ‘DDE’ :wink:
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Gareth Hughes said:
From that EDP report:
. . . and . . .
Is there really a 'four year immunity' for unauthorised works to a listed building? The appellant appealed on that basis and the judge only seems to have thrown it out on the basis that it was not proved that the works were over four years old, which would seem to imply that there IS such a rule. In fact the judge explicity mentioned immunity, again implying that there is such a thing.
Can anyone clarify this?
If it's true then it would seem to be a major shortcoming in listed building legislation because there must be thousands of properties, particularly rural and otherwise isolated ones where quite significant unauthorised works could be carried out without anyone noticing for decades, never mind a paltry four years.
It's because the enforcement has been done through planning - i.e. the conservation area, not through listed building.
Presumably because the council have more expertise and resource in planning than conservation. Hence the plea around the 4 year planning exemption rule
Presumably because the council have more expertise and resource in planning than conservation. Hence the plea around the 4 year planning exemption rule
Flyfisher said:Abi Cott said:
I get the money thing and can understand why some prosecutions might be tricky, risky, require loads of preparatory work etc etc. But where, say, windows have been ripped out and replaced with plastic ones that don’t even attempt to match the originals, I’d have thought - or at least hoped - that a prosecution would be a relatively easy matter and really ought to be self-funding in terms of fines and costs in awarded against the culprit.
It’s sad to learn otherwise.
Flyfisher,
I think the biggest issue (even when its clear they not original) is the timing......A listed property might have all new UPVC windows and the owner might have made no attempt to match the old original design but unless it can be proven that those changes were made "after" the property became listed, then I dont see how someone can be prosecuted....after all, if a proeprty became listed in 1980 but all the windows were replaced in 1979, technically the owner didnt do anything wrong (legally) and I think, thats the grey area..and thats the same with extensions etc...going back to the 60s-70s...planning regs were completely different.......We always hope people respect the history of these old properties and many that buy them, do just that but unless its clear "when" changes were made to a property I think local planning departments are very restricted on what they can do. I think the only way someone can be fined etc, is if someone gets in touch and points out whats happening while those changes are being made, the grey area comes years after.....
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
I think I'm right in saying that particular property isn't listed. For listed buildings the limit is six years from the discovery of the unauthorised works, IIRC.Flyfisher said: