I've dealt with two - both were gits.
One was the classic obnoxious jobsworth. The other was worse - he'd try and pick holes in anything you'd built right, but show him a ruin built by a favoured builder (same church / rugby club) then anything went.
There are some grants for grade I and II*, but little for normal grade II.
Also under EU laws these shouldn't really be fully protected at all as each country is only supposed to exempt a certain number of special buildings from laws on insulation levels and when being renovated like this one was the equivalents to part L would apply in every country in the EU but one.
The cost would be horrendous. There are almost a million such properties. But for grade I and II* I agree.
That depends on the conservation officer. Some are OK but some are utter prats.
I think they realised afterwards just what prats they looked like on camera and so had to agree to some of the items soon after.
That was a nonsense anyway. They should have put in a gas Aga and then got the BCO in to order a proper flue to be installed. He and conservation officer would then have argued for years who had final say whilst they got on with their modernisation undisturbed.
Worst example I came across was in old listed cottage with rotten staircase. And no room to put in a staircase that would meet building regs without destrying large sections of the listed bits.
The old staircaes was 'repaired' with almost all new bits and reinstated :-)
.On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:34:03 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named The Natural Philosopher randomly hit the keyboard and produced:
The requirement for the direct replacement of an existing stair is that it should be no worse than existing.
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 22:48:00 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named "G&M" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:
There's no direct 'exemption' for listed buildings from complying with the requirements of the Building Regulations. Where applicable, reasonable provision for insulation, etc, should be made. If one aspect of the guidance can't be provided (such as double-glazed windows), then where possible some compensatory measures should be taken elsewhere, like increasing the insulation in the loft or providing a more efficient boiler.
From part L :
2.10 The need to conserve the special characteristics of such historic buildings needs to be recognised. In such work, the aim should be to improve energy efficiency where and to the extent that it is practically possible, always provided that the work does not prejudice the character of the historic building, or increase the risk of long-term deterioration to the building fabric or fittings. In arriving at an appropriate balance between historic building conservation and energy conservation, it would be appropriate to take into account the advice of the local planning authority' s conservation officer.The 'advice' of the conservation officer is in fact legally binding on a listed building so this is in effect an exemption, though I agree not phrased as such. And many COs are not allowing extra (or even any) loft insulation as you propose because of worries concerning build up of vapour in ancient roof structures.
And I agree this is silly !
No. I think you will find that it is not possible to replace an existing staircase with one that is too steep a pitch too narrow and has no handrail and has a beam at head height at the top.
Building regulations do not say 'when altering, make it better' they say 'when materially altering, make it to current regs'
Like er, I knocked this house down except this old wall, and yes, its better than the old (pigsty) it replaces, so bugger off Mr BCO.
I think not.
On 17 Nov 2004, Grunff wrote
Except that well over 50 years ago it was decided -- by an elected body
-- that it's not a choice made by the owner. Unless you were developing and building before World War II, it's not been an owner's choice during your working life.
Might be like that in Shangri-La; ain't gonna change. Get over it.
And everyone knows that all decisions made by elected bodies are a) infallible and b) irreversible.
On 17 Nov 2004, Grunff wrote
But "decisions made by elected bodies are usually made with the intention of pleasing the voters" -- I can't recall any local council being voted out of office because they exercised too much control over buildings.
You can, of course, beat your head against a wall on this if you like, but I've spent way too many hours listening to local "action groups" who demand the counciil exercise *more* control by the over their neighbour's buildings -- not less -- to think that the listed building statutes will see any fundamental change in my lifetime.
As I said before, I don't own or live in a listed building, and have no intention to ever do so - so no head-beating as such. I just find it odd how much people are willing to compromise their personal liberties.
On 17 Nov 2004, Grunff wrote
That always surprises me, too; but local meetings seem to suggest that a majority seem quite happy to compromise their own personal liberties if that means they get to tell other people to do/not do.
Indeed, conservation (and other planning) officers are more often criticised for not stopping things than for obstructing change.
Unfortunately this doesn't guarantee that the LA won't designate it as locally listed or a building of townscape merit.
I've had seriously bad experience and it was perfectly obvious that they were acting in the best interests of the building ... to the exclusion of everything else.
As regular readers will know I am involved in our local church which is a BoTM. I have absolutely no doubt that if we suddenly found a millionaire benefactor who wanted to rebuild our halls so as to provide first class facilities for all the community groups who use our premises, the LPA would fight us all the way. If said millionaire wanted to buy our building, restore it at vast expense as a private home leading to the loss of all community activities the planners would probably support him. They do care about buildings. They don't care about people. IMHO of course.
"Tony Bryer" wrote | [building of townscape merit.] | ... I have absolutely no doubt that if we suddenly | found a millionaire benefactor who wanted to rebuild | our halls so as to provide first class facilities for | all the community groups who use our premises, the | LPA would fight us all the way. ...
But if the *council* owned the building and wanted to rebuild it in stone cladding with black glass roof as a leesure senna furra sochully disudvunnaged, a petition signed by 500 locals and Prince Charles marching round the perimiter naked with a placard wouldn't stop them.
Owain
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.