Listed buildings - how do they get listed?


randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

each
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 !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

NO worse. The one last night was dire. In response to the question about replacing existing plastic like for like, when the answer should have been either "yes" or "no", *twice* said "ideally should be cast iron". I'd have thought a constructive approach would have been that the existing installation is a hideous hotch potch which we would quite like to see improved and material is secondary to appearance. Fact that it turned out to be like that when it was listed just adds incompetence to the conservation officers ignorance IMHO.
Jim A
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jim Alexander" wrote | NO worse. The one last night was dire. In response to the question | about replacing existing plastic like for like, when the answer | should have been either "yes" or "no", *twice* said "ideally should | be cast iron".
He never suggested having an electric Aga either, which would possibly have been cheaper than a power flue model. Or even one of those mock-Aga gas cookers.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

have
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
G&M wrote:

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 :-)
.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:34:03 +0000, a particular chimpanzee named The

The requirement for the direct replacement of an existing stair is that it should be no worse than existing.
--
Hugo Nebula
'What you have to ask yourself is, "if no-one on the internet wants
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hugo Nebula wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

have
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Reminds me of a delight I found years ago. A couple bought a tudor place and wanted to do the outside in black and white. The council said it was not mock-tudor and in Surrey. They played with the couple for about 4 years until the couple made friends with the local university Tudor Period professor.
He promised the council that he would oversee the work and only restore to exact Tudor standards. The relented and went away happy.
When they returned to see the colours, they had a fit, you could see the place from half a mile on a moonlight night, but couldn't do bugger all because of the professors status.
They quickly caved in and the couple got their B/W tudor house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eric wrote:

Reminds me of a friend who has a very old property, the walls are mainly composed of mud and straw. The jobsworth insisted that he put in damp proofing, even though he pointed out that would ruin the walls, which would dry out and crumble. so when all the inspections were over he removed the damp course.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

And everyone knows that all decisions made by elected bodies are a) infallible and b) irreversible.
--
Grunff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

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.
--
Grunff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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 SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.