Government scraps heritage protection "to boost economy"

[Keithj]

There's an even worse scenario, Pford75.

When we bought this house, it had a roof of ugly concrete tiles (a relatively recent addition) - totally unsuitable and inappropriate. Our CO and the PC were very supportive of our plan to remove them and replace with pantiles. However, we then got a letter from Building Regulations to tell us that the tile work would make it a "new roof" which must comply with the 2011 heat insulation rules (Part L, I think it was). The on-cost would have been many thousands of pounds - Celotex between all timber joists, thermal blanket over the timbers, and more.

The fact that the walls are traditional Tudor laths with lime render, so not exactly heatproof, was not relevant.

Fortunately, the roof structure as built in 1500ish didn't provide a space to fit the Celotex, and in the end Building Regs agreed it could be omitted.

In general, LBC rules are "don't change anything" - plastic gutters there are, plastic gutters must remain. Crittall metal windows fitted years ago to replace period wooden ones - metal windows must remain. Most COs will readily agree to a proposal to replace with the more appropriate product as long as the "wrong" one isn't a significant feature in its own right.

 

[Flyfisher]

"In general, LBC rules are "don't change anything" - plastic gutters there are, plastic gutters must remain"

I agree with your basic point but I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to define a list of changes that wouldn't require LBC because they were inappropriate since it would be impossible to cover every possibility.

For example, should I be able to rip out our rather nice georgian sash windows complete with original wobbly glass simply because they've been inappropriately fitted to a 1550 timber framed building (damaging and destroying parts of the original timbers in the process)?

An extreme example, I agree, but an example of how difficult it would be to formulate a clear policy.

In practice, I'd bet that the listing wouldn't even mention plastic gutters so it would, in practice, be possible to change then anyway without any comeback - plus, even if the relevant authorities did somehow find out I doubt, I doubt they would take any enforcement action. But I certainly agree it's all rather unsatisfactory and open to abuse.

Personally, I think the CO system works pretty well, though I can appreciate it all hinges on the 'reasonableness' of the CO in question. I wouldn't try to pretend that the current system is perfect but it seems safer for our historic buildings to rely on the reasonableness of COs than the reasonableness of developers.

The point about the CO vs BC is a good one, though I wouldn't blame BC as such - they have a completely different remit after all. One thing I have always wondered though is why works done under LBC approval have no signing-off procedure in the same way as bulding regulations do.

 

[Keithj]

No disagreement there, and our CO certainly takes an attitude I would call "appropriate".

We met a couple a few months back who have a Tudor cottage with cheap 1960s metal windows. They wanted to replace the metal with timber, and were apparently told "no" when they applied for LBC. I suspect there is more behind it than that, because we had a very different response to our tiles request.

 

[biffvernon]

Whatever the proposed changes do for period buildings, they certainly aren't going to 'boost the economy'. That's beyond redemption.