Period grumble

[jocelyn plummer]

Uff-- it has come to my attention that a Grade 2 listed business premises in our Market town has been damaged by wrongful internal refurbishment.
Apparently new business tenants took on the premises in January and applied for consents to re configure the shop area to suit their product. Work started. Fine, you might think--however, after several months of apparent inactivity it turns out that they went several steps too far and had removed most of the original features, including the lovely original floor boards. At some point -- quite recently --they were found out and are now having to re-instate---- how can you do that when the original features have been burnt on a bonfire and skipped in the tip. Whatever went wrong--- somebody was not doing their job properly.
Makes me very angry. :evil: :evil:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

With "only" 2012 listed buildings in your district, I'd have thought blaming someone (presumably at the council) for not doing their job properly was a bit harsh, especially if consent existed for some work, all internal - nothing suspicious about a skip or two outside and building work going on?

 

[LadyArowana]

It's a shame, and I can understand how upsetting it is to find that something like that has happened, but I think it's the people who did the work that are at fault. There's already enough of the "big brother is watching you" mentality, without it being mandatory to station a CO at every listed building construction site. Although I would be quite happy for the lovely Mr Hughes to park himself at the house when we eventually start doing something, perhaps I should start saving now for the tea and kit kats.

 

[plasticpigeon]

You are lucky. If that happened in Birmingham, the owner would apply successfully for the retrospective permissions for the extra work, as the council can't be bothered to prosecute.

 

[Flyfisher]

With "only" 2012 listed buildings in your district, I'd have thought blaming someone (presumably at the council) for not doing their job properly was a bit harsh, especially if consent existed for some work, all internal - nothing suspicious about a skip or two outside and building work going on?

That's fair comment, though I do think there is inconsistency in the system.

If I apply for planning consent for new work then I have to gain the appropriate approval PLUS I then have to deal with building control throughout the execution of the work to ensure it complies with the various regulations and I get a certificate of proof that the works comply.

But there is no similar follow up process for any works carried out under LBC. In fact, there is no sign-off procedure to certify that the works have been carried out as per the original LBC.

I realise that listed buildings cannot be easily covered by a set of 'building regulations' but some sort of final 'sign off' for all LBC works would surely be a good thing?

 

[88v8]

listed buildings cannot be easily covered by a set of 'building regulations' but some sort of final 'sign off' for all LBC works would surely be a good thing?

Too right.
Unfortunately, I suspect that most Councils just regard Listed buildings as a nuisance and a cost, and have no desire to fund the CO function properly.
I was amazed when we moved here that we received nothing from the Council summarising what one can and cannot do with a GII building and the services and guidance the CO can offer. That alone tells me that the Council basically couldn't care less. Many COs must feel that theirs is a thankless task.

Ivor

 

[tobydog]

listed buildings cannot be easily covered by a set of 'building regulations' but some sort of final 'sign off' for all LBC works would surely be a good thing?

Too right.
Unfortunately, I suspect that most Councils just regard Listed buildings as a nuisance and a cost, and have no desire to fund the CO function properly.
I was amazed when we moved here that we received nothing from the Council summarising what one can and cannot do with a GII building and the services and guidance the CO can offer. That alone tells me that the Council basically couldn't care less. Many COs must feel that theirs is a thankless task.

Ivor

Be careful what you wish for. Would you really want to go through all those works, believing what you were doing was fully in keeping with the LBC approval, only to be told by the CO at final sign off that it's not quite what he expected to see? I'm quite happy that I've carried out my works as best I could given the brief we provided (and it was brief) but I wouldn't want to be judged on it later. My LBC approval included 'internal alterations' which I have done, to the best of my knowledge, with the least possible damage to the building and in keeping with the existing structure. If I was to have these changes vetted, I would much rather it was done in stages as it is with Building Regs than be told it's all wrong after the paint has dried. This could be a nightmare and the 'innocent' majority would probably suffer as a consequence.

 

[MatthewC]

I think the astonishing thing is that Building Control and Planning at the Council here just do not speak to each other. So one gives permission for something and the other has no idea that the work is going on. Thus I got LBC to re-do the roof which specifically included adding a membrane, but the BCO later on told me that I should have asked for separate BC approval as well which I didn't realise. Mind you, the Council website still shows my last two BC requests as "Approved" when I was given completion certificates two years ago!

I think they are now simply so understaffed in all departments that they cannot really cope with what they are required to do, far less go above and beyond to make sure that you've done it right. If I'd realised that the CO would never visit, I would have ignored them and fitted DG in my brand new window...

 

[Flyfisher]

Be careful what you wish for. Would you really want to go through all those works, believing what you were doing was fully in keeping with the LBC approval, only to be told by the CO at final sign off that it's not quite what he expected to see? I'm quite happy that I've carried out my works as best I could given the brief we provided (and it was brief) but I wouldn't want to be judged on it later. My LBC approval included 'internal alterations' which I have done, to the best of my knowledge, with the least possible damage to the building and in keeping with the existing structure.

I've had much the same experience and things have worked well with our CO, but imagine if the CO changed during the project and the new one had significantly differing views? Where would that leave the owner? I'm certainly no fan of more bureaucracy but there seems to be no formal closure to the LBC process,
Unlike there is with building control.

But I agree with being careful what we wish for. Difficult isn't it?

 

[88v8]

.... I agree with being careful what we wish for. Difficult isn't it?

Yes, it is.
We want Period buildings to be protected against what the Prolerie might do, while being free ourselves to do the Right Thing.
And speaking as a bureaucracy hater, I suppose I'm happier with things as they are.
But I was also amazed that in the process of throwing out two thirds of our LBC application, neither of the COs wanted to visit. No one from t'Council has ever been in the house, the listing details only refer to the exterior, I'd have thought they'd take the opportunity of coming round even if they had already decided that they were going to buzz our proposals.
Well, I too will be careful that I don't do anything crass, but it does perhaps explain why it took us two years to find a house that hadn't been butchered internally.

Ivor

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Well, if nothing else it has opened up a good debate showing planning inconsistency, good CO's , bad CO's and insensitive owners--- but the irony of the whole thing is that the business tenants are ESTATE AGENTS!!!!!!! (new to the area, not already in the Town).

 

[philpjuk100]

Visiting my son in cambridgeshire I noticed this article in his local paper,dont really know where I stand on this,sounds as if there may be a clash of personalities over this.
Fenland’s sacked conservation officer claims he lost his job after going one step too far in trying to protect the area’s heritage.


Martyn Kendall, Fenland District Council’s conservation officer, was dismissed after a disciplinary hearing for bringing the authority into disrepute. He was also accused of passing on confidential information when he tried to gain backing from English Heritage and other organisations dedicated to protecting the country’s history.

But he successfully defended that allegation.

There were five points listed against him at a hearing in July three of which were upheld. He was instantly dismissed but now Mr Kendall is taking the council to an employment tribunal.

Mr Kendall claims councillors do not take the issue of conservation seriously and he had particular misgivings over the Grade II listed Audmoor House in High Street, March, owned by the Skoulding family - Rob Skoulding is a member of Fenland District Council.


He had been trying to force the replacement of six plastic windows and a door which do not comply with Audmoor House’s Grade II listing.

However, John Skoulding, of Snowmountain Enterprises, which is responsible for the building, said the family bought the building around 10 years ago with the plastic windows in place.

At that time he and his late father Peter Skoulding had a meeting with Fenland council officers to discuss any outstanding issues with Audmoor House and its listed status before they bought it.

“We were told we could keep the plastic windows at the rear/side, but must maintain wooden ones at the front. I have been working on that understanding ever since. New people come in with new ideas. I called the conservation officer because of concerns about subsidence caused by two trees at the front of the house.

“But all Mr Kendall was interested in were the plastic windows. I have had an engineer’s report done and the building is subsiding, but now the trees have Tree Preservation Orders on them. I have made an offer to the council on the plastic windows. I have said I will replace any future windows with wooden ones and when the plastic ones need replacing they will be replaced with wooden ones too.

“I’m waiting to see if that offer has been accepted or not,” said John Skoulding.

Mr Skoulding admits two new plastic windows were fitted during the recent refurbishment, but that was done in good faith based on the agreement made with Fenland Council at the time the property was purchased.

He said: “I would not have fitted plastic windows if I knew it was wrong, why would I do that?”

But Mr Kendall said: “Adhering to the requirements of a Grade II listing is a legal issue, and people can be prosecuted for breaking the law. It doesn’t usually come to that, I have had a lot of success in making people adhere to the rules without resorting to legal action.

“However, I felt my hands were tied over Audmoor House. I wrote to English Heritage and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings among others in an attempt to get their support for my stance. I admit the language I used was over the top, I referred to councillors as ‘ignorant’, which I know I should not have done.

“I knew I was taking a chance and could lose my job but I was prepared to face that risk. I was the conservation officer for Fenland for five years and there didn’t appear to be much interest in protecting the area’s heritage, and quite frankly if that is lost then Fenland will be just another place like Milton Keynes.

“If by speaking out now I can get action over Audmoor House and the illegal windows are replaced then I will be happy. I will see that as a successful outcome,” concluded Mr Kendall.

A spokesman for Fenland Council stated: “We don’t comment on issues involving individual members of staff.”

And continued: “The council is fully committed to protecting and enhancing Fenland’s heritage and this is underlined in our emerging Core Strategy. Our policies and decisions on all conservation matters are based on current legislation and national policy guidelines, together with the advice provided by specialist organisations such as English Heritage.

“As for Audmoor House, discussions are continuing with the owner to resolve the issue.”

 

[LadyArowana]

The councillor should have recused himself from any participation in the guys case due to his personal involvement on the other side of the issue. I bet he was right, I bet they are idiots.

 

[Moo]

I just wish that councils would stop hanging on to lovely old buildings and just allow them to decay. There's one at Beckenham Place Park that breaks my heart every time I see it. Why on earth don't they sell these places to someone who'd bring them back to life?

 

[plasticpigeon]

I don't understand why councils keep amazing, superb quality and well loved old buildings and allow them to rot, while spending a fortune on expensive white elephants. I wonder how much money was spent on Millennium commission projects, all of them in my area were a total disaster, as was the high profile dome. In fact the only really successful of these that I know of is the Tate Modern.

 

[philpjuk100]

A historic hotel in Newark, Nottinghamshire, once the town's premier hostelry, is about to get a new lease of life.

The 37-bedroom Robin Hood hotel, which has been closed for nearly two years and plagued by vandals, is to be restored by owner Abraham Holdings
This is from our local paper from 4th of may 2000, Thirteen years later it is in a far worse state,parts of it have been demolished,the developers (no longer Abrahams) have built a new ASDA store behind the robin hood,part of the permission was the restoration of the hotel which is now an eyersore,it is on the main route through Newark.The hotel was originally a pair of cottages from 1781 and is currently grade 2 listed.but the developers (strawson) have applied to the council to demolish the remains as restoration would be "uneconomical" (the frontage facing the camera in the pic has now been demolished)

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Such typical stories--it's awful .