Grade II Listed - what needs LBC?

[wizbongre]

I suspect I know the answer to this but wanted to ask anyway...

Looking at buying a house that is Grade II listed. As with many, the listing doesn't really give much away as to what is considered integral to the listing and architectural value of the place. I'm struggling to find some guidance on what jobs usually do or don't need LBC.

For example, I'm sure if I wanted to knock a wall down and reconfigure the layout it definitely would. What about more cosmetic stuff, like replacing knackered skirting board or stripping and redecorating? And what about stuff you'd consider good practice to make the place safe, efficient and up to standards, like replacing old electrics and plumbing? What about external maintenance, like tidying up the stucco/lime render and re-painting it? Or even fixing/replacing blown internal lime based plaster?

Is the advice, as I suspect, to speak to the local CO and see what they say about every last thing?

The house has had the same family in for over 50years and doesn't appear to have had anything done to it in the majority of that time, so has a ~30year old kitchen, equally old bathroom suites, decor, gas fires, etc. The fabric of the building, floors, joists, doors and windows all appear to be old and original (and hence worth retaining/restoring) but a lot of it is just general 70's and 80's nastiness... It feels the right compromise would be to modernise whilst keeping to a sensible aesthetic and using appropriate materials and techniques but I'm not sure how that applies to things like electrics for example. I recognise sensible and planning aren't often used together either.

 

[^woody^]

You need to find out the reason it was added to the list, and that in part determines what work can be done and to what extent.

But generally, minor and normal repairs are exempt, but any material change or building/ engineering operation that falls under planning law may require consent. Electrics and kitchen replacement and lots of other find do not fall under planning law.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I just wouldn't buy anything listed, at all. Be ready to bow down and ask permission nicely, it would wind me up more than I could handle.

If it's single glazed then it probably has to stay that way. Hello huge heating bills and dripping condensation. It's not all cutesy glamour.

We were looking at buying a victorian church, to convert into a house. Not listed, but similar issues apply, heritage asset or something vague and woolly, basically they make the rules up as they go, you do as you're told and don't answer back. We applied for planning guidance (fees apply) at the same time as conveyancing. They came back with a list of potential annoyances as long as my arm, we pulled out of buying it. Cost us a few £100s in planning fees and aborted conveyancing (and cost the seller too), but that was a better outcome than buying the place blind.

It might be worth looking into doing similar, very glad we did.

The one we didn't buy got sold to someone else who presumably didn't do this and bought a problem. It's still derelict and back for sale again, 4 years later.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Wise old Conservation Officer once told me, 'if you don't want the hassle don't buy it', simple really.

 

[^woody^]

I don't know people make a big thing about what can or can't be done with listed or heritage buildings.

The list and local heritage list is intended to preserve our heritage buildings for the good of others, and is prevent someone adding any old crap to a building in any old way they choose.

It really is simple.

 

[wizbongre]

You need to find out the reason it was added to the list, and that in part determines what work can be done and to what extent.

Thanks Woody. Agreed. The listing is specific about the overall structure and material design of the building but goes no further. I know this is meaningless and will depend on what the local CO thinks. Its a property over 200 years old but doesn't appear so - its a big, solid stone terraced building with 3 houses in it, that was formerly a single residence. It was listed in 1985 so arguably the 70's & 80's stuff are part of it!

My working assumption so far is that anything, even down to repainting, is worth running past the CO.

If it's single glazed then it probably has to stay that way. Hello huge heating bills and dripping condensation. It's not all cutesy glamour.

My initial research suggests there are a number of ways to manage this, or at least improve it, that balance the CO needs with better efficiency. We'll see...

Wise old Conservation Officer once told me, 'if you don't want the hassle don't buy it', simple really.

Arguably the same for any house/car purchase?!

I don't know people make a big thing about what can or can't be done with listed or heritage buildings.

For me, its less about what can or can't be done, and more about understanding what I need to speak to CO about to make sure anything that is done is done properly.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

The list and local heritage list is intended to preserve our heritage buildings for the good of others, and is prevent someone adding any old crap to a building in any old way they choose.

I do understand the motive and the need. The issue is that the emphasis is strongly on conservation and hardly at all on the rights of the person who owns it, has paid £100k's for it and needs to live there.

Sealed unit double glazing should be an accepted minimum starting point for making a house adequate for modern living. It could be done sympathetically, it wouldn't look as cutesy but would be a reasonable compromise.

It seems bizarre that one department of the council demands all kinds of high standards for new extensions, while another demands that basic standards even way below this aren't allowed. If the govt wants houses to be uninhabitable museum exhibits then they should buy them.

I'd just avoid anything listed at all, or at least unless they were priced a lot lower to cover the hassle and cost of running them. But they're not, many seem to think it's OK or even a good thing - estate agents regularly brag about it, so some must think it's a good thing.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

But you don't need to buy it, you take on such a property and accept it's limitations. Or you don't buy it.

 

[bernardgreen]

My cottage is Grade II listed and there has not been any real problems with the Conservation Officers I have dealt with.

In my opinion the majority of Conservation Officers realise that the building has to be kept ( made ) habitable and comfortable if it is to be preserved by caring owners.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Is it double-glazed and insulated?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

But you don't need to buy it, you take on such a property and accept it's limitations. Or you don't buy it.

I'm surprised that listed building rules haven't been challenged under the human rights act before now.

 

[^woody^]

the rights of the person who owns it, has paid £100k's for it

Like my rights to zoom down the M5 to see one of Freddie's jobs, at the maximum speed of my car "because I've paid for it"?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

It's not the same. I don't want to get lost in ever-weirder metaphors, but it's more like saying you're not allowed to pump your tyres up, i.e. do the basics that are required to run a car.

The end result of this fussiness is that many buildings remain derelict or mysteriously burn down, the exact opposite of preservation.

 

[blup]

I suspect I know the answer to this but wanted to ask anyway...

Looking at buying a house that is Grade II listed. As with many, the listing doesn't really give much away as to what is considered integral to the listing and architectural value of the place. I'm struggling to find some guidance on what jobs usually do or don't need LBC.

For example, I'm sure if I wanted to knock a wall down and reconfigure the layout it definitely would. What about more cosmetic stuff, like replacing knackered skirting board or stripping and redecorating? And what about stuff you'd consider good practice to make the place safe, efficient and up to standards, like replacing old electrics and plumbing? What about external maintenance, like tidying up the stucco/lime render and re-painting it? Or even fixing/replacing blown internal lime based plaster?

Is the advice, as I suspect, to speak to the local CO and see what they say about every last thing?

The house has had the same family in for over 50years and doesn't appear to have had anything done to it in the majority of that time, so has a ~30year old kitchen, equally old bathroom suites, decor, gas fires, etc. The fabric of the building, floors, joists, doors and windows all appear to be old and original (and hence worth retaining/restoring) but a lot of it is just general 70's and 80's nastiness... It feels the right compromise would be to modernise whilst keeping to a sensible aesthetic and using appropriate materials and techniques but I'm not sure how that applies to things like electrics for example. I recognise sensible and planning aren't often used together either.

A lot of listed buildings were “restored” using inappropriate or modern materials. Sometimes this happened after listing sometimes before. Anyone dealing with a conservation officer has my sympathy, they treat it as their own project, so make sure you have a professional on board to negotiate to argue and understand the case.

Blup

 

[^woody^]

It's not the same. I don't want to get lost in ever-weirder metaphors, but it's more like saying you're not allowed to pump your tyres up, i.e. do the basics that are required to run a car.

The end result of this fussiness is that many buildings remain derelict or mysteriously burn down, the exact opposite of preservation.

It's exactly the same.

There are laws and regulations for everything, and even if you don't like them, or don't think they should apply to you just because say, you've shelled out a few grand on something but in full knowledge that laws and regulations will apply to the thing you have bought, the laws do and should apply regardless.