Grade 2 listed building (internal wall removal)

[K17 CAR]

We have viewed a property today that ticks a lot of our boxes.

The kitchen however is just a long 6’ wide room, the removal of 1/2 in length of one wall would open it up to somthing very workable,

Is this something we are likely to be able to do or will it be a nightmare getting permission?

thanks in advance.

[Dog Star]

My mate has gone through absolute hell involving stuff he had changed on his listed property (it's a long story but he had done nothing wrong) so whatever you do make sure you seek professional advice.

Or even better, get the listed status removed (which he has now successfully managed to do).

[Equus]

Impossible to say.

You will need Listed Building Consent and as a general rule they're not keen on anything that harms the original fabric of the building.

[21TonyK]

An easy way to get a steer is to talk to the local listed building officer at the council and look at the buildings listing to get an idea of what elements are untouchable. I've done this a couple of times and always found them quite receptive to my ideas.

[gfreeman]

21TonyK said:

An easy way to get a steer is to talk to the local listed building officer at the council and look at the buildings listing to get an idea of what elements are untouchable. I've done this a couple of times and always found them quite receptive to my ideas.

This.

They were very flexible with a house I once owned dating to 1535 in NE Hampshire. Grade 2. The Conservation Officer couldn't have been more helpful, but you will only get a steer, not a definitive answer.

[dmsims]

It's a bit like playing Russian roulette with 3 bullets in the gun.........

[LotusMartin]

Did almost exactly this to our farm 7 years ago. Best investment was a listed building specialist (who used to work for the council). Got everything we wanted approved. Just jump through their hoops and be extra nice to them - talk about restoration and conservation rather than alternations. Massively depends on what the listed consent officer is like though i hear.

[gred]

We employed an architect familiar with Grade 2 and had prior dealings with the incumbent Conservation Officer. She (the CO) was not the easiest to deal with and ‘felt’ our kitchen was big enough. Quite why that was the case remained a mystery. Anyway, after jumping through a few hoops we were able to remove a dividing wall but reused the stone blocks to repair a previous bodged effort elsewhere.

Architect was worth her weight in gold, stopped me offering my opinion…

[DKL]

gred said:

She (the CO) was not the easiest to deal with and ‘felt’ our kitchen was big enough.

We've had this in the past. Quite why they feel they can offer an opinion on why you might want something is beyond me. If they object for sound reason then that's one thing but to just disagree that you might want it is just bonkers. They have far too high an opinion of themselves sometimes...

[C Lee Farquar]

It is very subjective, but perhaps reasonable for them to assess need?

Is it reasonable that they protect the fabric they are charged with protecting from someone who want's an unusually large kitchen?

Or should they accommodate the current fashion of house layout and allow the house to change over time?

Not an easy task.

[gfreeman]

DKL said:

gred said:

She (the CO) was not the easiest to deal with and ‘felt’ our kitchen was big enough.

We've had this in the past. Quite why they feel they can offer an opinion on why you might want something is beyond me. If they object for sound reason then that's one thing but to just disagree that you might want it is just bonkers. They have far too high an opinion of themselves sometimes...

It is hinted at by their job title. Most are very reasonable people but making wholesale changes is not exactly conserving our heritage buildings.

If you so wanted a modern layout why did you by a listed building in the first place?

If you liked it quirky charm then leave it alone or buy a more modern house.

The changes I made to mine were sympathetic and reversible and I took on the advice given by the very helpful Conservation Officer, but I do accept that if a fine building is at risk then change of use and layout may be better than total demolition.

[Equus]

C Lee Farquar said:

... perhaps reasonable for them to assess need?
...should they accommodate the current fashion of house layout and allow the house to change over time?

Devil's Advocate, but why?

the current NPPF said:

When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

The phrases I have highlighted in bold are Planning jargon, but what you need to know is that 'great weight' is the highest level of consideration possible, whereas 'less than substantial' is the lowest category of adverse impact.

the current NPPF then said:

Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

(my emphasis again)

So they should only be allowing even 'less than substantial' harm (the lowest category of harm, remember) if it is necessary to secure the building's optimum viable use, and they should only be weighing public benefits against that harm - the needs of the private owner/occupier simply don't come into it - and that's official, National Policy.

In terms of a house, if they think that someone should/would be willing to live in it (ie. secure its optimum viable use) without the alteration to its originality, then they should refuse permission for the changes.

There is nothing in the NPPF that says LPA's should give any weight to securing enhanced levels of practicality, liveability or energy efficiency when considering alterations to heritage assets.


I'm not known on this forum for my blinkered worship of older buildings and the construction techniques they employ, and I personally think that the NPPF affords too much emphasis on the protection of heritage assets, but - Devil's Advocate - them's the rules that Conservation Officers are professionally bound to apply in their decision-making, so if you don't like them, you shouldn't buy a Listed Building.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 7th July 09:24

[Lotobear]

It depends hugely on what the individual CA had for breakfast when asked the question, as there is no guiding national policy on how such decisions should be made.

FWIW I carry out Heritage Reports and Type 2 Records to support such applications and very recently assisted in having an internal wall removed in a 16C GII listed building. What swung it was the argument that the wall (which was in fact intrinsic to the original layout) had suffered various interventions over the years and so on balance removal did not result in a significant loss of heritage value and any such loss could be mitigated by a Type 2 record.

[Equus]

Lotobear said:

...there is no guiding national policy on how such decisions should be made.

Yes there is. I've quoted from it above. There's a whole section (1 of 16) in the NPPF that's dedicated to 'conserving and enhancing the historic environment'.

That doesn't stop it being a hugely subjective process, but (as above) if the CO allows themselves to be strictly guided by national policy, the decisions they take would actually be very tough indeed: where they are more flexible, it's usually because they are pragmatically diverging from national policy.

What this means conversely, of course, is that they have the power (and the policy backing) to be pretty much as tough as they like.

Edited by Equus on Thursday 7th July 10:49

[Lotobear]

Equus said:

Lotobear said:

...there is no guiding national policy on how such decisions should be made.

Yes there is. I've quoted from it above. There's a whole section (1 of 16) in the NPPF that's dedicated to 'conserving and enhancing the historic environment'.

That doesn't stop it being a hugely subjective porocess, but (as above) if the CO allows themselves to be strictly guided by national policy, the decisions they take would actually be very tough indeed: where they are more flexible, it's usually because they are pragmatically diverging from national policy.

What this means conversely, of course, is that they have the power (and the policy backing) to be pretty much as tough as they like.

Touche, wrong word, 'principles' would have been a better choice. But what I mean is that each CO is pretty much able to make up his/her own mind on what they consider to be appropriate or acceptable in any given circumstance so do not look to national planning policy for guidance on what may or may not be acceptable in any single LPA.

[KTMsm]

Depends if it has neighbours

A friend owns a Listed home and carried out many alterations without issue as he has no neighbours

Another friend was forced to retain a non standard roof on the rear (a later alteration) because his neighbours notified the LPA when the scaffolding was erected

[Equus]

Lotobear said:

Touche, wrong word, 'principles' would have been a better choice. But what I mean is that each CO is pretty much able to make up his/her own mind on what they consider to be appropriate or acceptable in any given circumstance so do not look to national planning policy for guidance on what may or may not be acceptable in any single LPA.

Yes, that's true, but the 'guidance' in the NPPF is no more nor less detailed than for any other aspect of Planning that respect.

Where it differs (as I've tried to get across above) is in being so absolute. Planning decisions generally are all about the 'planning balance', which literally means taking the various factors and attempting to weigh them against each other. But in terms of heritage impact, the NPPF is clear in saying that there is no level of harm that is intrinsically acceptable, and even minimal harm must be given 'great weight' (the highest level) against even public benefits (and private benefit cannot be weighed against it at all). Conversely, it's accepted that there is always some level of harm associated with other aspects of development on things like environmental impact, ecology, traffic generation, etc. and whilst the process seeks to minimise them, it accepts them as necessary evils even where there is no direct public benefit from the development.

In Planning terms - in my personal opinion - the amount of weight given to protection of heritage assets is really quite disproportionate.

There is, of course, plenty of non-statutory (but weight-carrying and authoritative) guidance on decision-making principles, from people like Historic England.

A good place to start is with the 'three R's' (Research, Recording, Reversibility) and the Historic England Document: Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance

Edited by Equus on Thursday 7th July 11:14

[Equus]

KTMsm said:

A friend owns a Listed home and carried out many alterations without issue as he has no neighbours

The trouble your friend may have is that (unlike general Planning) there is no 'statute of limitations' on unauthorised work to a Listed Building, and it is a criminal offence in itself (whereas doing 'normal' work without Planning consent is not an offence in and of itself - an offence is only committed if you fail to comply with an enforcement notice if you're caught, and they have to catch you within 4 or 10 years).

If he comes to sell the property, for example*, they could catch up with him at any stage in the future if the subsequent owner calls in the Conservation Officer for advice. He hasn't definitely 'got away with it' until he's dead.



ETA: * Oops... just seen your other thread. Bummer. But I hear that prison food is much better than it used to be...

Edited by Equus on Thursday 7th July 11:42

[dmsims]

KTMsm said:

Depends if it has neighbours

A friend owns a Listed home and carried out many alterations without issue as he has no neighbours

Another friend was forced to retain a non standard roof on the rear (a later alteration) because his neighbours notified the LPA when the scaffolding was erected

Incredibly bad advice

[gfreeman]

dmsims said:

Incredibly bad advice

Agreed!

The case referred to above which allowed a wall to be removed precisely because it had suffered so many bodges in the past so it was deemed to be no great loss.

Okay, so the culprit(s) wasn't caught so perhaps the mate of a mate will also get away with it. But that doesn't make it right by any definition.