28 craftsmanship. I do not believe that buildings that have been standing for several hundred years should be demolished simply because an engineer does not understand them. If they have stood for this period of time, surely they must have an extended life if they are helped along a little. Very often, in my office, we are asked to give ballpark figures for the work that we think it is necessary to carry out to an historic building, and we have found that by producing a Schedule of Works and pricing each item in a very arbitrary manner it is possible, by a swings and roundabout process, to end up with a figure that is within I 0% to 15% of the final contract cost. This aspect of the work of an engineer cannot be underrated because nearly always the client wants to know the cost so that he can relate this to his budget. It is also possible by this process for items from the schedule to be omitted following guidance from ourselves as to the vitally necessary parts of the repair process and to carry out the important works within the client's budget. As a practice we will never ever let a client go in to a scheme for repair or restoration of an historic structure without giving some indication of the likely cost and indeed our fees. Many times, recommendations from Conservation Officers have come to us when a proposals is put forward by a building owner with permission to carry out works to an historic building and the Conservation Officer feels uneasy about the proposals related to the amount of engineering work proposed. In 90% of these cases, after I have briefly inspected the property, it has been possible to intimate that there is no need for substantial works and thus the cost is greatly reduced, and the client is delighted. In these cases, of course, care is necessary over professional ethics, but it is acceptable for any building owner to ask for a second opinion, and as long as the engineer giving this opinion is not openly critical of the other professional, and simply gives his own opinion, then this is professionally acceptable. We have found that, when proposals are put forward to us by clients for the repair or restoration of historic buildings, they either have a reasonable idea of their requirements or they haven't a clue and are looking for complete guidance. We believe that it is very important in the early days of any project to establish the client's budget, or if you like the availability of money to complete the works. It may seem naive to say it, but it is essential that a project should not be embarked upon if the professional has no real idea of the final cost, or he has no idea of the client's access to finance. Recent experience also suggests that the time scale of money available from local authorities in terms of grand aid should SIR TITUS also be established. We have recently been approached by a building owner who had started negotiations with a local authority at a time when there were virtually unlimited improvement grants available, but, by the time the project had been put together and builder's prices obtained, the local authority's ceiling had been lowered to such a level that it was impossible for the client to finance the balance. The cost effectiveness of any professional must be in his ability to save his client money whilst carrying out the minimum repair necessary commensurate with good standard of workmanship, using traditional materials, and of course ultimately satisfying the client's requirements. Brian Morton is a consultant to The Morton Partnership CORRECTIONS In Brian Morton's last 'Supporting Column's article ( Context 42, p 17), we misplaced the builders who undertook the Barlaston Hall reconstruction - Swan & Partners (Rebuilders) Ltd - in Hertfordshire. They are, of course, based at Kingsland, near Leominster Ill Herefordshire. In Ian Hume's article 'Floors in historic buildings 1015BC to AD1994' ( Context 43 p26) the Editor apologises for having printed the photo upside-down!. The boards are of course floorboards, not boards on a ceiling! My apologies. This quarter, David Morton looks at some of the implications of PPG15 does not represent new advice on substantive legislation. It does, however, generally give more, better and in places new advice compared with its predecessor. In the light of this there are areas of opportunity to improve the end product of listed building control. One of these stems from the fact that, for the first time, the PPG contains a very clear statement of an applicant's duty to justify proposals for works to listed buildings. PPG15 for listed building control "2.11 Local planning authorities ... should expect developers to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special interest of the site or structure in question and to provide such written information or drawings as may be required to understand the significance of a site or structure before an application is determined." "3.4 Applicants for listed building consent must be able to justify their proposals. They will need to show why works which would affect the character of a listed building are desirable or necessary." If full advantage is taken of the opportunity presented by these two sentences, it opens up the possibility of a CONTEXT 44
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=