28 C O N T E X T 9 3 : M A R C H 2 0 0 6 one occasion steel props were inserted to support a seriously defective masonry structure. In four cases on the infants school the owner carried out the works himself after some dispute over materials to be used and despite his considerable reluctance to do it. In three cases on the infants school s55 notices were served to recover sums of £3,000, £8,500 and £2,500. In the first of these four works, carried out in 1997, the council did not get competitive estimates and chose to use its direct labour organisation.The inquiry inspector found the works to be necessary but allowed the council to recover only a third of the costs. On the secondary school, in two instances the owner had the works carried out, but in the third case the council had to do the works at a cost of £13,000. This was recovered following an appeal, although it took two and a half years to do so. Over this period of about 12 years the council’s action carried out under s54 and 55 was accompanied by a continuous exchange of letters with the owners and occasionally their solicitors, trying to persuade them to act reasonably, either by coming forward with schemes to develop the buildings themselves, or to sell them on to someone who would, for realistic prices which reflected the costs of repair. In 1999 there was hope of ending this cycle of temporary works, vandalismand continuing dereliction. A successful bid by the district council to the Heritage Lottery Fund for a townscape heritage initiative for the colliery model village included funds for the rescue of the two former schools. £500,000 was allocated as grant aid for appropriate schemes to regenerate the schools, out of a total first phase offer from the HLF of £1.4 million for the model village.The owners of both schools were kept fully informed of the availability of the HLF grants and of all the council’s considerations and resolutions. Even this grant aid was not enough to encourage the owners to take positive action. Throughout the negotiations the council sought valuation advice from the district valuer. In the early days the district valuer’s values were quite generous to the owners but in early 2005, as the parties headed towards a public inquiry into the CPO, his values dropped to £1 for each school. Failing to instil some realism in the owners’ minds on valuations, the council served a s48 repairs notice in respect of the infants school in 2001 and in respect of the secondary school in 2003. Not content with one millstone around his neck, the infants school’s owner Mr A suddenly acquired the secondary school from Mr B in 2002, and soon after became subject to the second repairs notice as well. The two s48 notices covered full and permanent repair of all external elements of the two buildings. While the law and the guidance do not require a full specification to a standard suitable for tendering by builders, it helps if the schedule of works is prepared by a conservation architect or surveyor. They can with authority defend the contents of the schedule in the magistrates court if the owner appeals and can also defend them in a public enquiry. The objective of a repairs notice is to specify reasonable steps for the proper preservation of the building. Proper preservation is not defined anywhere but guidance can be found in PPG15 and in the English Heritage publicationStopping the Rot.What are reasonable steps has to be a matter of judgement. The schedules for these two buildings each ran to seven pages and nearly 60 clauses. I went as far as to specify complete internal replastering, replication of significant internal joinery of which evidence survives, the installation of basic electrical power and lighting circuits, and temporary protection for the repaired windows. Stopping the Rot states that ‘proper preservation implies positive action to put and to keep a listed building in good repair in a way which fully respects its architectural or historic interest and to prevent it being exposed to harm. This normally involves undertaking regular repairs and routine maintenance. It may be achieved of course, by bringing or keeping a useable building in full beneficial use.’ I took the view that in the economic circumstances of these particular buildings no low-key use (such as industrial storage) which might operate without plaster on the walls could possibly ensure the proper preservation of these buildings. Similarly it is unthinkable that long-term proper preservation through an economically viable new use could be achieved without the provision of electrical services. Case law has established that repairs notices can require works to bring a building back only to the state Temporary steel propping to the porch of the secondary school
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=