CONTEXT The Association of Conservation Officers No 32 December 1991 Historic parks and gardens Hands-on conservation
<cfiuhor~oof Wile @o. 'lfiimiteh ManufacturersofHANDMADECLAYROOFTILES StrengthandFrostestedto BS402 @;~ IIIIRIIII - Certificate No. FM 11616 A B.S.I. 5750 Registered Company Suppliedwitha fullrangeoffittings; Ornamentals, OastsandKentPegs,Flat andCrossCambered.AvailableinRed,MediumandDarkAntique. Acceptedinsensitiveareasandregardedbythemostdiscerningspecifiersasthefinesthandmadetile onthemarket.Weintendto continueto supplyhighqualityrooftilesandto givethehighest grade ofserviceto ourcustomers whocantakepleasureintheirinvestmentknowingthattheyareadding to thequalityoftheenvironmentandourheritage. Lodgehouseon an estatein SurreycompletelyrefurbishedwithMediumAntique TUDORHANDMADECLAYROOFTILES. TUDOR ROOF TILE CO. LIMITED Newtown Works, Newtown Road, Ashford, Kent TN24 0PN 1991 Telephone 0233 635225 /6 Histori~~~~J'tti~~!~ciation Fax 0233 625331
CONTEXT No32 December 1991 ISSN: 0958-2746 Editor Bob Kindred (Ipswich Borough Council, Tel: 0473 262934, Fax: 0473 262974, 4 All Saints Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IPl 4DG, Tel: 0473 259441 Assistant Editor Gus Astley (Bath City Council Tel: 0225 461111 ext 2549, Fax: 0225 448536) Manor House, Wells Road, Hallatrow, Brisrol, BS18 SE), Tel: 0761 53047 Editorial Team: Bob Kindred, Gus Astley, Jenny Pearce, Peter Booth, Francis Biard. Context is published quarterly and is distributed ro all members of the Association of Conservation Officers. © Association of Conservation Officers 1991 THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION OFFICERS Officers Chairman: Chris Smith (Stroud Valleys Project Officer, The Shambles, High Street, Stroud, Glos GLS lAP, Tel: 0453 753358) l0A John Street Stroud, Glos GL5 2HA, Tel: 0453 753949 Vice Chairman: Mary King (Liverpool City Council, Tel: 051-225 5678) 24 Beech Road, Aughton, Ormskirk, Lanes L39 6SJ, Tel: 0695 424297 Secretary: Graham Steaggles (East Hampshire District Council, Tel: 0730 66551, Fax: 0730 67366) 54 Pulens Lane, Sheet, Petersfield, Hampshire GU31 4DD, Tel: 0730 66653 Treasurer: Peter Richards (Essex County Council, Tel: 0245 492211 ext 51511) 139 Lifstan Way, Thorpe Bay, Essex SSl 2XG, Tel: 0702 468252 Membership Secretary: James Ross (Essex County Council, Tel: 0245 492211 ext 51672) Three Bears, Laindon Common Road, Little Burstead, Essex CM 12 9TL Education Officer~ Mike King (TACP Design, Tel: 051-708 7014) 24 Beech. Road, Aughron, Ormskirk, Lanes L39 6SJ, Tel: 0695 424297 Projects Officer: Dr Richard Morrice (English Heritage, Tel: 071-973 3132) lA Bloomsbury Place, Kemp Town, Bnghton, Sussex BN2 lDA, Tel: 0273 623260 CONTEXT 32 Published for the Association of Conservation Officers by HallMcCartney Ltd, PO Box 21, Unit 7, Campus 5, The Business Park, Letchworth SG6 2)Q, Tel: 0462 675848, Fax: 0462 679356 Annual Subscription (inclusive of post & packing - UK only): .f30.00 Single Copy: .fl0.00 The views expressed in Context are not necessarily those held by the ACO or the publishers. Neither the publishers nor the ACO shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. The products and services advertised in this publication are not necessarily endorsed by the Association. Branch Officers North: Keith Murray, Durham County Council, Tel: 091-386 4411 ext 2237 North West: Rob Burns, Wirrall Metropolitan Borough Council, Tel: 051-638 7070 ext 211 Yorkshire: Bob Scriven, 2 Lambert Avenue, Roundhay, Leeds LS8 lNH, Tel: 0532 668782. (Convenor contact Jacqueline Ryder, Tel: 0924 296590) West Midlands: Brian Moore, Dudley Borough Council, Tel: 0384 452188 East Midlands Graham Beaumont, Nottinghamshire County Council, Tel: 0602 817911 South West: David Richardson, Devon County Council, Tel: 0392 382252, Fax: 0392 382600 South: Katherine Blackwood, East Hampshire District Council, Tel: 0730 66551 East Anglia: John Presron, Cambridge City Council, Tel: 0223 358977 ext 2630 South East: John Davey, Guildford Borough Council, Tel: 0483 505050 ext 3633 London: Rosemarie MacQueen, City of Westminster, Tel: 071-798 2519 Scotland: Debbie Robertson, Edinburgh District Council, Tel: 031-225 2424 ext 6562 Wales: John James, Clwyd County Council, Tel: 0352 2121 Northern Ireland Colin Hatrick, DoE Northern Ireland, Tel: 0232 653251 CONTENTS Editorial News ENFORCING REPAIR Using Full Repairs Notices -the facts. Bob Kindred Approaches to the problem. Ann Rostron Case study: Baggrave Hall, 5 5 9 Leicestershire. Rosalind Willatts 11 Cover story 13 Aiding enforcement. Steven Parissien14 Public inquiries -improving your chances of success. Peter Richards 15 Urgent Works Notices. Graham Steaggles 16 Historic parks and gardens. Mary Stacey 18 Protective species. Alan Taylor 19 Mud pies for adults.John Preston 20 Conservation training. Alan Taylor 21 Courses 22 A cast iron case. Graham Tite 23 Law & Practice Sir Titus. David Morton 25 Derby bites blind.Jonathan Phipps 26 M'learned friend. Charles Mynors Feedback ACO Business News ACO Branch News Books ILLUSTRATIONS IN THIS ISSUE 27 29 30 33 37 Front cover and p 13: Photo Vanessa Brand p7: Illustration Deborah Kindred plO: 17 Timberhill, Norwich. Photo WCL Partnership ppl 2, 13: Baggrave Hall, Leicestershire. Photos Rosalind Willatts pl 7: 36 High Street, Petersfield. Photo Graham Steaggles p20: Repairing traditional buildings. Photos Bob Kindred p22: Training in flintwork. Photos John Lord p23: Italian cast iron. Photos Accademia Italiana p26: Shop blind, Derby. Photo Jonathan Phipps p29: uPVC windows in Leicester. Photos Leicester City Council 3
S andtoft Hand-made Clay Plain Tiles share a common characteristic with the British weather. Variability. No two tiles are exactly alike because each one is crafted from locally quarried clay using traditional methods. As a result, the tiles and the good old British weather combine to create a roof with ~\ONA( 11 11 <;;)' •, l',,, a me ow, we 'l'°·· "< ic, I" l·d• 1k ,_ ~ 'l!Jl 1ve-m oo. • m ~, . ....\ .,,,_ ' tu Th . b•l• • ,;a ,... . ' ·' c:, e vana J1J.ty1s, -y •. -::~- "'l" c/ • ~ h nl -,., 0 NA\..\.-4. owever, o yon the surface. Modern technology ensures that all the tiles are made to the highest standards. Firing in the latest moving hood kilns, for example, means that the finished product is as durable as it is attractive. A comprehensive range of standard fittings -plus the ability to make any bespoke fittings to order - eases the task of laying. And shrinkwrapping onto pallets makes deliveries equally trouble-free. So whatever your next project may be - and whatever the weather may hold- specify Sandtoft Handmade Clay Plain Tiles. And watch them weather beautifully. The two colours, Natural Red Sandfaced and Autumn Brown, both complement historic buildings, and provide a sympathetic roof covering for new properties in conservation and environmentally sensitive areas. ommmom ROOF TILES Sandtoft Roof Tiles Ltd. Sandtoft, Doncaster, South Yorkshire DN8 5SY Telephone (0427)872696. Fax: (0427)873946
EDITORIAL It is always unfortunate when Conservation Officers are compelled to use Court action t0 protect hisroric buildings. Many of our powers, though long established, are not particularly easy, swift, or sufficiently punitive when applied. Consequently, they are infrequently used and often the final outcome cannot be predicted wirh any certainty. Good government recognises that a difficult balance must be struck between the rights and obligations of the individual and chose of the community. Several articles in this issue raise rhe question of whether chat balance is still weighted coo heavily in favour of the former at the expense of che laccer. While ic is heartening, on planning matters at lease, that the Government recognises a need to strengthen and streamline enforcement provisions (following the Carnwath Report) and has begun to implement the Planning & Compensation Act, what is required now is for the equivalent historic buildings powers to be strengthened. The National Audit Office is currently looking at these as part of its examinarion of value for money in the DoE and English Heritage. The Association has voiced its concerns to the NAO; pressing in particular for the introduction of Listed Building Stop Notice powers-a measure we have long advocated. Sadly, as grant budgets decline, Local Authorities become increasingly dependent on the stick rather than the carrot. In this issue we look at the use and effectiveness of both powers ro require urgent works of repair (Section 54 Notices) andmost draconian of all-powers (under Section 47 Notices) which if not complied with would lead Councils toward compulsory acquisition. Our survey reveals che true extent of the use of Repairs Notices for the first time. Ann Rostron offers advice on how the procedures are handled in Norwich where the legislation has been actively and effectively used. Peter Richards offers valuable advice to those Conservation Officers facing their first public inquiry. In our Case History, Rosemary Willats offers some salurary thoughts on what can happen when the law is flagrantly ignored, and Steve Parissien offers the backing of the Statutory Amenity Societies. Copy dates for future issues are: March issue: 15 January June issue: 15 April September issue: 15 July CALLING FORMER KING'S MANOR STUDENTS The Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies (IoAAS) based at the King's Manor, York, has recently formed an Alumni Association (voluntary subscription £10 pa) the purposes of which are to maintain social and professional contact, worldwide, between former students, and to disseminate ideas in the field of building conservation. If you are a past IoAAS student you will automatically have become a member of the Alumni Association and should recently have received the first copy of a splendidly produced journal Aspects-Views from the King's Manor which will now appear annually. The current 28 page issue in A4 format appropriately focuses on the King's Manor itself, its history, personaliries and the development and future direction of conservation education. Further thematic issues are being planned. ACO member Volkmar Nix and fellow former student Lee Holmes would like to encourage former students (a number of whom will be ACO members) who have not received Aspects or have not otherwise been contacted-perhaps because their (TWDCJ Specialists in replica windows & doors for Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas present address is not known-co get in touch with chem or the Alumni Association Secretary, Keith Knight, at the Institute. A RETURN TO THE THREE Fs Fixtures, fittings and furnishings and che degree of control over chem conferred by the listed building legislation continues to raise difficult questions of interpretation. In past issues we have reported one of the most celebrated cases, that of Orchardleigh, Somerset. A full and considered account of chat case and its legal implications has now been written by Richard Holder, senior casework adviser co the Victorian Society and published in the 1991 VicSoc Annual Report. Copies are obtainable from the Society a.t 1 Priory Gardens, London W 4 1 TT, price £3. 5 0 inc p&p. THE CONSERVATION PORTFOLIO In the December 1991 edition of the Portfolio are: Chapel Studio - Designer craftsmen in glass Tudor Roof Tile Co Ltd - Traditional hand made clay tiles theTraditionalWindow&Door Companyltd. 109D Regent's Park Road, Primrose Hill, London NWl SUR ■ Tul: 071586 9050 ■ Fax: 071 722 0030 CONTEXT 32 5
6 RAM RAIDERS AND THE STALL RISER The dramatic video shots of ram raiders in Newcastle crashing a stolen BMW through Dixon's window to grab goodies free of charge concentrated the minds of a few Conservation Officers in the pub recently. Who can blame the shopkeeper, pressed by his insurance company to provide protection, for coming up wi rh the roller shutter blind across the shop front' With all its deadening effect on the street scene and damaging effect on the building concerned there must be some alternative. Many local authorities have produced policies and guidance to deal with shopfront security. Where a security grille is required, it can often be placed behind the shop windows which are themselves fixed to an alarm. A mesh grille behind allows the shop window to display the goods at night and the only possibility of arrack is smashing the window, so setting off the alarm; hooking a chain between the grille Potmolen Paint 0pecialist 0 Traditional Paints NEWS and a vehicle, and then ripping it out. A process which takes time and which has happened a lot less frequently than rammmg. How do you deal with the rammer? The answer could be a substantial and fortified stall riser. This is more likely to be in keeping with the shopfront, and building it ensures that only a Chieftain tank will break through. Coupled with a window alarm and mesh grille behind this should ensure that shops are protected and buildings nor ruined in the process. It seems to be a solution many jewellers have used over a number of years. Like all attractive ideas emanating from pub discussions it may have drawbacks but these seem to be fewer than other current attempts to inhibit the ram raider. Francis Biard GRAEME BRADLEY-SMITH It is with the greatest regret that the ACO received the news of the death on 1 November, after a brave fight against cancer, of Graeme Bradley-Smith, marketing director of Keymer Brick & Tile Co Ltd. Our Natural Coatings include PERSONAE Jack Warsaw has left his post as Head of Conservation and Design at Wandsworth LBC to open an office as a conservation architect and town planner. Having trained as an architect in the USA, as a planner at the Polytechnic of Central London and as a conservationist at the Architectural Association, he worked at the GLC and a number of London boroughs before coming to Wandsworth, where he started the conservation unit some seven years ago. His principal interests include domestic and vernacular buildings - he has produced a householders' design guide, Do it in style for Wandsworth - the medieval period and the arts and crafts. He is currently working (with John Brandon-Jones and Parrners) on one of CFA Voysey's major houses and researching for a book on Voysey, bur would also like to help local authorities or other bodies which lack conservation expertise at present to improve their performance in statutory, advisory or practical work. He can be contacted at Wey House, Standford Lane, Headley, Hanes GU35 SRH (0420 472830). The care of historic windows, leaded or stained glass, deserves the attention of the expert. Ancient glass is irreplaceable and the conservation of such glass is our speciality born of experience. From small domestic premises to great houses we will be pleased to advise. LINSEED OIL PAINT DISTEMPER SUPER WALPAMUR Recent Commissions: Water Paint LIME PUTTY WEARETHE SUPPLIERSOF TRADITIONALPAINTS,COATINGS, BRUSHESANDTOOLSFORTHE REPAIR, CONSERVATIONAND • PRESERVATIONOF BUILDINGSETC. POTMOLEN PAINT, 27 Woodcock Industrial Estate, WARMINSTER, Wiltshire BA12 9DX, England. Telephone: Warminster (0985) 213960 Telefax: 0985 213931 Westminster Abbey Lichfield Cathedral Wilby Church Eton College Chapel Jesus College, Cambridge Brighton Pavillion Knole House Bridge Road Hunton Bridge Kings Langley Herts WD4 8RE Tel: 0923 266386 Fax:0923 269707 Derail of Restored 1Brh Century library Window Trinity College - Cambridge CHAPEL STUDIO CONTEXT 32
Are Repairs Notices effective in bringing about the repair of historic buildings? To protect chem properly it is important to know how the law is being applied and how often; the types of buildings involved; races of success and methods of approach. Bob Kindred gives an initial report on the ACO survey of use of Repairs Notices by Local Planning Authorities. would cake local authorities several centuries to deal with the remaining problem properties at the same rate, assuming chat the will co cackle chem existed in the first place. It also suggests char the law is not being used effectively or productively to protect and preserve historic buildings. The majority of local authorities are sufficiently worried chat the Compulsory Purchase provisions will eventually leave chem with a building they neither want nor are anxious to repair themselves chat they will not use their powers. It has been estimated by English Heritage chat at lease 25,000 of England's hiscoric buildings are at risk of demolition from neglect, vandalism and lack of private and local authority finance. A large number of others are thought to be in a poor state of repair and in danger of possible eventual collapse. Preliminary indications from Buildings at Risk Surveys suggest chat between 2 and 6 per cent of all listed buildings are at risk. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Ace 1990 authorises Local Planning Authorities either to cake emergency action to secure temporary repairs co unoccupied listed buildings under Section 54 or, much more drastically, to enforce the full USING FULL REPAIR NOTICES THE FACTS By authorising a Notice, a Council signals to an owner its clear intent chat it intends to enforce full repair. This appeared to have a d ramacic impact on owners as it is clear chat at lease some work was then done co over 44% of the buildings, ie a Repairs Notice did not then need to be served in 125 out of 287 instances. In South Cambridgeshire - by far the most active Authority in England - over half the cases (2 3 out of 40) were resolved because of the threat alone. repair of a listed building under Section 48 under threat of a Compulsory Purchase Order if the owner fails to cake the necessary action. In cases where it can be proved chat the building was being deliberately neglected, che Secretary of State can direct chat the owner be paid only minimum compensation if compulsory purchase is confirmed. All these seeps are measures of last resort. The study aimed to quantify how often they had been used and if they had been effective. Although it has been widely held chat Repairs Notice powers have been used even less frequently than chose for Emergency Works it is believed that no statistical research has ever been conducted by the Department of the Environment, English Heritage or anyone else. The ACO study covers the six year period beginning on 1 April 1984 (to coincide with the establishment of English Heritage). At the end of 1990 a questionnaire was sent to all English LPAs and (lacer) the London Division of English Heritage to which 87% ofLPAs responded. The results are therefore considered to be scaciscically robust. REPAIRS NOTICES AUTHORISED Although at some point just under one-third (31 %) of all English LPAs had CONTEXT 32 authorised a Repairs Notice, only 287 buildings were involved. In only five Authorities (all Shire Districts) did the number of buildings run into double figures, and between chem they accounted for 88 (or 30%) of all the Notices authorised. Fiftysix LPAs (19.5%) authorised just a single action each, over the whole six year period. In two ways the figures above are quite encouraging. They suggest chat a higher proportion of LPAs than expected was aware of problem buildings within their jurisdiction, and of the scope of the powers open to chem, but the figures are also disturbing. It surely cannot be true chat twothirds of English LPAs have no problem buildings or possess exceptional powers of persuasion and negotiation with recalcitrant owners' With the overall number of problem buildings thought to exist, it Table 1. List Grade of buildings (on which Notices were authorised) Nationall)' Stud):'.results Grade I ( 2.5%) 2 ( 0.70%) Grade II* ( 5.2%) 32 (11.15%) Grade II (92.3%) 253 (88.15%) TOTAL 287 REPAIR NOTICES SERVED Less than one-quarter (23%) of all responding English LPAs went on to serve a Notice, only 162 in total. Only South Cambridgeshire served more than nine Notices (17) and only four other Authorities served more than five each. Again these active Authorities accounted for 47 (or about 30%) of all the Notices served. Fifty LPAs (31 % ) served a single action each, over the six year period. THE OUTCOME OF SERVING THE NOTICE Only 38 of the 162 Notices served ended up at the Public Inquiry stage. Again in over three-quarters of the cases either some repair started or the building changed hands. Only five CPOs were eventually confirmed out of the 287 cases studied. Table 2. Tl'ees of buildings Domestic 176 (61.32%) Commercial 47 (16.37%) Industrial ere 27 ( 9.41%) Miscellaneous 34 (11.85%) Others uns12ecified 3 ( 1.05%) TOTAL 287 7
,;.===:===--======---====------------====--~----====----=== have to serve 60 Notices to clear the backTable 3. Reasonsgiven for identifying the problem Local representations only 20 log! Buildings at Risk Surveyonly 14 Only 287 Notices were authorised over 8 Observation by the LocalPlanning Authority 12 the entire study period, but 70% of LPAs Combination of B-A-R Surveyand local representations 11 had not even threatened to use the legislaCombination ofLPA observationand local representations 9 tion on a single occasion. Fear that the Refusal of Listed Building Consent or Planning Permission 6 final outcome might result in compulsory Failure of negotiations 5 acquisition of an unwanted building in The building looselydescribed as 'being at risk' 4 poor condition deterred them from using Inactivity by the owner 4 their powers as Parliament intended. They As the result of serving an Urgent Works Notice 3 11 were probably failing in their statutory Other general comments duty to protect historic buidlings. THE 'NIL' RETURNS Over two-thirds of LPAs seemed to make no use of the legislation between 1984 and 1990. There were a number of reasons for this response. Some had clearly been successful in threatening action without needing formally to authorise a Notice; othe_rs possessed skillful staff who had negotiated appropriate repairs and/or grant aid, or encouraged sale to a third party so that further action was not required. Other factors included the number and/or condition of listed buildings in the Authority's area. Some LPAs had so few listed buildings that the need to use the legislation did not apply. Several mentioned that their biggest problem was not lack of repair and maintenace but overrestoration. A buoyant property market had ensured that any building identified as being in poor condition had subsequently been repaired. Even after taking all these factors into account, it remains the case that the majority of LPAs had not been using the legislation and had expressed concern about the implications of being responsible for the repair if the expected Compulsory Purchase followed. LIST GRADES Only two Grade I buildings were the subject of Notices. Both were manor-houses (in Calderdale MBC and North Wiltshire DC). They represent a much smaller proportion of Grade I buildings than nationally. Conversely, the number of Grade II* buildings was twice the national average of buildings at that grade. This may reflect LP As' perception that these buildings were of disproportionately greater importance because of the * or that some Buildings at Risk surveys concentrated on Grade I and Grade II* buildings first. Even if this were the case, more Repairs Notices on Grade I buildings might have been expected. See Table 1. Some Authorities which dealt with more than one case failed to distinguish between Grades but it seems that only about seven of the 32 Grade II* buildings were domestic in type. The majority of the remainder fell into the Miscellaneous category with three schools - two in the same District - and one of cl567; two churches; a meeting hall; a folly tower; a Palladian garden temple; and a windmill. TYPES OF BUILDINGS INVOLVED The majority of listed buildings in England are in residential use. As might be expected the largest category of building type on which Repairs Notices were authorised was domestic (Table 2). IDENTIFYING THE BUILDING If a Local Planning Authority 1s discharging its functions properly, the deteriorating condition of an historical building should sooner or later come to its attention. The study asked how the need for a Repairs Notice was defined or described, for example by the outcome of a Buildings at Risk Survey or from concerns of the general public. Eighty-six of the 110 active Authorities identified specific factors either singly or in combination as set out in Table 3. The responses suggest two points in particular. First there is the issue of support and co-operation beyond the Authority itself. It should hardly be necessary to stress the importance of gaining the cooperation of the general public and local, specialist interest groups such as Amenity Societies, particularly if there has been mutual distrust concerning the Authority's past commitment to saving buildings at risk. For some Authorities at least, it would seem that an outside complaint about the condition of an historic building is the first indication that it has a problem. Such information gathering could be particularly useful to LPAs with either large numbers of or widely scattered listed buildings (or both) if such a source could be tapped. SUMMARY Assuming that the number of listed buildings at risk remains consranc at 25,000 and is evenly distributed, and assuming that a Full Repairs Notice is the only appropriate course of action, then at the present level of activity over an equivalent period every English LP A would Nevertheless, the evidence of this study shows that, by authorising a Notice, a Council would be likely to encourage an owner either to begin repairs or to sell the building in 44% of the cases. If this did not work and a Notice was served, in 75% of the remaining cases action was then prompted in the form of repair or sale. From a point where the Council decided to force the issue, only 13% of the buildings ended up at CPO Public Inquiry stage. The prospect of an owner facing a Public Inquiry and possibly being deprived of his property encouraged further action on some buildings. In only five cases out of 286 (1.7%) were the Compulsory Purchase Orders eventually confirmed! It must be concluded that on average there is a less than one in fifty chance of a Council ending up with a CPO building. With a sympathetic buyer waiting in support (whether a Building Preservation Trust, a sympathetic developer or an individual) the fear of the consequences of using the legislation should be reduced. I would like to express by gratitude to all those who responded so magnificently to the call for information. THE NEXT STAGE A very considerable amount of information ha~ come out of the very high level of response to this study, and a great deal of interest in the results has been expressed: by ACO members. It has been difficult to give a very concise summary of all the findings, but the intention now is to publish a full report in the New Year. This is well underway and will probably be in four parts, the working titles of which are: the full survey results; general misconceptions explored; a guide to the framing of schedule clauses; and a suggested guide to procedural steps. The final report will also contain an index of detailed building types, cross referenced by LP A. Any members urgently needing this information are welcome, in the: interim, to phone me as a 'clearing hous~·. CONTEXT 32
Ann Rostron draws on experience in Norwich in applying Repairs Notices in ways which achieve the desired ends. REPAIR NOTICES APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM The legislation places on the owners of listed buildings responsibility for keeping their property in a proper state of repair. However, some owners find it easier ro ignore the problems, particularly when buildings fall into disrepair, and unless pressure can be brought ro bear the fabric will continue ro deteriorate and become an entry on the Conservation Officer's list of threatened buildings. The situation is often made more difficult to resolve by the circumstances of the owner, perhaps an elderly widow, small local businessman or absentee landlord, who financially or psychologically cannot face up to the problems but equally cannot bring themselves to sell it on. In other cases, the building may be owned by a larger organisation, a property developer or brewery for example, as part of an investment holding - again it may be inconvenient to make decisions about repair or disposal for financial or other business reasons. USING A S.48 NOTICE After the initial exchange of letters - assuming that the owner replies, which cannot always be guaranteed - how is the necessary leverage exerted to force the owner into action' What are the consequences of taking positive action? How can you persuade your Committee to back your recommendations' Here in Norwich, good use has been made of the s 48 Repairs Notice procedure, followed up by Compulsory Purchase Orders under s 47, where necessary. The arrival of an official notice can achieve surprising results. In many cases, simply advising an owner that Committee has authorised the serving of a Repairs Notice has brought him or her to negotiate either repair of rhe building or disposal to a new owner. In other cases, it has been necessary to serve the Notice to achieve a response and even to. proceed toward compulsory purchase. Although owners have appealed, never - to dare - has the Council reached a public enquiry. Dates have been fixed, postponed and re-fixed, but at the CONTEXT 32 eleventh hour the owners invariably cooperated. The only CPO to be confirmed was unopposed by the owner. We are still negotiating to agree a purchase price bur failing this the Council will have to take possession under a 'General Vesting Order', at a price fixed by the District Valuer. So the first lesson to be learned is to reassure nervous Committees that in most cases there is no need to proceed to the final CPO stage. Even where CPOs are served, they are not always implemented and therefore the financial implications are likely, in practice, to be minimal. PURSUING A NOTICE TO ACQUISITION There are many reasons why owners avoid CPOs: dislike of adverse publicity, likelihood of a better financial return if the property is sold on the open marker, or finally facing up to the repairs. However there may be cases (which will probably be apparent from the start) where the owner will wish to negotiate a sale to the Local Authority and pass on the repairing liability, particularly where the poor state of the building or its situation make its sale on the open marker unlikely. In these cases, funding will have to be found, nor only for the purchase of rhe building bur also for its resroration and long term maintenance. FINANCIAL PLANNING For those properties which are ro be acquired by the Local Authority a long term plan will be needed from an early stage, starring with a simple viability study. This will show when funding will be needed and give an idea of the amounts involved for acquisition, fees (for architects, solicirors, agents), interest on loans, cost of renovation, and on the credit side income from grants, proceeds of sale (if applicable) and future rental income (which can finance a long term loan or mortgage). To progress the project it will be vital to ensure that funding is available at the appropriate time. Whether rhe building is to be restored by the Local Authority or passed on to a trust or sympathetic developer, finance will have to be negotiated with a funding organisation. For a Building Preservation Trust, development capital can be obtained from the Architectural Heritage Fund at low interest rates, to support at least part of a project, bur it is essential to plan ahead. The same applies to grants, available from the Local Authority and English Heritage, or perhaps from an independent grant making body. An important and essential ally in persuading the Council to proceed with as 48 Notice is the Local Authority Treasurer, who must understand the objectives and be fully briefed on the timescale and financial aspects. This is nor an easy area to cover and will require the best negotiating skills to be employed - it is obviously far simpler if the Treasurer involved is sympathetic to the objectives. Even with goodwill, it will be important for the Conservation Officer to ensure that the Treasurer makes provision in the Council's estimates and carries it forward when the inevitable delays push the project into a later year! A watchful eye must be kept on the budget papers as the year passes. A crucial period, for example, is in the early autumn when bids are made for the following year. One difficulty with a CPO is to predict exactly when the purchase will take place. In previous years it was rel9
10 arively simple co make a provision in the budget and direct the money co other projects or 'slip' it forward if nor used. However, under the present financial regulations, designed to limit local authority capital spending, every allocation, however small, is subjected to close scrutiny. In Norwich, with the experience of a decade behind us, the Treasurer has recognised the difficulty of predicting when the spending on a CPO will rake place. The example in the panel shows what happened this year (addresses are fictitious for obvious reasons') The Treasurer can also allow proceeds from the sale of a CPO property to be used up co 100%, rather than the normal 50% under the regulations, if the property is sold within two years. Thus, although the original purchase price must count against rhe Council's capital allocation, there is the prospect of 'recycling' the full amount within two years. It is also possible, when acquiring a building at risk, for the local authority to obtain a grant from English Heritage of 25% of the purchase price, subject co funds being available. However, unless the building passes to a Building Preservation Trust (which should benefit from the grant) it is only eligible if the building is co be retained by the Council. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Legislative procedures for serving s 48 Notices and listed building CPOs are relatively simple, but there are pitfalls and the proposed ACO guidance will help authorities just starting co take action in this area. Remember, this is a lengthy process - on average between two and three years from a decision ro ace co completion of purchase. le is important, at rhe very lease, to have a regular review of progress with Initial Costgiven to Treasurer ~ 1111 •11· I 11 17 Timberhill. Ownershavepl'ef,areda conversionscheme but the CPO is beingp11rsNedto pressurisethe ownersto start work. the Valuer and Treasurer. A quarterly report to Committee on 'Buildings at Risk' can provide a vehicle to speed matters along - iris all too easy co 'lose' many months while the notice sits in someone's in-tray; and the owner of the property will certainly nor be monitoring progress! The main reason for the length of the process, leaving aside such delays as procedural errors or bureaucratic inertia, is the necessity to pursue negotiations with the owner co reach agreement if ar all possible. Should the case end up at a public inquiry, the Inspector will expect the Authority to have explored all avenues to resolve the problem by negotiation. Thus the CPO can be delayed at every step by allowing a lirrle more time for the owner to co-operate, and the owner in turn can slow down the process by appearing to offer concesa) 123 Crown Street b) Three Tuns Yard c) 29-31 Bridge St d) 90-92 Layer Street Completion April 92 April 92 June 92 Sept. 92 £000s 60 15 150 40 265 £000s 265 In making a capital programme provision (caking account of previous years' experience) the above sum cottlcl be reduced ro cake account of: i) Possible purchase grant for (a) 15 ii) Direct sale of (b) ro the Preservation Trust at 15 agreed price iii) Owners of 29-31 Bridge Street are likely ro sell the sire privately ro avoid a CPO valuation Total reduction Remainder ro be allocated This remainingsum shouldthereforebe inclucleclas a Contingencysumfor 'B11ilclings at Risk' in the 1992193 Capital Programme 150 180 180 85 sions; for example by putting the property on rhe market but refusing to accept offers, or by obtaining estimates for the work but not engaging a contractor. From our experience we would advise a rimescale for each stage, recognising that there will, inevitably, be time lost for 'lase chance' negotiations. If the goal is kept clearly in sight, progress can be made steadily, if slowly, cowards disposal and rescoration of the building. The following observations may be helpful: D To ensure the legal validity of the Notice, it is vital that the owner or owners be accurately identified. If mistakes are discovered lacer, Notices will have to be served again, causing further work and delay. We now serve notice under the Local Government Act to confirm ownership at the start of proceedings. D The Schedule of Repairs, a legal requirement for the s 48 Repair Notice, is an important part of the process. Identification of the repairs needed may be enough in itself co encourage the owner to carry our the work. However, preparation of the Schedule need not be onerous - it is nor a survey to identify all faults, as used for house purchase, or a full specification of works co put the building right. Rather, it is merely a general identification of the defects of the building which can be seen at rhe time of the inspection amplified by provisional clauses to cover suspected faults. D Frequent liaison will be needed with the Council's legal experts co ensure chat both the Council's procedures and legal requirements are adhered co. For example, in Norwich the s 48 Repairs Notice can be served by the authority of the Planning Committee, bur a full meeting of Council is necessary to confirm a s 47 Notice for a CPO, following a resolution from the Planning Committee. Finally do keep up the pressure on the owners until a start is made on sire, or the CPO is confirmed. Owners of 'problem' buildings are remarkably adept at avoiding a decision about the repair of their property which is why the building will have become neglected in the first place. Often owners will not reach a decision until the eleventh hour. The fixing of a dace for a public hearing can bring about co-operation from even the most reluctant of owners! Ann Rostron is Head of the Conservation Section at Norwich City Counril. CONTEXT 32
CASE STUDY Enforcing the law is not always straightforward. As this article by Rosalind Willatts shows, difficult decisions are often necessary when dealing with those carrying out unauthorised work. BAGGRAVE HALL, LEICESTERSHIRE This sad story illustrates che frustrations and problems involved in attempting to control works to listed buildings. During the ownership by an off-shore company from October 1988 to October 1990 an elegant lived-in house was changed to a gaunt unliveable-in building internally stripped and much damaged. Some stonework was removed and walls were undermined. The asserted intentions were to renovate the building co che highest standards as a retreat for a wealthy businessman. THEBAGGRAVEESTATE The Baggrave Estate, although only 7 miles north-ease of Leicester, is in a remote sparsely populated area. The Hall itself is one of the buildings furthest from the Harborough District Council offices. Ic appears as a Palladian white stone box of 1752, sec well back from the road and peeping modestly through the parkland trees, and is the sole remnant of the medieval village of Baggrave. The Local Planning Authority was concerned about the Hall and estate as the whole is a well documented historic landscape. In addition co the hall (Grade II*) are scabies of 1859 (Grade II) and an early 19thcentury gazebo in the garden (spot listed in September 1989). The gardens and park are on the National Gardens Register. WHAT HAPPENED In June 1988, prior co the sale of the estate, a local builder submitted a Listed Building application to demolish the red brick north wing. This was structurally suspect, dated from 1859 and was visually discordant with the Hall. The application was duly referred in September 1988 to the Secretary of Scace, who delayed making a decision on it. Bue for this delay no-one would have been aware chat anything was amiss. In mid-December the builder preparing CONTEXT 32 ;;;. c:·' - .. ;:::i:< .;,i. _. ·.,_ ""' --... ;,....-~ ,..._ I •. ·, - the Hall for its new owner expressed concern ac the delay in issuing a decision co demolish che north wing. As a result, I and an Inspector from English Heritage visited the Hall in early January co discuss the application. By this time work had been in progress for three months without the knowledge or approval of the Council. The condition of the Hall was stark compared with when lase seen before it had been sold. Some attached outbuildings (of no quality or significance) had been demolished, there were many workmen on site and much undefined work was in progress. The floors, walls and ceilings to the attics had been removed. Some partition walls were being constructed, and other alterations were obviously intended. The agent seemed indifferent to concerns expressed on site, ignoring subsequent letters requesting him to submit a full LBC application with plans of his proposed works and to cease all work except with the Council's knowledge and agreement. He lacer seated orally chat an LBC application for alterations was ludicrous as he was only doing what the owner wanted! The following six months were a nightmare. A tenuous dialogue ensued through a local architect involving London representatives of the owner. We were assured chat plans were being prepared. In early March, with no plans received, an unscheduled visit revealed chat, far from ceasing, unauthorised works were proceeding apace; che most obvious being chat the brown ironstone plinth to the hall was partially removed and was being unnecessarily replaced by white limestone. The limestone floor to che hall was gone (it has not yet been found). The agent was immediately advised in writing to stop work until it was clear chat consent was not needed or had been obtained. Enforcement action was threatened. A Requisition Order for information was served. Several days were spent listing the unauthorised works in order co prepare a Listed Building Enforcement Notice. Meanwhile the works continued. The Requisition Order revealed an owner and occupier other than mentioned in the June 1988 application. That applicant may not even have existed. The legal owner was an off-shore company, and the Hall and estate were occupied by/tenanted by another company. More significantly, two architects representing the owner, one of whom signed the requisition, then visited the Planning Department in person. Intensive negotiations followed and some plans for LBC were submitted, scrutinised, amended, clarified and made suffic i encly comprehensive to allow for reasonable minor alterations and rectification of works done. The architects assured us chat no new works would be undertaken "during the period of negotiation and agreement"; yet the works continued and their scope and seriousness increased. The architects' instructions to the agent/contractor were seemingly ignored. Every visit to the Hall co consider the LBC application revealed yet more unauthorised works. In June 1989, after frenzied activity at the Hall, all works suddenly ceased and the contractor disappeared from the site. In August an article in the farming press 11
12 revealed chat the estate belonged co the chairman of an incernacional trading company who was "totally refurbishing the Hall for his private use". "We wane che best. That is what pays in the end." Sadly, there was Iiccle evidence of "the best" in the Hall as ic was left. In the year following the cessation of works, intensive research was undertaken into the history of che house, garden and estate; details of ics structure and materials were studied, from geology co analysis of 18th century paint fragments. Dismantled and shattered bits of building such as doors, fireplaces and panelling were assembled and catalogued. From this base ic was intended that plans would emerge for che restoration of Hall and garden. Specialise conservation architects were appointed co oversee the restoration, and a garden historian co redesign che garden and the Park fencing and gates. Much was discussed, and many grandiose schemes floated, from elaborate soft furnishings for che bathroom - co occupy the whole of che principal first floor room - co a complex planting programme for covens in the Park, buc nothing positive was achieved. A few scruccural repairs were made or started; the north wing was partially demolished (with full conditional consent granted in March 1989), leaving pare co buccress che main house and provide adequate service arrangements. This also obviated che need co design a method of refacing che wall of pare of che Tudor core which would otherwise have been exposed. le is difficult co understand why such research had not taken place, and specialise architects been appointed, before the unfortunate works were begun, nor how any refurbishment of as major a house as Baggrave could be attempted without even plans of the building. In addition co problems at the house itself, plans were also submicced for an accached glasshouse/conservatory of 230 square metres! A ha-ha wall of dubious design involving much earth moving was constructed by the edge of che garden across the main street of the deserted medieval village (subsequencly spotscheduled as an Ancient Monument). Over a mile of 1.2 m high fences were erected alongside the open classified road through che park. PROBLEMS OF ENFORCEMENT AND NEGOTIATION With che exception of the new fences and the building of a massive kitchen garden wall, no work was done at Baggrave which required Planning Permission; consequently Stop Notices could not be issued. The Council's three main concerns were: First, that the unauthorised works should cease; Secondly, that proper plans should be submicced as a LBC application so that consents could be issued before works recommenced; and Thirdly that undesirable unauthorised works should be undone or rectified. Persuasion and gencle pressure were used at first, rather than confrontation which would have led co antagonism. When persuasion and threats had obvious1y failed (March 1989) Listed Building Enforcement was actively pursued. But it cook time co gather facts and prepare for this. One preliminary - serving a Requisition Order - eventually provoked contact with persons who appeared co be in authority over the building, who prepared plans for LBC and who assured us of good Firstfloor principal roomintendedas bathroomand dressing room.Note l~SJbelowceilinglevelon the line of the intended division into two rooms. Plaster cornicesdestroyed and atticfloor abovetotally replaced. faith. Assurances chat no new works would be undertaken without LBC or che LPA's agreement took two months to effect. Meanwhile, more damage was done, but at lease a dialogue had commenced. For the Council, handling the situation required a balance between genuine threats and amicable negotiation. It was never determined who exaccly was responsible for the planning, issuing briefs and orders and overseeing the works, nor who had control and authority over the Hall. Negotiations and discussions involved over cwo dozen people, each concerned with separate aspects of the Hall and estate and apparencly employed or retained by che owner/estate. Lack of co-ordination between them arose frequencly. The unauthorised works were effected by, or under che supervision of, the local agent, but it was never clear whether he was acting on his own initiative or under general or specific orders. He appeared totally indifferent to listed building and planning legislation and possessed no sensitivity cowards the quality of the building. Much damage was done by inadequate workmanship and supervision, for example fireplaces and delicate carton pierre plasterwork were not protected resulting in avoidable damage; ic was felt chat to take action against him would not have affected the real culprit. The possibility of making the whole estate a Conservation Area was considered, as well as placing Tree Preservation Orders on the parkland trees. Neither was felt to be potentially effective. The park icselfhad no significant dwellings or buildings apart from those already listed. Normal planning controls would apply. If, despite a TPO, a mature tree was felled, ic could not prompcly be replaced by an equally macure tree. A rural Conservation Area with no unlisted dwellings and subject to general planning controls seemed to have no point. Because all the works to the building eventually ceased and a dialogue had been established, a Listed Building Enforcement Notice was not issued, but the option was there if unauthorised works CONTEXT 32
Ironstone plinth being,-eplacedwith limestone,and new left-handdouble-glazedsashwindow, recommenced or che owners threatened to selL It seemed right that time should be allowed for research and well considered plans to be drawn up and approved before works recommenced, and active discussions maintained with the CounciL With hindsight it might have been better to cake enforcement action immediace1 y the unauthorised works were discovered, but at the time there was a fine line between 'repairs' and alterations, Negotiation seemed better than immediate confrontation, but the problem of knowing exactly who to enforce against remained, Even after cwo years the LPA is still noc certain exactly who ouc of the dozens of people it dealt with was ultimately responsible for the HalL Perhaps no-one was, and chat was the problem, le might be asked why the LPA did not seek an interlocutory (ie urgent and temporary) injunction in the courts to stop che works, Apart from rhe coses involved there were other considerations: (i) an injunction is discretionary and rhe courts might nor have confirmed ic, especially if they were satisfied that rhe works being carried ouc were 'repairs'; (ii) positive injunctions, ie chose making rhe owners rectify their unauthorised works, are not easy to obtain, especially at interlocutory stage, The most such an injunction could have achieved would have been to bring abouc che cessation of rhe unauthorised works, This was eventually achieved through dialogue; (iii) proceedings would have brought an end to dialogue, The LPA felt chat cooperation would be in the best interests of the building If an owner/agent/contractor is determined utterly co disregard rhe legislation then he will do so, The law, even if enforced, cannot prevent the continuation of unauthorised works if the owner/agent is determined, If negotiation and threats of enforcement are noc effective, issuing Enforcement Notices may nor be effective either, Much damage can be done even in the rime taken co prepare and issue Enforcement Notices, CONTEXT 32 The Baggrave situation was unusuaL There appeared to be no financial restraints on works co the property and estate, The knowledge that funds existed co rectify the damage done initially was encouraging during the prolonged negotiations, The financial crash of the owner's business in October 1990 was nor foreseen, It brought all plans and negotiations for the Hall and escare to an end, The potential financial base for restoration and reccificarion works to che Hall dissolved, Pursuance of Enforcement would then not have beneficed che HalL In normal circumstances the existence of Enforcement Notices, which apply ro subsequent owners, would have been such a deterrent co a purchaser char rhe owner would not have been able to sell rhe property, bur rhe Baggrave estate was sold within a month, Amicable negotiations with rhe new owner to rectify and restore the buildings have started ,,, LESSONS The lessons that could be learned from this affair are: (i) Be active in visiting or pursuing any contact when it is known char a major building has changed ownership and refurbishment is likely, (ii) Insist on full survey and proposal plans if even rhe smallest alteration is proposed, This will ensure that the owner/contractor actually has some plans on which co base his repair schedules and proposals for rhe building, (iii) Try to establish from rhe beginning who is effectively in charge, (iv) If things appear ro be going wrong, don't rely on good will; initiate Enforcement proceedings without delay, (v) If the agent appears indifferent and ignores all requests for co-operation, contact the applicant direct, even if distant and corporate, (vi) Keep uppermost in your mind the question whether enforcement or negotiation will be besc for the building, (vii) The LPA is in a strong position if it negotiates with an owner who knows that enforcement action will be taken against him unless he makes acceptable proposals, Rosalind \'(li/fatts is Comervation Officer at Harborough District Council, Leicestershire. The views expressedare her own and not thoseof the Council. COVER STORY Getting an owner co do something with a major problem building is often very difficult, Cobham Mausoleum was designed in 1783 by James Wyatt for the Earl of Darnley but was never consecrated, It is a very early example of redundancy, Permission for conversion has been granted on appeal but so far nothing further has happened, 13
ihbc.org.ukRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=