,;.===:===--======---====------------====--~----====----=== 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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=