I have looked up the listed details, which are trivial - the house has had only a superficial examination and list made, of only two of the 8 ground-floor rooms. Details of the other ground-floor rooms, first floor rooms, and attics, are unknown to "the authorities". The house has not been materially changed for a considerable period, and contains lots of features.
Surely a purchaser could remove or alter in various ways many of the more interesting but inconvenient features without fear of prosecution, but to the detriment of preservation/conservation?
|
Grade of listing makes a HUGE difference.
Grade 1: change virtually nothing. Grade 2: much easier..
www.nfumutual.co.uk/lifestyle/listed-buildings.htm
"Be aware that the listing of a building applies to the inside of a property as well as the outside, so internal changes require permission in exactly the same way as superficial alterations"
My advice would be: don't bother . It's lots of hassle and usually not worth it unless the property is special..
Double glazing? Proper insulation? hmmmmmm
|
My advice would be: buy it. Only the worst sort of fool would want to do something, to a house like that, that the listed building department would object to.
And if it's a London townhouse the authorities aren't really interested in the interior unless it's *very* special/unusual.
|
>> And if it's a London townhouse the authorities aren't really interested in the interior unless
>> it's *very* special/unusual.
Not London. C16th. pargetting with indented patterns in the upstairs passage, and elsewhere. The layout of half the building is from that date - the rest maybe two centuries later. The timber frame shows details which date it also. There's a large shallow stone sink, and a (later) hand pump in the dairy. Two concealed spiral staircases, ground to attic. Raised panel doors. Reeded architraves. Wattle & daub panels. Wear from foot traffic in floors and thresholds. "Stuff" wherever you look. Nooks, crannies, cupboards and "secret" doors. Only half the house has any wiring! Hasn't been touched for a long long time.
|
Close friend of mine has spent the last 30 years doing up a property with all those type of features.
Great fun, but a money pit. He'll never finish it, and it's come close to destroying his marriage on several occasions.
Here at Harley Manor, I've had to build character features back into the house as I've gone along; when I bought the place ( it dates from 1780) it had hideous plastic windowsills which I've replaced with elm, cheap and nasty doors which have been consigned to the bonfire and hand-made ones with proper Suffolk latches put in their place, etc. It looks lovely but has cost me a bomb.
One bit of advice I'll offer you; don't, whatever you do, live there till the roof, damp-proofing, windows wiring and plumbing have been done.
And remember that replacing damaged timber with "correct" stuff will cost a fortune. I priced up some oak for my windowsills, it was £130 per square metre even then!
|
>> Per square metre?
>>
Per metre length of plank, sorry!
|
...it was £130 per square metre even then...
Pal of mine had something similar with wrought iron railings.
The railings man was talking thousands which my mate thought should have been hundreds.
|
>> I priced up some oak for my windowsills, it was £130 per square metre even then!
Lumme, as they say, you bin' done. "Take it away and have it gold plated!"
|
>> Lumme, as they say, you bin' done. "Take it away and have it gold plated!"
>>
Didn't bother actually. Found some elm which had superb grain and texture; fraction of the price, and if you think about it more likely to be there originally than oak, this not being a "gentleman's residence". ;-)
|
|
You miss the point completely. The point is in that no-one knows what's in there, and there is considerable scope for changes *before anyone realises they've happened*. See OP.
|
|
A clear position for "Sod's Law" to come into effect. OP will buy it and get it 100% how we wants it. Some clerk in Planning Office will find a file and think "Let's have a look at this" and the nitrogenous waste products will hit the rotary air circulator
|
Round where I am, people rip the insides out of listed buildings, destroying the character and listed buildings departments don't seem to care.
Indeed, anything that isn't documented is fair game. BUT, you cannot guarantee that one of the listed building people didn't pop round for a viewing with the estate agent, take some photographs and they come back to haunt you. Vandalising a listed building can come with a jail sentence.
|
My firm was involved with the structural repair of a 200 year old Grade II listed house in North London about 10 years ago. The house had subsidence (that's why it was listed !!!) with cracked and loose plaster inside. The solid ground floor was cracked up as was the external brickwork. The conservation (?) officer needed little persuasion to allow us to dryline the interior walls with plasterboard and skim ceilings with modern plaster if we thought necessary. When we had finished, the interior looked like a brand new house but nobody seemed concerned. At the time there was a lot of huffing and puffing from the conservation people but the client got what he wanted - a properly repaired house, at insurer's expense, using modern materials.
I did like the wonky glass in the windows though.
|
Remember that the features they want preserved are the ones that were there on the date of the listing. They are not interested in originality - if it happens to have a ghastly 1970s porch stuck onto an elegant georgian frontage, the porch will be just as much listed as the georgian bit.
We bought a derelict listed railway station for conversion to a retail shop. It had been built in 1860 with lots of ornamental ironwork and columns, but had a 1970 asbestos roof with half the slates missing. We were served with a notice to repair the roof using authentic diamond-shaped asbestos look-alike tiles.
6 months later we finally got permission to take all the asbestos off and re-roof in genuine reclaimed welsh slate, matching the old photographs.
In the course of work we discovered the original block platform underneath the 70s concrete slabs. But we weren't allowed to restore that, they insisted the concrete was listed.
This was Cadw, not English Heritage, but I have heard similar stories. They are bureaucratic cretins.
|
>> >> This was Cadw, not English Heritage, but I have heard similar stories. They are bureaucratic cretins.
>>
Quite.
And if they dig their heels in, you need loadsoftime and money and patience.
Life is too short..
|
DE>>dry-lined and skimmed with cement plaster
Cultural vandalism. And the skim will soon crack off. Done properly, with lime plaster and lining paper it would last much better.
>>They are not interested in originality - if it happens to have a ghastly 1970s porch stuck
>>onto an elegant georgian frontage, the porch will be just as much listed as the georgian bit.
Indeed. And if you have a sensible conservation officer (most are, to be fair) that is a perfect negotiating point. I'll remove the horrid porch if you let me do something you wouldn't probably let me do.
|
My sister lives in a Grade2 listed pile.
About 15, or more, years ago they had to replace the front door - cost - £1000.
Asset rich but cash poor, they are - money pit is right.
I'd avoid like the plague unless you are loaded!
Last edited by: landsker on Thu 28 Oct 10 at 11:21
|
>> I'd avoid like the plague unless you are loaded!
Again, the question that this answer addresses was not asked.
|
>> DE>>dry-lined and skimmed with cement plaster
I'm not sure where DE's quote came from - he did not appear to say it. I am not sure what "cement plaster" is with reference to dry lining and skimming.
>> Cultural vandalism. And the skim will soon crack off. Done properly, with lime plaster and
>> lining paper it would last much better.
If the building is in good condition, lime plaster is better - even in modern buildings (*that are designed to last*).
|
I said modern plaster with the purpose of emphasising it wasn't lime plaster. You can call it vandalism if you like - but it wasn't my house. Over the years we/I repaired thousands of houses. (Just made an estimate - say 5,000). On a couple of occasions we used the appropriate historic materials, but in the main it was a case of "get it done as cheaply and quickly as you can, guv ! ". It wasn't practical to plaster a wall one day and come back 3 months later to paint it - plaster today and paint tomorrow was the rule. It was only a job and I was only obeying instructions as they say.
When it comes to my own and friends' houses I am happy to talk, advise and plan materials / styles until the proverbial cows come home. PS you don't see many in London.
|
>> I said modern plaster with the purpose of emphasising it wasn't lime plaster.
You could have given it the proper name, to avoid confusion. I still don't know where "cement plaster" is.
>>You can call it vandalism if you like - but it wasn't my house.
Behave. I did not call it "vandalism". However, it must be said that there are a lot of cowboys about in "restoration".
>> Over the year we/I repaired thousands of houses (snip) It was only
>> a job and I was only obeying instructions as they say.
Ah. So it wasn't your company, you were an employee.
It seems to me that specialists restore old houses, companies who work on new ones and transfer techniques to old ones should not be employed. This is just an observation, and not a "dig" at you.
>> When it comes to my own and friends' houses I am happy to talk, advise
>> and plan materials / styles until the proverbial cows come home.
Um.
>> PS you don't see many in London.
Many what? Friends?
|
FotheringtonTomas old chap, my posts were in response to your initial one querying the possible implications of owning and maintaining a listed building. I was trying to let you know that in my experience Grade II listing wasn't especially onerous.
Why you want to make it personal I really, really don't know.
|
|
+1 on what Dulwich Estate said.
|
>> Why you want to make it personal I really, really don't know.
I don't, I'm just talking to you. It would help if you replied to the correct post, instead of posting higgledy-piggledy replies, then complaining when someone replies. If you re-read my post, perhaps you will realise that I am not "getting at you". Perhaps not.
|
...that I am not "getting at you". Perhaps not....
FT,
The reaction to Harleyman's '+1' post suggests a few forum members think you are having a dig.
If you weren't, your meaning certainly confused me.
Back on topic, a pal of mine spent a fair bit on restoring a Georgian terraced property in south London.
He told me the original construction was rubbish - 'jerry building' is not new.
I remember him showing me some original floor joists which didn't look strong enough to hold a sofa, let alone the baby grand piano many of the neighbours insisted on having.
The property was Grade ll listed and the conservation officer was not greatly interested in what he did inside, provided the outside looked the part.
Not that he did much inside, I'm no builder, but I suppose you are a bit limited in a terrace.
|
"cement plaster"
My apologies, my fault. I meant, of course, gypsum - as opposed to lime - plaster. And in paraphrasing DE's sinful ;) post, my fingers went the wrong way on the keys.
I hasten to add that I meant nothing insulting to any party in what I wrote, and am well aware of the financial and time limitations in the restoration of a bog standard house.
BTW, DE, can you "skim" lime plaster? Or do you have to take it all down and start from new laths?
|
MM - it's pretty clear from previous posts that we didn't use it much - it wasn't the sort of thing you'd just pick up from Travis Perkins or Jewsons (although things may have changed since I sold up my own company after 15 years trading and made enough money to retire).
It's very workable stuff and I think if the substrate is lime based too then with plenty of wetting and fiddling about you can get a good skim. But I emphasise I'm no expert, find it hard to respond to direct questions and do ramble on a bit and often go off topic.
|
>
>> Back on topic, a pal of mine spent a fair bit on restoring a Georgian
>> terraced property in south London.
>>
>> He told me the original construction was rubbish - 'jerry building' is not new.
A large proportion of the Georgian housing in London was attractive, nicely finished inside and out, but the fundamental fabric was appallingly thrown together with rubbish foundations. ~ sometimes literally rubbish foundations.
|
Indeed Zero,
An old hand at the City of London District Surveyors Office once told me that in particular the bonding together of walls was poor if not completely absent. The story goes that in those times they had maybe 3 grades of bricklayer. The top dogs who could achieve a good finish quickly were paid the most and often only worked on the facade. The level below might work on the rear exterior whilst the poorest quality men worked on party and interior walls. Often the work would be out of synchronization and perhaps a front would be well under way before party walls started. Apparently gaps for toothing in brickwork were not left and in any event brick courses would have varied leaving little opportunity to bond walls together.
Joist sizes too were almost aways too small to take modern loads and floors often sagged.
They don't build houses like the used to !
|
|
To be noted. At 13.45 Fri 29 October 2010 DE agreed with Zero.
|
Everyone comes round in the end DE.
There are some lovely Georgian terraces around Waterloo, the end walls of some of the terraces bowing out at strange angles. The roof lines appear at times like a rough sea,
|
STOP
Our house was built c 1820.
You're giving me senior moments...
|
Listed Building purchase. - madf
