In July the Department of Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) launched a consultation seeking views on various options aimed at improving the system of listed buildings consents (LBCs).
For anyone caught up in Olympic fever or on holiday getting Brahmsed, as they say in Stratford, this might well have passed under the radar – especially as the consultation period ended on 23 August (blink, or drink, and you missed it).
I won’t dwell on the detail here - follow the link to the consultation if you’d like to know more.
In short, DCMS asked for views on these options for speeding up the process:-
· A system of prior notification leading to deemed LBC.
· A system of local and national class consents granting deemed LBC.
· A “certificate of lawful works to Listed Buildings” issued either before or after they’ve been carried out.
· Replacing local authority conservation officer recommendations for LBC by those made by accredited agents, if LBC applicants wish to do so.
The consultation also sought views on new or improved measures to address building neglect, which may or may not include legislative change.
The aim is to simplify the system by reducing the circumstances in which LBC is required and cutting down the information applicants have to submit, reducing the burdens on developers and allowing authorities to focus on the highest risk buildings.
The British Property Federation (BPF) published its response at the end of last week.
The BPF is broadly supportive of the proposals, although it too was surprised at the timing and brevity of the consultation (four weeks rather than the more usual twelve) and hopes DCMS will consider any late representations.
The BPF doesn’t think the proposals go far enough however and suggests some better ways of dealing with the system.
It also wants English Heritage to continue the process of re-examining and clearly defining listing entries.
Listing can seem a highly subjective process.
More information on how it works is provided on the English Heritage website.
English Heritage says that post-1945 buildings have to be exceptionally important to be listed, and they make up only 0.2% of the listed buildings total.
The vast majority of buildings listed are pre-1900. All buildings built before 1700 which survive in anything like their original condition are listed, as are most of those built between 1700 and 1840.
Of those buildings listed, 92% are Grade II (nationally important and of special interest), 5.5% are Grade II* (particularly important of more than special interest) and 2.5% are Grade I (of exceptional interest, sometimes internationally important).
At the moment, if a building is listed, you have to apply to the local authority for LBC before making any changes to the building that might affect its special interest.
We’ll have to wait until DCMS publishes its follow-up to the consultation to have more idea of how the system will be changed.
This comment from Gavin Sorby via LinkedIn:
ReplyDeleteAs MD for an architectural practice specialising in work to historic buildings in all sectors including commercial property we welcome a review of the current Listed Building Consent procedures, however it must result in a system which is better than what we have at present. The proposals sound good at face value they are unlikely to make a blind bit of difference. As the saying goes 'everything changes but everything stays the same'
The first proposal is a system of prior notification
Under current legislation, if a proposal does not affect the character of the listed building or is of a like for like repair then consent should not be required. However the interpretation of this is entirely at the discretion of the LPA and as such there is inconsistency between LPA’s. In order to protect our client’s interest we would always seek confirmation in writing that the LPA is of the same opinion.
The level of information required by the LPA to make such a decision is unlikely to be less than that required for a full LBC application and that discretion will still be there.
The second proposal would require a system of local and national 'class consents' to be put in place.
If every listed building was identical then this would be fantastic. The reality is very different - Our Listed Building stock is very diverse in building typology, use, date, construction and historical significance. Defining a set of rules which apply equally to this wide variety is plain nonsense on stilts. In any event something similar already exists in the form of a Conservation management Plan (CMP) used for buildings on an individual basis.
Third proposal is a system that would see the introduction of a 'Certificate of Lawful Works'.
The level of information to be provided for the LPA to consider is likely to be less than that required for a Listed Building Consent submission however the absence of a time limit will result in even more protracted procedures than currently exist while ever more information is provided. No certainty of program here!
This option would see much of the work of the local authority conservation officer delegated to the developer's own agent, with the expectation that the LPA would be expected to accept the expert recommendation.
The information to be provided is little different than that currently required. The principle difference would appear to be the delegation of powers. This may work for the simplest of proposals but anyone who has been involved in work to historic buildings will know there can be a diverse range of opinions about the correct approach to the conservation and adaptation of historic buildings and each must be assessed on its merits.
For this to work, standards would have to be laid out as to who was an acceptable expert with a real risk of agents being paid by results. This would seriously threaten the historic building stock of this country.
Would accreditation in building conservation (whether AABC, RIBA, RICS or CARE) suffice to resolve this? It is our opinion that this would not be that simple as there are people of differing levels of ability, knowledge of building types, experience and expertise within each accreditation system.
There are difficulties surrounding Listed Building Consents. the current proposals are not the answer and if you are going to make 3 suggestions...
1..Appoint the right design team in the first place! You wouldn't dream of letting your mates son or local corner garage have a tinker with your Vintage Aston Martin! Why do that with a Listed Building? It is just asking for trouble and sadly it is all too common.
2..Councils must facilitate pre-application procedures more readily and promptly. 3..Reduce the pointless information involved with applications, bring back a level of realism, relevance and common sense to the process rather than more box tickers.