This is one of a series of occasional Guidance Notes published by The Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC). IHBC Guidance Notes offer current and recent guidance into topics that we consider crucial to the promotion of good built and historic environment conservation policy and practice. The Notes necessarily reflect knowledge and practice at the time they were developed, while the IHBC always welcomes new case examples, feedback and comment to research@ihbc.org.uk for future revisions and updates.
Executive Summary
1. This note suggests an
approach to dealing with urgent action in advance of obtaining
listed building consent.
2. The Institute’s attention has been
drawn to procedural concerns that have arisen when new owners of a
building ‘at-risk’ have encountered problems requiring immediate
remedial works such as the eradication of dry rot and a reluctance
on the part of the local planning authority to permit any works
without Listed Building Consent. This is a crucial issue that occurs
with increasing frequency when so many buildings are now being added
to heritage-at-risk registers.
Suggested approach
3. Heritage
buildings-at-risk are typically those that are largely of completely
vacant and have been so for an extended period and it is not
uncommon that by this stage for the building to be suffering from
rapidly accelerating decay.
4. While action to address dilapidation may
arise in response to statutory action by the local authority; this Note
deals with those cases where the building has been sold to a new owner
who wishes to stem the deterioration by prompt remedial action. In many
cases this may represent the last, best opportunity to save the building
5. In some but not all cases, appropriate
structural engineering advice may have been taken in advance of
acquisition (where safe access has been permissible); and similarly an
assessment may also have been made about the relative architectural and
historic significance of the structure and interior. However, with
advanced decay, structural instability or fallen debris, some of this
might not be possible without the clearance of debris or a degree of
additional opening up.
6. Where practicable, prior to or at the
point of acquisition, it would have been wise for the conscientious new
owner to have commissioned a baseline photographic record and/or layout
drawings, these might not always proscribe the full scope of the
problems.
7. The extent to which decay can be arrested
is obviously a matter of fact and degree. In the past relatively modest
deterioration has been used as a pretext by some new owners for the
gutting of an interior without consent, where, for example, the
substantial survival of historic ceilings might have been temporarily
preserved in situ by suitable propping. Apart from the question of such
peremptory stripping out works being unauthorised, concerns about such
actions would only be likely to generate a climate of distrust about the
owner’s approach and intentions and result in a lack of - or cessation
of - dialogue.
8. If photography has been possible
(with due regard to health and safety considerations), the condition of
the building and the approach to temporary repair can more easily be the
subject of prompt discussion with the local planning authority. The
record also becomes useful in the preparation of a submission of longer
term conversion and alteration works.
9. Severe decay even if localized will
generally need to be addressed promptly as typically this will be the
reason the building has been classified as ‘at-risk’. The deterioration
will in all probability have resulted in collapse, for example, to roof
and floor structures and ceilings and associated debris. Unless the
damage is from structural movement alone, the principal culprit will be
water entering the building and the associated presence of dry rot and
saturated debris.
10. A judgment needs to be made as to whether
the structure can be dried out without any additional measures
(including temporary works to roof coverings and drainage systems and
adjustment to the ventilation through any wall openings) but this is
rarely practicable if there is a significant degree of fallen saturated
debris.
11. Where extensive dry rot has been
encountered this needs to eradicated quickly, following best practice
methods. [1] An additional
consideration will be site-specific climatic considerations: the wetness
of the local weather over recent seasons, the degree of exposure, the
driven-rain index etc., which will influence the likelihood of
the spread of decay.
12. The question most often posed by this
not-untypical scenario is how far a new owner can undertake prompt
remedial works (for example, a ‘soft-strip’) without the consent of the
local planning authority. A new owner may be understandably reluctant to
submit applications for consent until the full extent, for example, of
timber decay, is known, how much sound fabric and structure remains, and
the cost of making the building sound.
Legislative position
13. If the building has, for example
rampant dry rot, the owner can remove it without listed building consent
under the provisions of S.9(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings &
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 without this being an offence if:
(it
can be argued that dry rot if left unchecked will be detrimental to the
preservation of the building and addressing it should always be treated
as a matter of urgency. Removal of fallen debris [shown in any photos]
would also be reasonable).
(this
can't easily be said for extensive dry rot).
(which should be permissible if the areas are defined – particularly if photos and to a lesser extent drawings, have been made and the approach to eradication follows best practice);
and
Conclusion
14. While the section in the 1990 Act
anticipates an ex post facto situation (that is after the work
has been completed) it would be sensible (and a defence against
accusations of carrying out unauthorised works) for the owner, in a
spirit of co-operation, to write in advance and explain to the local
planning authority exactly what the problem is, how extensive it is and
what the intended course of action may be and the work will be
undertaken in conformity with the provisions of S.9(3).
15. If a bond of trust can be quickly
established between the new owner (or agent on the owner’s behalf) and
the local planning authority and the precise extent of limited opening
up/urgent works defined (by photographs, drawings or specification) and
agreed by exchange of letters; it would be reasonable (and lawful) to
allow these works to be promptly carried out. A procedure could then be
agreed for the submission of any retrospective LBC application, where
necessary, to cover the eradication of the dry rot once these urgent
remedial works had been completed.
Bob Kindred MBE BA IHBC
MRTPI
Endnote
[1] See for example,
Brian Ridout, Timber Decay in Buildings – The conservation approach
to treatment. E&FN Spon with English Heritage and Historic Scotland
2000, Chapter 7 [ISBN 0-419-18820-7]; and Eleanor Michell, Emergency
Repairs for Historic Buildings, English Heritage 1988 [ISBN
1-85074-227-8]