Reduce cost and bureaucracy of Listed Building and Conservation Area administration

Interference by Councils in the maintenance of Listed Buildings and buildings in Conservation Areas has become a hugely intrusive, expensive and inappropriate means of controlling issues of "taste" in public life by imposing on individuals and their property.

Reduction in this involvement and the charges made for it need to be achieved to take Local Government out of the detail of peoples lives and properties.

Examples are the charges levied for erecting a shed or greenhouse in the garden of a listed building, or for the change in colour of the paint work, or for replacing features such as gates, doors or windows with more appropriate styles. The need for involvement may be justified by the public good, but the degree of detailed involvement  by individuals from the Local Council and the charges made for this intrusion goes against the laws of natural justice. The imposition of public standards on individuals is arbitrary, and disproportionate to the good that arises. If such involvement is perceived to be necessary by government, then the cost should not be forced upon the individuals as well as the restriction of the regulations; it should be borne by the Council who should reduce their costs by efficient management and by good judgement in allowing suitable works and decisions to be made by the individual after appropriate advice and guidance (which can be by web pages or leaflets provided in advance of an application for consent).

If poor outcomes result then if the cost/benefit justifies the Council taking "enforcement action", then they can do so at their risk in a simplified panel of adjudication. Their experience in taking such action will provide a good track record to illustrate the Councils standards of management, both by the number of challenges they make an the success rate. This will also provide guidance for other individuals in such circumstances as to the standards that are acceptable and those that are not.

Why is this idea important?

Interference by Councils in the maintenance of Listed Buildings and buildings in Conservation Areas has become a hugely intrusive, expensive and inappropriate means of controlling issues of "taste" in public life by imposing on individuals and their property.

Reduction in this involvement and the charges made for it need to be achieved to take Local Government out of the detail of peoples lives and properties.

Examples are the charges levied for erecting a shed or greenhouse in the garden of a listed building, or for the change in colour of the paint work, or for replacing features such as gates, doors or windows with more appropriate styles. The need for involvement may be justified by the public good, but the degree of detailed involvement  by individuals from the Local Council and the charges made for this intrusion goes against the laws of natural justice. The imposition of public standards on individuals is arbitrary, and disproportionate to the good that arises. If such involvement is perceived to be necessary by government, then the cost should not be forced upon the individuals as well as the restriction of the regulations; it should be borne by the Council who should reduce their costs by efficient management and by good judgement in allowing suitable works and decisions to be made by the individual after appropriate advice and guidance (which can be by web pages or leaflets provided in advance of an application for consent).

If poor outcomes result then if the cost/benefit justifies the Council taking "enforcement action", then they can do so at their risk in a simplified panel of adjudication. Their experience in taking such action will provide a good track record to illustrate the Councils standards of management, both by the number of challenges they make an the success rate. This will also provide guidance for other individuals in such circumstances as to the standards that are acceptable and those that are not.

Remove listed orders for private owned homes

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Why is this idea important?

Our house and next doors has the front facing bay window listed.The road we live on has approx 70%-80% block flats on it.Our house and next doors is in 1/2 of an acre.We cannot sell to developers because of this listing.I personally see no point to it as it is of no use to the public interest.The government should look at all old listed building order's and restrict them to places of interest to the public. Putting a listing on the front of a house makes no sense at all especially if the majority of buildings on the same road are all blocks of flats.We have a coach house which had a restriction for it not to be removed. When the Birmingham city council rented  one of their properties with the coachouse that was in need of repair they scrapped the listing just so that they could pull down their coachouse as re-building it would have cost alot,this was 2 doors away from us. They do what they want when they want.  

Listed building planning laws

Owners of listed buildings are subject to some laws which are anomalous and quite unnecessary.  Planning consent should not be required over and above those for non-listed household for “temporary”  buildings such as sheds, sectional greenhouses, fruitages, summerhouses and fences which are not attached to the property.

 

Furthermore listed building owners should be allowed to use double glazed units if these do not interfere with the overall appearance of the house and can be fitted within the appropriate window frames. 

Why is this idea important?

Owners of listed buildings are subject to some laws which are anomalous and quite unnecessary.  Planning consent should not be required over and above those for non-listed household for “temporary”  buildings such as sheds, sectional greenhouses, fruitages, summerhouses and fences which are not attached to the property.

 

Furthermore listed building owners should be allowed to use double glazed units if these do not interfere with the overall appearance of the house and can be fitted within the appropriate window frames. 

End planning protection for recent alterations to old buildings

Please amend the Planning Act 1990 to exclude protection from any post-1945 alterations to an older building. My mum lives in a conservation area, in part of a big Victorian house that was partitioned into a terrace in 1959. During the conversion, one of the sash windows was painted shut. As the law stands, this damage to an original period feature is protected by the Act. Repairing it would require an expensive conservation permit, which really is a bit silly.

Why is this idea important?

Please amend the Planning Act 1990 to exclude protection from any post-1945 alterations to an older building. My mum lives in a conservation area, in part of a big Victorian house that was partitioned into a terrace in 1959. During the conversion, one of the sash windows was painted shut. As the law stands, this damage to an original period feature is protected by the Act. Repairing it would require an expensive conservation permit, which really is a bit silly.