Escape to the Country is fun, I do enjoy sniggering at the people who are totally unrealistic about how much space they need and what they’ll be able to do and maintain, despite the fact they’re at the age where downsizing to somewhere easier to get around would maybe be a better plan than buying an 8 bed converted mill on three levels with 15 acres and some cows, when the only livestock they’ve ever had before is a cat
There is definitely resistance to ‘outsiders’ moving in in some areas though, but it varies by region, and tends to flare up then die down. In Cornwall, where I am, a former workmate started a company intending to basically act as an agency to find houses for wealthy out-of area buyers who don’t have the time to house search, then getting them renovated to buyer standards. I heard a lot of comments about the ethics of that from other workmates, and she was very quick to say she was only looking at dealing with the houses already out of price range for most locals. Complaints about second home owners (‘from bloody London’) are the usual complaint here, people who actually move properly less so. But then, I moved here, so I probably don’t hear all the complaints.
As mentioned, there are places in the US with similar ordinances, but being a young country we don’t have many old buildings. On the other hand, what we do have are old trees, and many places have restrictions on cutting “heritage trees”, even though they are on your land and you technically own them.
We have tree protection orders here in the UK too, in fact my parents’ land includes a few trees with them, a few 300+ year old yews and a big oak. Same concept.
If you want a new level of complication, we also have Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs, as they’re usually known). Changes to land within these also has more restrictions than usual. My parents land is in one, in fact. They were required to put a local slate roof on one of their work buildings ‘to fit with the local area’ because of this, despite the fact that roof is only visible from the air, and the AONB, which covers several villages and a large area of countryside, literally ends at the end of their land.
It is important to realise that we have a lot of people in not a lot of land here, as well as a lot of history. In many of the areas in which the heaviest restrictions apply, the local economy runs largely on tourism, and the tourists come precisely because of the local charm and history. If they loose the ‘character’, many locals also lose their major source of income, it’s not just an abstract ideal.
Heh. I’m watching it for the same reason anybody watches those real estate shows–to get a look inside other people’s houses!
Thanks. I was asking specifically about the asterisk that seems to be part of the middle classification. My best guess would have been reading it as “Grade Two Star,” as PatrickLondon suggests, but I wanted to be certain. Or are both Grade II* and Grade II just read as “Grade Two?”
With Grade I buildings you can’t make any alterations, internal or external, or in some cases paint it a different colour, without permission. It is sometimes possible to get a grant for some of the work.
Grade II is normally external only. No grant.
Grade II* is perhaps the most difficult - some of the restrictions of Grade I but no public assistance.
There is general acceptance of this scheme, and very little pushback. People who are seen to have ‘swerved round the rules’, or tried to, will often receive heavy fines.
If the structure is in a dangerous condition, the council should, in theory use its powers to do the repairs itself and send the owner the bill. In practise, they hardly ever do as they have found it’s often impossible to get their money back, especially if the owner lives abroad.
I would guess because Grade I and Grade II were already defined and in use and, when it was seen, subsequently, that a listed status between the two was needed, it was simpler to do this as a modification of one of the existing listed statuses.
Complete tangent: we’re asterisk fans in England. At some point in the 20 odd years since I did my GCSEs (which are exams you take at 16), a new grade named A* (A-star) was introduced. You could earn this by getting even better than an A. I still don’t fully understand why they didn’t just redistribute the grades, but I guess it needed to be compatible with qualifications passed before its introduction.
No disagreement with most of your informed post; just the last bit about Japanese cities.
A little thing about World War II and the strategic bombing of Japan. Not just the atomic blasts covering Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but all the other, first large then medium, cities that were devastated by incendiary bombing. It was not an accident. The OSS (pre-CIA) specifically evaluated cities, not just for war industries; for finding the most flamable areas.
One exerpt: “We call this a trophy map,” he said. “It’s meant to convey, quite crudely, only the destruction of this city – and the absolute dominance of the Army Air Forces by the end of firebombing campaign. It’s a way of capturing the might of American air power that emerged out of this conflict.”
Whilst in general I support the notion of protecting architectural heritage, I have some firsthand experience of what goes on inside local government planning departments (I worked in IT for local government for 6 years and you’re invisible when you are fixing someone’s computer). I saw a lot of what I would call completely arbitrary and subjective decisions - literally planning officers saying things like “I like this”; “this isn’t very nice”; “mmmm, well, it’s all in order, but I think we’ll say no”.
I suspect the job attracts, or maybe develops people who like to wield a bit of power and authority.
It’s not incompetence. The council, or English Heritage (depending on the grading of the building) have to assess the building, its age, the proposed changes, etc, and then allow local residents to put forward objections. The local residents’ objections can provide important information, like whether the change would block a protected view (and thus devalue their property in order to increase the value of a neighbouring property).
It’s unlikely that the council would know the details of all protected views (which is just one example). The only way they could find that out in advance would be to inspect the view from every house. It’s deemed better to not invade people’s privacy that way for an event that doesn’t come up that often, and instead let the residents provide the information themselves once they know a change might come about.
All major changes of use require months of wait for planning permission, not just for listed buildings. That’s because you can’t expect local residents to find out about it and respond in detail in a half hour meeting. They need time to read about it, research it, talk about alternatives, etc. In general planning permission goes in favour of the planners despite the delays, but sometimes there are changes made - it’s better than a free-for-all.
It’s just not going to happen. We like having listed buildings. If you buy a listed building, then you know what you’re getting into. You also buy it partly because it’s a listed building, so it looks nice and has heritage.
Most listed buildings in the UK weren’t built 1000 years ago, but most of them were also built to last for a few hundred years - the fact that they have lasted, and still do, is evidence of that.
Trying to evict everyone who lives in a listed building really might start a revolution. There are tons of them! And yes, most people in listed buildings apart from grade 1 pay for the renovations themselves, or get only partial grants or tax rebates.
I live in a “conservation area.” It works well. We’re allowed to put up satellite dishes as long as they are the new, black mesh type, and don’t damage the building - a huge one wouldn’t be allowed. I was allowed to put security windows on the outside of my basement windows, but wouldn’t be allowed to on the first floor windows, where they’d be more visible from the street. The reason the council allows that is sensible, too - the basement windows have street access (via a gate and stairs), but the first floor windows are difficult to access anyway due to the design of the building (built in about 1834).
We’re allowed to develop the lofts into livable rooms, but not with anything more than a dormer window on the street side. Theoretically you could have have something large on the back view - it’s practicalities WRT access that make that impossible. None of the restrictions are unreasonable.
We have reasonably large gardens for inner London, but no developer is allowed to build an extra dwelling in the back yard. Although in theory we do need more housing, public transport and doctors, schools, etc, are struggling to cope with our current local population, so the protected areas benefit even those who don’t live in them.
The restrictions means we can live in relative peace without developers constantly digging things up, which was a huge problem in my flat a half mile away.
Because Grade II* is, in a sense, “Grade 1.5”, or “Grade II+” or “Grade I-”. Re-labelling all of Grade II as Grade III would be a bureaucratic faff and a recipe for confusion.
Population has doubled, people have moved from the country to the cities, traditional Japanese building methods built disposable buildings, and economic booms are inevitably accompanied by building replacement.
Fire-bombing isn’t the only reason some Japanese cities are modern and surrounded by miles of suburban dreck.
Thanks for the explanations of the various listing requirements and the wiki link. That made a lot of sense. I appreciate the spirit it’s intended and agree completely. Lots of history has sadly been destroyed for the sake of modernization.
However I’m still struggling to understand the defence of the local council’s. It truly does seem to me just a way for petty bureaucrats to flex their power and arbitrarily fuck people over.
I’m blown away by your comment, that’s so harsh. There is every reason they shouldn’t have different conflicting requirements which result in projects never being approved. Starting with not fucking over taxpayers, supporting local industries, creating employment, supporting investment in neighbourhoods & communities and fixing beloved “listed heritage buildings” plus many more. I’m stunned that deliberately fucking people over is an appropriate and acceptable response to you.
By way of more background: The family did their homework with the council before they bought and were told they could add an extension. The original place was small, and they only bought it because they were told it would be allowed to have an addition.
They spent a few hundred thousand pounds on a stunning historically perfect restoration (not renovation) including a £45K thatched roof. Paid to have a very authentic extension designed to give them the space they needed. The planner rejected that the design, it must not be authentic looking and historic, it must be modern looking (this is apparently BH’s crystal-clear new direction, no more historically accurate extensions). They pay again to have it redesigned in a modern style (which he doesn’t like and doesn’t want) plus more delay costs.
They receive the planner’s approval and at final council approval they’re told an unequivocal no: the design must be historically accurate. But the planner refuses to give approval on that. That is indefensible to me.
My impression, based solely on the drama of these shows, is that is 100% correct. In one episode a family was trying to renovate / restore a place and add an extension (which had been approved in principle). In this case planners rejected their specific plans 6 times over 4 years and never once did they receive any feedback on why it was rejected. No one would speak or meet with them (in 4 years!).
The local architect and builder, considered “local experts who know what the local planners want”, had no idea. Everything they’d submitted was in keeping with other existing projects in the town. They’d tried historical, modern, taller, shorter, bigger, smaller, all were rejected for no reason.
It’s actually heart-breaking to see these people lose their money & investment because of this shit. Which is exactly what the producers of the show want: drama, emotion and a villain-planner
Unless the actual interaction between martyred prospective renovator and Satan-in-the-guise-of-local-council-heritage-planner was completed in less than 27 minutes (including commercials), then what you see on TV has been edited down, and most likely not edited to accentuate the drama. The renovator has to be relatable, the host is contractually not allowed to be portrayed as a dickhead, the builders might sue, so who do you think is used to create dramatic tension, whether it there or not?
As someone who works professionally in this field, but not in the UK I’ve been happy to let others go in to bat for building conservation. Yes there are public servants who may be arbitrary, lazy or even malicious in considering a planning application, but on the whole they are good people doing their best with insufficient resources, and having to deal sometimes with capricious, nasty and willfully unhelpful applicants. You can’t show the renovator as they may be; the worst Kevin McCloud can say about them is that they are extremely optimistic in expecting the eco-glass from Antwerp to be delivered on time.
This thread sat right next to one about non-existent application forms for selling fireworks in some American jurisdiction which is costing the people who want to supply this essential service Lots of Money. So its not just the UK and not just heritage where the system fails, but important stuff as well.
I’m not going to bother making the case for there being a collective good for society in coralling the individual’s absolute right to do whatever they want with their stuff, regardless of its impact on anyone else or its cumulative impact on the environment where people live. Its being played out in various places where people are carrying guns to protect their right to behave like jerks even though that puts others at risk. Its the same ideological divide.
Property in the UK is something of an obsession and it is quite overvalued. Not enough housing is built for the demand and it is often built for the benefit of investors looking for a good return rather the needs of the people who live in the area. Property developers have committed some huge problems in the past and often with the approval of the local and national government. Vast areas of towns and cities were demolished and during the 60’s and 70’s to build new housing projects and the designs were often system build concrete blocks that became the new slums. The reasons for this were simple, the country was extensively bombed during WW2 and there was a post war housing crisis. It was a national project to rehouse people living in devastated areas and an opportunity to replace what was low grade slum housing with homes with the modern conveniences we come to expect like indoor toilets and bathrooms and heating systems. It was not just the UK, you see this all over Europe, where the bombing was intense:: huge, rather ugly, decaying and poorly maintained apartment blocks.
London is good example. In my area, the housing is Victorian, build around the 1890s. It was hit quite badly by the V1s and V2 campaigns and you can see on the bomb maps all the areas that were hit. These would have been derelict bomb sites until the post war rebuilding boom when small scale concrete blocks were build for social housing. It gives many areas of London a very diverse mix, you can find grand houses next to small social housing projects, especially in inner London.
Local planners operate in this environment and they spend a lot of time dealing with local property developers who are more likely hard nosed business people intent on making a money rather than dreamy eyed couples trying to build the perfect home for their family. Developers buy up properties in auctions and try various dodges to try and get planning permission through the local council planning department. Letting them rot until they start falling down and are condemned, is certainly one technique. So, too is knocking down all the trees and building at the end of the large gardens that come with the grander Victorian houses. Sometimes they just divide the house cheaply as possible into smaller apartments with little thought to heat of sound insulation. They know that sometimes they have to make several applications for planning permission, varying the design somewhat and later making alterations that they think will not be noticed on a visit by an overworked planning department. They can also appeal against the planning decisions, challenging the information about the local area the council planners on which they base the planning decision. There are lawyers who specialise in these cases. On the other side are local residents, community groups and historical associations that keep an eye on the planning process and try to ensure the whole area is not vandalised by unscrupulous developers. The English Heritage organisation is very strict, everyone knows that and developers usually stay well away from properties that are listed. But local councils can also create Conservation areas to ensure that the character of a particular area is maintained. There is usually a set of guidelines for property renovators and developers. The houses within these areas have more protection from the more aggressive projects.
Sad to say, observing the new buildings that do get built, they are often very ugly. They build small, boxy apartments with hardly room to swing a cat. They have small windows to comply with heat conservation regulations and there is usually some awful maintenance company that exists primarily to extract money from the leaseholders. Some council planning departments can specify that some of the apartments are supposed to be sold at ‘affordable’ prices rather than wealthier home owners. Developers sometimes try to prevent the low rent tenants from access to common areas and we have the issue of ‘poor doors’ - the scandal of separate entrances for the ‘social’ tenants. Property and Class politics are never far below from the service in local planning rows and the neighbours are always a little too close for comfort.
UK cities are crowded and so many people dream of an escape to the countryside, to live an idyllic life free from the stresses of the city. Green Wellington boots and Barbour jackets and families in Landrovers are common sight in the tea rooms of small towns and villages of the lovely South West counties of Devon and Cornwall. TV programs that follow this dream are common. Sadly on this small island there are not quite enough tumble down farm houses in need of some care and attention by dreamy renovators and so the English are great buyers of property in rural France, Spain and Italy. Where they have all kinds of adventures dealing with local officials and builders and making sense of the local culture. Why there is even a genre of fiction dedicated to this theme. Peter Mayle and his Year in Provence, captured the dreams of many a well heeled middle class couple hoping to find rural bliss in the French countryside. They are generally welcomed because they are rich, adore the food and wine and employ many locals. The French themselves would never think of renovating a property and the rest of France are none too fond of rich French people, especially if they come from Paris.
I guess it is more TV and book friendly to write about the bemusing eccentricities of the rural French than dealing with awful familiarity of the English equivalent. The US has such a different geography, vast open land, huge plots for building, different climatic conditions and I presume some big cultural differences between country folk and big city people. I assume there are quite a few stories about city people upping sticks and moving to the countryside.
Some time back there was a case in the papers of a pub management co which demolished a listed building inn over the weekend, knowing that it would be an accomplished fact when the Council opened up for business again on Monday. They were compelled to reinstate an exact replica of it, just to teach them a lesson.
This farmer tried to disguise his house as a barn to dodge the planning regulations. He got caught and had to pull it down.
When very wealthy people buy houses in London, the planning regulations insist the exterior features are preserved. So the dig deep and excavate a couple of floors for the gym and swimming pool and extend the building under the garden as to the property boundary…or further. Sometimes it goes horribly wrong and they endanger neighbouring properties and then there is usually a a clash of egos and and lawyers get involved. Happens in desirable areas like Notting Hill.
The British are a quite obsessed with property. If you can afford the live in a beautiful Georgian mansion, you have certainly arrived.
That particular example sounds like there are incompetent people at the local council, if you’re remembering it exactly as it happened. But it doesn’t mean the whole system is worth throwing out. Almost all the time it’s about not fucking people over. A free-for-all on changes would cause way more problems than it would solve.
BTW there’s no such organisation as British Heritage - there’s English Heritage, Scottish Heritage, etc.
