The "have a look at this!" thread II

ukmaggie45

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65033934.html

Spot the cat.

tiernsee

ukmaggie45 wrote: »

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65033934.html

Spot the cat.

Lovely cat but how many beds have they managed to fit into this property!

Davesnave

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

"The vendor has a velux window which they are happy to include unfitted subject to offer."

:rotfl:

Code for; 'The attic doesn't comply with fire regulations.'

Davesnave

tiernsee wrote: »

Lovely cat but how many beds have they managed to fit into this property!

Enough to make a good profit:
'This family home is also used as a great weekend let property for those visiting the city on weekend breaks and football matches.'

Owain_Moneysaver

Davesnave wrote: »

Code for; 'The attic doesn't comply with fire regulations.'

Those stairs don't comply with any regulations. :eek:

Owain_Moneysaver

Davesnave wrote: »

Enough to make a good profit:
'This family home is also used as a great weekend let property for those visiting the city on weekend breaks and football matches.'

Presumably the owners move into the shed in the garden for the weekend?

StumpyPumpy

FreeBear wrote: »

Take a closer look at pic 11 - The diagonal join on the corner of the frame screams uPVC. Being a G2 listed property, I bet those windows don't have the proper consent.

Bet you they do.

Everyone commenting about the listing of this place seems to have forgotten that a grade listing is not retrospective. It stops further changes rather than insists that the property be put back into original order (could you imagine the can of worms that would open? "We've just slapped a listing on your converted windmill, so you need to get sails fitted and turning again")

This house was only listed on 02/02/1984 and I bet those windows are contemporaneous with that date. Which implies it was first spotted in the national resurvey instigated by Michael Heseltine after the hasty demolition of the Firestone Building when he was Secretary of State.

I guess it was missed out earlier either because it is estimated to have been built in 1770 not before and the law on listing states "All buildings erected before 1700 that contain a significant proportion of their original fabric are listed" (my bold - this is important as, for instance, a Barratt home built on the site of a Roman villa would not qualify under this section even if you insist it has "Roman" foundations); Or it might be that as the majority of houses built before 1840 are listed as a matter of course, this one slipped through the net. Either way, if the widows were there in 1984 then no specific approval was or is required (apart from the good taste police, that is).


SP

Patr100

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

Bet you they do.

Everyone commenting about the listing of this place seems to have forgotten that a grade listing is not retrospective. It stops further changes rather than insists that the property be put back into original order (could you imagine the can of worms that would open? "We've just slapped a listing on your converted windmill, so you need to get sails fitted and turning again")

This house was only listed on 02/02/1984 and I bet those windows are contemporaneous with that date. Which implies it was first spotted in the national resurvey instigated by Michael Heseltine after the hasty demolition of the Firestone Building when he was Secretary of State.

I guess it was missed out earlier either because it is estimated to have been built in 1770 not before and the law on listing states "All buildings erected before 1700 that contain a significant proportion of their original fabric are listed" (my bold - this is important as, for instance, a Barratt home built on the site of a Roman villa would not qualify under this section even if you insist it has "Roman" foundations); Or it might be that as the majority of houses built before 1840 are listed as a matter of course, this one slipped through the net. Either way, if the widows were there in 1984 then no specific approval was or is required (apart from the good taste police, that is).


SP

The key word is "if " the windows were put in before 1984 . Then we have the potential uncertainly faced by potential buyers who have no proof when the windows were put in - before or after 1984?, or even if they meet FENSA regulations , if possibly installed since 2002.
There is a time limit for retrospective action on general planning consent but not for breaches of unauthorised work without proper consent on listed buildings.
So the new owners could either assume and hope for the best, or find evidence they have been there for so long that there will be no retrospective action by the authorities or because it is quicker to settle , the sellers(usually) pay for indemnity insurance in case there are any issues arising later
but this might not cover knowingly unapproved works.

Bad_Accountant

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65826048.html

I like this one, but I'm not sure it's got enough sockets!!! :rotfl:

EDIT: YAY ! I can finally post links!

quotememiserable

Bad_Accountant wrote: »

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-65826048.html
I like this one, but I'm not sure it's got enough sockets!!! :rotfl:

A couple more in the kitchen would be handy. We have 11 toasters.