Retrospective Listed Consent

Tash2005

Is is possible to apply for retrospective LBC if you carried out the works yourself (as opposed to a previous owner) without exposing yourself to the risk of prosecution? 

We had the slates taken off the roof, rotten timber replaced (not that much), a waterproof membrane put down and all the original slates replaced, along with original ridge tiles.  At the same time we reinstated a chimney that had at some point been dismantled and installed a wood burning stove in the fireplace below.  We have also had several windows replaced at the back of the house, all part of disparate extensions.

We have replaced like for like (apart from the stove), but didn't get LBC because my (soon to be ex) husband is so pig headed he decided it wasn't necessary.  However, this has now left me in a bind, because I am joint owner of the house.  

Does anyone have any experience of this?  In order to extricate myself from the situation I am in I am willing to do my best to put things right, and to some extent take it on the chin, but not at risk of a prison sentence!

eddddy

FWIW, according to Historic England:

Listed building offences
The offence is committed by the person who carried out the works (possibly a builder) and by anyone who caused them to be carried out (someone instructing a builder).
Link: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/uwandhc/offences/

So it doesn't sound like you're the person that committed the offence - it sounds like your husband might be (and the builder, if they knew it was a listed building). 

If you apply for retrospective consent, I guess the possible outcomes are likely to be:

• You get consent for the alterations you've made
• You have to reinstate the building to how it was before the alterations were made
• You have to make modifications to the alterations you've made (e.g. the reinstated chimney is not in the correct style, so you need to modify it.)

But people often report that when they apply for listed building consent, it comes to light that previous owners have made unauthorised changes as well - so you have to deal with those.

Tash2005

I instructed the builders (on my husband's instructions - I wasn't contemplating divorce at that point), so I will be culpable, and I wouldn't want to incriminate any tradesmen. 

I have considered the possibility that opening the door (literally) to a Conservation Officer might be opening a whole can of worms, but the the house was listed in 1988, so how would they know what was and wasn't in the house at that point?  Do they go round looking for things that they think don't 'fit'?  Does it all really boil down to the individual CO - some might be prepared to embrace an amnesty of sorts, whilst others might decide to throw the book at me?

The renewals were all really a matter of urgency - water coming in the roof, windows literally rotting to the point we boarded up panes, etc.  I thought about engaging a specialist surveyor to advise the best course of action.

I would never, ever, buy a Listed property again.  I suspect it won't be an option anyway when I get out of jail.

eddddy

Tash2005 said:

but the the house was listed in 1988, so how would they know what was and wasn't in the house at that point?  Do they go round looking for things that they think don't 'fit'?  

As I understand it, when a building is listed, photographs would be taken and details recorded. So the Conservation Officer would refer to the photos and details from 1988.  You should be able to find some details of your property here:   https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/

You don't have to 'undo' anything that was done prior to 1988 - for example, if somebody installed a UPVC window before 1988.

You're allowed to do 'emergency work' without consent, but you're supposed to tell the council as soon as possible.





 

FreeBear

Tash2005 said: I would never, ever, buy a Listed property again.  I suspect it won't be an option anyway when I get out of jail.

It is extremely unlikely that you would go to jail - This option is usually reserved for consistent and repeated breaches such as demolition.

Brock_and_Roll

Personally, I would come clean. They have far more pressing & serious cases to deal with. I would be very surprised if you didnt just get a "please ensure you get consent in advance of any works in the future". 

davidmcn

I can't see anybody being remotely interested in taking enforcement action. This sort of thing is more likely to be self-policed i.e. by future buyers asking to see the paperwork.