VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:03:13 11/23/03 Sun
Author: ¦óÚZµØ±ø»«©P+Åwªï¬µÊ\: jameslam@hkpro.com.hk
Subject: ²bÎx¦óÚZµØ±ø¤²µó©O+Åwªï¬µÊ\: nancychow@hkpro.com.hk

Construction Technology & Rehabilitation
Notes for week 7 by John O¡¦Leary
Introduction
These notes are for the first of two sessions in the Con Tech & Rehab stage 3 course.
Under the theme of `influences upon the rehabilitation process¡¦, the session explores
the origins and current implications of conservation legislation, particularly
conservation areas and listed buildings. The session develops work undertaken by
students at stage 2 in the Land Economics and Planning course; it is therefore felt
inappropriate to re-state sections in the legislation etc. The drift of these notes is
deliberately `hawkish¡¦ and does not necessarily reflect the views of the author. The
second session in week 10 will explore further some of the practical implications
identified.

Heritage and National Psyche
Given that there is now an estimated 500,000 listed buildings, 7,500 conservation
areas and 13,000 ancient monuments in England and Wales, it is highly likely that
you will encounter one or other of these constraints in the rehab process. The
designations are a fact of life that the professional has to deal with. However there is a
wider question: has the nation gone too far when it comes to preserving heritage in the
built environment?
A polemical view articulated by Hewison (1987) is that the growth in heritage interest
is driven by a national lack of vision, direction and confidence. Instead of
investigating new products and markets and engaging in R&D Hewison believes that
the UK has become a manufacturer of heritage, exploiting the economic potential in a
backward looking resource.
Hewison argued that far from ameliorating a then climate of decline, the overconcentration
on heritage issues was stifling innovation and heightening the sense of
living in `museum Britain¡¦.
Not surprisingly this line of argument has found favour with property interests and the
modern wings of the built environment professions. There is now a lively and healthy
debate between the conservation lobby and pragmatists as to the extent to which the
nation now conserves its built heritage.
The Department of National Heritage (now the Department of Culture, Media and
Sport) made some controversial decisions in the 1990s to list post-war buildings like
Centre Point. English Heritage the advisory body with regard to listing and all things
old, was closely involved in those decisions. English Heritage now has thematic
campaigns to list particular types of buildings. Recently the Post Office Tower in
central London along with tall radio masts in various parts of the country were listed
following such as campaign.

Recently the Braithwaite Viaduct at Bishopsgate was listed. The listing of this piece
of railway engineering was resisted by the owners of Bishopsgate Goods Yard, who
claimed that listing would hinder the redevelopment of a key brown-field site on the
City fringe.
The listing (romanticising?) of modern commercial buildings is proving unpopular
with property related pressure groups like the British Property Federation, who are
seeking compensation for building owners due to an alleged loss of redevelopment
value. Others are seeking `cooling off periods¡¦ before a building is listed, or review
periods after which a building might be de-listed. The government¡¦s policy in PPG15
(1994) is arguably showing signs of its age and there are calls for its review.
The growth in numbers of Listing Buildings during the post ¡Vwar years has also
resulted in a growing proportion of `at risk¡¦ buildings. Sometimes this is part of a
deliberate strategy on the part of the owners to obtain demolition consent. In other
circumstances some local planning authorities have restrictive policies on re-use.
Redundant barns often fall into the category, in that some LPAs refuse consent for
residential use, holding out for agricultural re-use or light industrial use as a second
option. Similar battles are being fought in urban areas on the re-use of listed, but
redundant theatres and Odean cinemas.
Owners of listed buildings are primarily responsible for their up-keep with minimalist
¡§reactive¡¨ grants available from English Heritage. PPG 15 presumes in favour of
preserving listed buildings. Those seeking demolition of listed buildings have to
demonstrate that stringent tests are met in full:
•ƒnEconomic test - repairs and re-use must be viable in relation to the heritage value.
•ƒnUse test - the owners must have tried to let or sell the building on the open market.
•ƒnThe Merits of any replacement building must be demonstrably superior to the
existing listed building.
Local authorities have reserve powers to enforce repairs to listed buildings or even
compulsory purchase, but the mechanisms are unwieldy expensive and in any case
local authorities often own listed buildings which are in a poor state of repair (and
which they cannot afford to maintain or repair).
Most post-war buildings were never built with heritage in mind and listing delays
redevelopment. Buildings become empty and some believe that listing delays
inevitable demolition at a cost to the nation.
The government view in PPG15 is that:
¡§It is fundamental to the Government¡¦s policies for environmental stewardship
that there should be effective protection for all aspects of the historic
environment. The physical survivals of our past are to be valued and protected
for their own sake, as a central part of our cultural heritage and our sense of
national identity.¡¨

The government have brought in a consultation process to consider new listing
proposals, which give all parties an opportunity to voice their opinions on whether a
building should, or should not be listed.
Conservation Areas
These came 20 years after listed buildings in 1967 and are defined in legislation as:
¡§areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which
it is desirable to preserve or enhance.¡¨
It is estimated that there are now 1.3 million buildings (4% of the nation¡¦s stock)
contained within conservation areas. Conservation areas vary widely in character
from Victorian Rochester to Georgian Bath.
Some feel that there has been over-designation of conservation areas, which has led to
the devaluation of the concept. Architects like Richard Rogers are sceptical about the
benefits of conservation areas, which on the ground can appear to be very ordinary.
Planning applications in conservation areas generally take longer to process and it is
argued that there is an un-quantifiable cost to the nation and a fettering of creative
architectural talent in such areas.
A recent trend, which satisfies the local authority planning committees to some extent,
is for façade retention. Developers have gone along with this in order to obtain
planning consent for their schemes. Purists argue that this is dishonest and stifles
architectural innovation.
Quite modest developments in conservation areas have to demonstrate that they
preserve or enhance the character of the area. This can involve additional costs to
individuals who simply want to extend their homes. Third party objectors are able to
stifle new development in conservation areas, it is argued.
Conclusion
The difficulty with evaluating built heritage is related to quantifying its importance,
whilst detractors can quantify the costs and are beginning to seek compensation from
the government. There is a view that an over-concentration on heritage equates to a
lack confidence in contemporary culture (and thus architecture) and that this is
backward looking and un-healthy for a modern nation. It is argued by some that this
general yearning for `the good old days¡¦ is not as apparent in the more successful
global economies, hence the term `museum Britain¡¦.
Others believe that the qualitative and cultural aspects associated with conservation
make it a worthwhile activity for government as ultimate guardians of the heritage.
The prevalent feeling at the moment is that greater scrutiny and wider opinion needs
to be brought to bear, before anything else is added to the list under the guise of
`heritage¡¦.
References
One Foot in the Past `Heritage Listed Buildings¡¦ BBC Video, 12.7.94. (although this
video is now a little dated, it reveals the `aesthetic¡¦ values held by English Heritage
listing advisors).
Hewison, R. `The Heritage Industry¡¦ 1987, Methuen.
Ross, M. `Planning and the Heritage¡¦ E&FN Spon, 2nd Edition 1996.
Macdonald, S. (Ed) `Modern Matters ¡V Principles and Practice in Conserving Recent
Architecture¡¦ English Heritage, 1996.
Moore, V. `A Practical Approach to Planning Law¡¦ 8th Edition, 2002, Oxford
University Press.

Construction Technology & Rehabilitation
Notes for the week 9 slot from John O¡¦Leary.
Introduction
These notes are for the second of two talks given by JO¡¦L in the Con. Tech. & Rehab.
stage 3 course. The focus in this talk is on practices and processes relating to the
conservation of buildings which are either listed or are in conservation areas. It is very
likely that in your professional work, you will be confronted with the challenge of
changing or altering a protected building and this will require successful navigation
through an awkward consent system.
PPG 15 `Planning and the Historic Environment¡¦ 1994
Despite its vintage, PPG15 is still the relevant document as far as government policy
is concerned on how planning legislation should be applied to listed buildings and
conservation areas. Originally issued by the Department of the Environment
Transport and the Regions (now defunct) PPG15 can be viewed at the planning part of
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister¡¦s web site www.ODPM.gov.uk
In PPG15, the government acknowledges that it is not the purpose of legislation to
prevent positive change or re-use of listed buildings or those un-listed buildings in
conservation areas. Thus conservation is viewed as a dynamic process which will
necessarily involve change. However where changes are proposed to protected
buildings, the legislation places the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate
that the proposed changes will not have a detrimental effect on the special character of
the building. This is articulated in paragraph 3.4 of PPG15:
¡§Applicants for listed building consent¡Kshould provide the local authority
with full information, to enable them to assess the likely impact of their
proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building or on
its setting.¡¨
There has been academic and professional interest in how this policy is implemented
in practice. Research by Oxford Brookes (2000) looked at practice by local planning
authorities (LPAs):
•ƒn55% of Listed Building Consent (LBC) and Conservation Area Consent (CAC)
applications are submitted by professional advisors such as surveyors. However
despite this professional attention, 60% of applications could not be registered by
the LPA due to insufficient information.
•ƒn95% of LPAs had at least one conservation officer in-house, half of all LPAs had
at least 3 conservation officers. 97% of LPAs said advice from conservation
officers was critical to the final decision. The implication of this was that if the
conservation officer was not happy with the developer¡¦s proposal, it was very
likely that the LPA would refuse LBC/ CAC.
•ƒnHowever, despite the advice in PPG15, LPAs were inconsistent in what they
sought from applicants, but felt that pre-application involvement of conservation
officers would significantly improve the clear up rate (applications determined
within 8 weeks).
•ƒnThe clear up rate varied significantly between authorities. Some reported only a
10% clear up rate for LBC and CAC applications, whilst others managed a 90%
clear up rate.
Overall the findings of the research underline the importance of pre-application
discussions between the LPA and the professional agent handling the client¡¦s
interests. The provision of information by the applicant to justify the changes
proposed is also critical to the process. This might involve historical research and/or
an impact assessment. At the very least it will involve the submission of photos and
drawings.
Listing Details
Each listing entry contains a descriptor, which was originally intended to identify the
building and say something about why it had been listed. However, it does not follow
that only those items in the descriptor are the important features worthy of conserving.
All internal and external features are part of the listing. This would apply, for
instance, to a Georgian terrace which was listed grade II for its group value. Interior
panelling might not appear in the listing descriptor, but listed building consent would
still be needed for its removal (even if that panelling were not original).
Because the legislation is all embracing, there have been calls for change, so that only
the important parts of a building are listed. Thus the ¡§ordinary parts¡¨ of the building
could be changed and adapted without needing listed building consent. Whilst this has
appeal, the nearest that the system has got to achieving this degree of flexibility is
where a management agreement has been struck between the building¡¦s owners and
the LPA. This is the case in Ipswich, where changes to the Grade I Willis Coroon
building (designed by Norman Foster) are undertaken under a management agreement
which provides fast-track consent for un-controversial changes to the building.
Third Parties
PPG15 describes the statutory consultees who become involved in passing comment
on proposals to change protected buildings. For example the 20th Century Society are
consulted on proposals to change listed buildings from that period. Local amenity
groups will also tend to make representations on proposals which affect listed
buildings. Professional advisors would thus do well to be pro-active by identifying the
relevant consultees with a view to keeping them informed of proposed changes. When
handled correctly consultation can be an effective way of gaining the support of
amenity societies. These societies recognise the importance of finding new uses for
listed buildings, as the majority of `at risk¡¦ buildings on English Heritage¡¦s register
are those which lie empty i.e. those for which a new use has not been agreed or found.
Money and Listing
The Shimizu case illustrates the thrust of financial pressures which saw the
investment owners of a Grade II commercial building (Quantas House in Piccadilly)
obtain listed building consent for a facade retention scheme. The building was then
sold on to new investment owners (Shimizu) who saw the potential to push for the
removal of the chimney breasts at the back of the retained facade. This also required
listed building consent. At the time (mid 1990s) there was a compensation loophole
which enabled Shimizu to successfully claim £1.8 million for reduced net lettable area
on each floor due to the presence of the chimney breasts (listed building consent for
their removal having been refused on appeal). This compensation loophole has now
been closed and there are virtually no circumstances in which compensation can be
claimed for loss of development value due to listing.
However all is not gloomy on the financial front for investment owners of listed
buildings, as research by Investment Property Databank (IPD) has shown sound
financial performance by commercial listed buildings.
Reading
Walker, A. (1997) `Conserving Value ¡V Making Effective Use of a Listed Building¡¦
Estates Gazette (books). On Study Loans in the Campus Library.
PPG15 `Planning and the Historic Environment¡¦ 1994 at www.ODPM.gov.uk
Oxford Brookes (2000) `Local Authority Practice and PPG15: Information and
Effectiveness¡¦. This document can be viewed at www.english-heritage.org.uk
click on `Policy¡¦ and then `Local authority practice and PPG15¡¦

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.