Gagged Development = Stunted Growth = Stagnation

It has always frustrated me that the planning, conservation approval and the listed building consent process1 is not unlike it once was for a Romanian applying for a visa to go to the USA before the days of Glasnost. Much form filling, sucking of teeth, silent stares, backroom talk, interrogation, inordinate waiting, and then more often rejection. If you are very lucky, you pass to go but even then on a qualified ticket with a stack of conditions to shake your stick at. This I have been through via my experience of planning and conservation authorities in practice as a construction solicitor and through changes made to my own house.

Of course, it surprises me that it is a common misconception in the industry even that listed buildings cannot be altered or demolished but perhaps this is not startling given how the dynamic of effecting 'change' is so difficult to get through. Listing simply means that a statutory authority must approve all such proposals before work commences. Indeed, some element of alteration is inevitable because of ordinary conservation and repair work, and in some cases, even the demolition of some part may be required in order to ensure the survival of the building as a whole. Surprised? You shouldn't be. Conservation of our building fabric is a very broad church.

Of course, the word 'conservation' includes all actions that are required to ensure the survival of the building in the long term, including, where necessary, sensitive alterations. The term 'preservation', on the other hand, is much more restricted in scope, describing only those actions, which prevent change or protect a building from change, and therefore excludes all alterations, no matter how essential. The third term regularly used in the same context is 'restoration' as opposed to 'refurbishment', which is to refresh what, was there. Restoration describes action taken to undo alterations that are more recent and is thus very much a course of change, removing later alterations and often reinstating features based on the design of elements removed in the past. Refurbishment is more often a polite word for 'tart up'.

I do not question that we must protect our heritage, our ancient monuments have had laws protecting them and from damage through poor building and attempts to control builders since ancient days. In earliest times, builders were even put to death2 if buildings collapsed. The fear of loss of life and property from fire brought about the first formal controls after the Great Fire of London 1666 destroyed 4/5ths of London. This lead to the London Building Acts3 1667 and 1774, quaintly the preamble said, "An Act to control the construction of new buildings in London" this lead to various sine qua non like all external walls to be brick or stone, rules for foundations, wall thicknesses, timber sizes and types, chimneys, etc. Then followed laws on listed buildings (from 1932), conservation areas (1967), then World Heritage sites (1984), and now locally listed buildings too, we have reached a point where we are expected to consider not just these designations, but the setting of everything.

Concern for the settings4 of listed buildings and conservation areas, as opposed to their fabric, have gone far too far. In many cities, there is now virtually no significant development that is not said to affect the setting of some designated 'heritage asset5' (as the Heritage Protection Bill was again missed from...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT