1 August 2024
‘Net Zero’ and Listings
Incompatible.
By Lynda Goetz
This is a subject on which I have written on several occasions, but a subject on which, like so many others, politicians, civil servants and bureaucrats seem unable to find themselves in tune with the public. As most people know, we have in this country a ‘listing’ system designed to ensure that our most precious historic buildings cannot be vandalised by those keen to be in tune with the latest architectural and artistic vogues or possibly those with personal and idiosyncratic views of restoration. It was designed back in 1947 to safeguard many of our ancient buildings being rebuilt and restored after the destruction caused by World War II. It was also passed to ensure that a mania for modernism would not wipe out our architectural history (even if latterly we appear more than happy to ‘reinterpret’ our written or artistic history to the point of destruction). Those wishing to rebuild or refurbish old or ancient buildings would be obliged to seek specific and extra consents over and above those required by the planning authorities. In theory, a sound plan. However, as with so many pieces of legislation designed with the best of motives, it has turned out to have a huge number of unintended downsides.
Over the centuries, buildings evolve. New and improved building methods and materials are discovered. Buildings need to be re-purposed or to adapt to changes in society and the way in which different generations live and conduct their lives. Until the 1940s, with the introduction of The Town and Country Planning Acts of 1944 and 1947, there was very little to prevent people building, adapting or extending buildings as they wished. There are now over 370,000 buildings listed as of ‘special architectural interest’ or of ‘special historic interest’ on the National Heritage List for England (NHLE or ‘The List)). These buildings are subject not only to planning regulations, but to ‘listed building consent’ from Historic England. This consent has to be given for all changes made to buildings within the curtilage of the ‘historic’ building.
Unfortunately, back in the 1970s, owning a listed building gained some sort of ‘kudos’ and, as anyone can apply to list a building, many old buildings with somewhat spurious or doubtful claims to being of architectural or historic interest were added to ‘The List’. Whilst it appears to have been relatively easy at some points to get a building on the list, it is not as easy to remove it (Removing a Building from the List) and owning a listed building can bring with it a number of onerous issues when it comes to modernising or updating. One of the difficulties arises from the point in time at which listing dates from. Should the property have suffered from, say, having a corrugated iron roofed outbuilding in 1947 (because at that time the owner did not have the funds to put tiles or slates on the roof), then your application to put a ‘proper’ roof onto the building could be met with an objection by the local authority. Responses and outcomes can vary from authority to authority and from one listed building inspector to another.
The long list of problems with getting work done on listed buildings has over the last decade or so only got worse. Apart from the fact that consent can depend very much on individual authorities or inspectors, attempts to update or improve the environmental or eco credentials of your old building are likely to be met with as many objections as mere aesthetic improvements (or non-improvements). Take for example the question of draughty old windows. Should you live in an unlisted house of whatever era, then no problem at all. You can remove those draughty old windows and install modern double-glazed plastic replacements. Job done. They may be made of plastic faux wood and look absolutely hideous, but no planning consent of any kind, only access to your bank account is required before you ring up the double-glazing company to come and whip out the old ones and replace them with brand new shiny ones. (All you, or rather the company, need do is comply with current building regulations). They may only last for 20 years or so, but who cares, they do the job you want and help keep your house warm for now. You have also done your bit for ‘climate change’ change and ‘net zero’. You can polish your eco-credentials.
Pity the poor owner of a beautiful, but draughty, high-ceilinged, chilly old listed Georgian rectory. He will have to jump through hoops to replace those lovely, but rotting, wooden sash windows. Will he be allowed to go for new double-glazed plastic replicas? Absolutely not. He will probably, depending on where he lives, have to settle for individually-manufactured single-glazed wooden ones (which will probably still rattle and let in draughts when the wind blows from the wrong way). Apart from the fact that these bespoke windows will cost him a fortune, look great, but not do the job he wants, he will have filled in numerous forms and applications before he can order them and quite possibly have to have them inspected once they are installed. Why, you ask, could he not be allowed to have his lovely bespoke wooden sash windows double-glazed to help with the insulation of his charming rectory? These days they look barely any different from single-glazed windows, so little would change from an aesthetic point of view, but a great deal would change from a comfort and environmental point of view. I do not know the answer to that question, and it makes very little sense, but Historic England on most occasions dig their heels in over this sort of thing. Some people succeed in getting the permission they seek. Most don’t, even though emissions from buildings are responsible for up to 80% of local carbon emissions.
It was recently announced that, as part of his green energy drive, the King was to install solar panels at Windsor Castle. Windsor Castle is a Grade I listed building. So, how on earth did the King manage to get his local authority to approve putting up solar panels? Most people, as with double-glazed windows, can, if they choose, put as many solar panels onto their roof as they can afford. Should you however own a listed building, then, once again, you will need Listed Building Consent, which is highly unlikely to be given. True, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, as the Evening Standard announced in April 2022,was the first borough to relax the solar panels rules for listed properties, but in general, this is another modernisation too far for Historic England. As solar professionals, My Power explain on their website, “Occupying a listed property has a lot of benefits but heating and powering an older building efficiently can be a serious challenge. Owning a listed building doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t carry out solar panel building and installation, but the process will be more complicated.” This is probably something of an understatement. This company was responsible for installing panels on Listed Grade1 Gloucester Cathedral. So, it can be done.
Given that owners of listed properties already have to shell out a lot more money to ensure that materials used are in keeping with the historic building they own, should the difficulties and hoops they have to jump through really be so time-consuming and so often end in refusals? Owners of historic buildings, whether that be a grand manor house or a humble cottage, usually appreciate and are proud of what they own and would like to see their buildings preserved. Isn’t it about time inspectors tried more often to say ‘yes’ to proposals to update these buildings, rather than ‘no’? After all, if the King can put solar panels on Windsor Castle, and the Church onto Gloucester Cathedral, why can’t Mr and Mrs Smith put double glazing and solar panels into ‘Chez Nous’ in Dorset? Perhaps, when considering their almost impossible ‘net zero’ proposals, not to mention their proposed planning amendments, our new Government could consider relaxing some of the more ridiculous burdens and regulations borne by the owners of listed buildings.
Cover page image: Saffron Blaze / wikimedia / Creative Commons
