Figure of Three Locks Aerial Video

[Mike Todd]

19 hours ago, John Brightley said:

Actually, that's not correct Pluto. Repairs to a listed structure using like for like materials do not require listed building consent or planning consent, so works could be started now on that basis. Consent would be required though for any non-original materials to be used, which you do mention as an option.

Is that correct? Has this chnaged? It is a few years ago but when we needed to have some work re-done (to a listed building) through a failure almost immediately after completion of an extension, and the re-instatement was to use the same stonework (there were do be non visible differences to avoid repeating the problem!) we were required to obtain a new listed building consent and the work had to be inspected as it proceeded, as usual. Or was thew planning department just wrong?

[John Brightley]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Is that correct? Has this chnaged? It is a few years ago but when we needed to have some work re-done (to a listed building) through a failure almost immediately after completion of an extension, and the re-instatement was to use the same stonework (there were do be non visible differences to avoid repeating the problem!) we were required to obtain a new listed building consent and the work had to be inspected as it proceeded, as usual. Or was thew planning department just wrong?

You suggest that there would be differences, even though they were not visible. It would be these differences which would spark the need for consent.

You may find  https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/listed-building-consent/listed-building-consent.htm interesting- it is from an authoritative source.

In basic terms, it says that like for like repair should not need consent, but some councils have chosen to err on the side of caution and ask for it anyway. It may depend on the extent of material which needs to be replaced.

My point above was that in the case of Figure of Three locks, CRT could potentially start repair work without consent being needed (thus saving time), though if as Pluto says a bridge needs to be built across one lock chamber, that itself is likely to require consent. Hope this helps.

[Mike Todd]

17 minutes ago, John Brightley said:

You suggest that there would be differences, even though they were not visible. It would be these differences which would spark the need for consent.

You may find  https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/listed-building-consent/listed-building-consent.htm interesting- it is from an authoritative source.

In basic terms, it says that like for like repair should not need consent, but some councils have chosen to err on the side of caution and ask for it anyway. It may depend on the extent of material which needs to be replaced.

My point above was that in the case of Figure of Three locks, CRT could potentially start repair work without consent being needed (thus saving time), though if as Pluto says a bridge needs to be built across one lock chamber, that itself is likely to require consent. Hope this helps.

That is what I was trying to hint at without directly contradicting your statement. I have dealt a bit with churches (where the faculty system replaces the listed building consent) and like-for-like (which is rarely actually achievable!) still requires prior permission. Starting work without permission runs the risk of having to reinstate to the prior condition if retrospective application is made. Heritage and planning authorities can get a tad sticky if work starts without permission and may hold closer to the rulebook (ie their professional judgements aka as prejudices(ouch!)) that a gentler discussion might have allowed.

[magpie patrick]

On 14/03/2020 at 17:06, John Brightley said:

Actually, that's not correct Pluto. Repairs to a listed structure using like for like materials do not require listed building consent or planning consent, so works could be started now on that basis. Consent would be required though for any non-original materials to be used, which you do mention as an option.

Really?

 

Would you like to tell Mendip Council that? or B&NES? I'm on about my fourth application for LBC where we're doing just that - the latest is an answer to enforcement where the work was being done with like for like materials on a collapsed wall at a cemetery - the stone isn't so much "like for like" as the same stone as was in the wall before it fell down.

[magpie patrick]

20 hours ago, John Brightley said:

You suggest that there would be differences, even though they were not visible. It would be these differences which would spark the need for consent.

You may find  https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/listed-building-consent/listed-building-consent.htm interesting- it is from an authoritative source.

In basic terms, it says that like for like repair should not need consent, but some councils have chosen to err on the side of caution and ask for it anyway. It may depend on the extent of material which needs to be replaced.

My point above was that in the case of Figure of Three locks, CRT could potentially start repair work without consent being needed (thus saving time), though if as Pluto says a bridge needs to be built across one lock chamber, that itself is likely to require consent. Hope this helps.

The project at Figure of Three is so large that any pedantic point about like for like isn't going to cut much mustard is it

 

What, exactly could they start with "like for like"? Most of the work needs heavy plant and access works to do it - much of it will need planning consent, that planning consent will need to be conditioned on heritage aspects

 

Yes, if a coping stone had come off the repair wouldn't need LBC or planning consent, but the scale of the works completely invaidates any suggestion that such a concession is useful

[David Mack]

Is all that washed out material from behind the apparently undamaged lock wall actually part of the listed structure?

[magpie patrick]

47 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Is all that washed out material from behind the apparently undamaged lock wall actually part of the listed structure?

Given the caveats surrounding listing then almost certainly yes

 

The structure is listed with it's curtilage - the curtilage is not well defined but from the HE guidance

 

Objects, structures and buildings affixed to a listed building or within its curtilage may also be protected by listing (see below).

These rules may mean that considerably more may be protected by the listing than is obvious from the list entry alone and there can often be considerable uncertainty as to what is covered.

This apparent unhelpfulness in the rules is mitigated somewhat by the fact that listed building consent is only required if works affect the special interest in the relevant structure. It may be unclear whether a structure is protected, but it may be clear it holds no special interest even if it is. Group value should obviously be considered in assessing the special interest of ancillary buildings

 

Sadly, I couldn't persuade Mendip that the boundary wall for the Dissenters Cemetery in Frome wasn't part of the listing nor that it held no special interest, the listing covered the chapel of rest and the railings at the front but didn't specify the rough stone (and non-original) boundary wall.

 

In an earlier application for works to the chapel I'd included a non-listed structure for clarity (we couldn't do the works to the listed building without also working on the non-listed structure)

 

At Figure of Three, If I were CRT I'd put in an LBC application for the lot 

[Pluto]

3 hours ago, David Mack said:

Is all that washed out material from behind the apparently undamaged lock wall actually part of the listed structure?

The lock wall does not look 'undamaged' to me, particularly the lower offside gate recess, whose movement would suggest that the hollow quoin has been damaged. The lower hollow quoin is probably the location of the highest forces on a lock structure, as the recess and cill has to hold back the full fall of water. Canal builders had different ideas about the 'correct' angle for the mitre, and this would affect how much force was directed at right-angles to the lock side, and how much in line. On the continent, canal engineers had sorted out stress diagrams for mitre gates by 1820, but such technical ideas were slower to be taken up in England. One of the features of English canal structures is that each canal builder had their own solution to the design. The result is that each canal/navigation has its own specific design features, and this is one of the most important heritage features of our canals. On lock walls, some used comparatively simple walls, there were also different types of buttress used, and some had anchors, wood or iron, reaching out into the ground behind the wall. Concrete was not used here until late in the 19th century, though the French used concrete foundations and walls for locks from around 1808.