Tile hanging on Edwardian property in Conservation Area

[Worldlife]

An end of terrace Edwardian property is situated in a conservation area.

It is divided into a ground floor and first floor flat with a shared freehold and separate long term leases.

The tile hanging on the front elevation between the bay windows of the ground floor and first floor flats had become insecure and several tiles had fallen recently. There was risk of injury to the tenant of the ground floor flat, visitors or contractors.

The leaseholder of the GFF obtained estimates from three roofing contractors for remedial work and submitted these to the leaseholder of the FFF.

One contractor was extremely concerned about the re-use of existing tiles because some of them had been overpainted. That contractor stressed the need for special care on dressing flashings and treatment of the joints between the side and front parts of the bay. That contractor strongly recommended the use of new tiles for recladding and pointed out where this had been done on an adjoining property. This verbal advice was passed on to the leaseholder of the FFF

Whilst the leaseholder of the GFF was away on holiday the leaseholder of the FFF, without submitting details of the roofing contractor or general builder or providing an estimate carried out the work.

The end result is a mismatch of tiling more akin to a rustic cottage than original meticulous Edwardian tiling.

Before contemplating any contribution to the work the leaseholder of the GFF has submitted the above details to and sought the views of the Planning Officer.

[Poppy]

I don’t know anything about conservation areas and planning officers.

Do you know why communication between the joint owners was so poor?

Did the owners of the first floor flat intend to pay for the work by themselves and not involve the ground floor?

Despite the tile colouration, was a good job done?

At the end of the day, I think the simplest solution would be to paint all of the tiles a suitable single colour. It is also my opinion that the cost of the whole job should be split between the owners according to the terms of the leases.

[Worldlife]

I don’t know anything about conservation areas and planning officers. The object of the conservation area is to ensure that externally the properties within it are kept, maintained and improved to resemble the state there were in at the time of construction. You cannot complete external replacements or renovations without approval of the Planning Officer and to do certain works without such approval would be an offence. For example we have heavy ongoing repairs and maintenance costs for Edwardian wooden sash windows and it is not likely that approval would be given to replace them with UPVC security products

Do you know why communication between the joint owners was so poor? Communication is fine it is just that there are differences in opinion and of course the leaseholder of the FFF initiated action to complete repairs the way she wanted them.

Did the owners of the first floor flat intend to pay for the work by themselves and not involve the ground floor? No - that's why the leaseholder of the GFF provided copies of the estimates to the leaseholder of the FFF for approval and to be shared jointly

Despite the tile colouration, was a good job done? No the tiling is uneven resembling that for a rustic cottage rather than an Edwardian town house.

At the end of the day, I think the simplest solution would be to paint all of the tiles a suitable single colour. It is also my opinion that the cost of the whole job should be split between the owners according to the terms of the leases. The leaseholder of the GFF would be unwilling to contribute to the extra cost of repainting and regular repainting tiles - this is additional expense over and above the cost of using new tiles that would not need painting and maintenance

............

[pdk]

Definition of Development

Section 55 of the Planning Act 1990 contains the definition of development. One aspect of this is that development may occur if the external appearance of a building is 'materially affected'...

In the case of your tiles this is a subjective matter...I do know though that painting a building can constitute development and enforcement actions are certainly taken when timber windows are swapped for UPVC ones... so it would seem that - in principle - changing tiles could be defined as development and thus open to enforcement action. It may really depend on the difference - in colour, size and texture - and it could be that the change is 'de minimis' so that development is not involved... anyone's guess really!!!

The next point is that enforcement action is entirely at the discretion of the local planning authority. Thus, even if a reasonable view might conclude that development is involved that might not necessarily result in enforcement action...

Peter