Tile hanging on Edwardian property in Conservation Area

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tile hanging on Edwardian property in Conservation Area

    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.
    7
    Consider the mismatching tiling might be subject of enforcement action
    42.86%
    3
    Preferred the use of new Edwardian style tiles rather than a mix of painted, unpainted and new tiles
    28.57%
    2
    Regard the leaseholder of the FFF and her contractor being responsible for unsatisfactory work
    14.29%
    1
    Regard both the leaseholders of the GFF and FFF as responsible for the unsatisfactory work
    0.00%
    0
    Include the joint freeholders in any formal action
    14.29%
    1
    Do nothing a let the leaseholders and freeholders sort this out
    0.00%
    0
    Vic - wicked landlord
    Any advice or suggestions given in my posts are intended for guidance only and not a substitute for completing full searches on this forum, having regard to the advice of others, or seeking appropriate professional opinion.
    Without Plain English Codes of Practice and easy to complete Prescribed Forms the current law is too complex and is thus neither fair to good tenants nor good landlords.

    #2
    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.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Poppy
      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
      ............
      Vic - wicked landlord
      Any advice or suggestions given in my posts are intended for guidance only and not a substitute for completing full searches on this forum, having regard to the advice of others, or seeking appropriate professional opinion.
      Without Plain English Codes of Practice and easy to complete Prescribed Forms the current law is too complex and is thus neither fair to good tenants nor good landlords.

      Comment


        #4
        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

        Comment

        Latest Activity

        Collapse

        Working...
        X