Bit of trivia, if anyone is interested (via the BBC)...
A couple who painted their 17th Century cottage a vivid shade of pink have been told they must repaint it a less vibrant colour.Which might seem sensible
Teignbridge District Council denied retrospective planning permission for the listed building in Kennford, Devon, saying any repainting needed consent.
Owner Ann Kennedy argued it had "always been this shade of pink" and their work merely restored the previous hue.
The authority's planning committee turned down the application by 17 votes to three.Which also might seem sensible.
The council said consent was needed before any alterations were made to a listed building that were likely to affect its character or appearance.
Councillor Mary Colclough claimed the new colour was "not in keeping with the village".
Her argument was supported by councillor Joan Lambert, who said the cottage "was garish and doesn't fit in to the local area".
But actually, what matters is how a building appeared at the time that it was listed. If you've got an old 19th century home and it got pebbledashed in the 1950s and it then got listed in the 1970s, you can't go turning it back into a 19th century building, even though it would look a lot better because the rules say that it's not how the building was originally, but how it was at the time it was listed. That's the building that got preserved.
So, if the building was pink when it was listed, it is irrelevant whether the council thinks it fits in with the current local area, the homeowner not only is allowed to paint it pink, but would actually be breaking planning law if they did something else.
(you'd like to think that councillors would know the law, but frequently, they ignore their officers, only to find that someone appeals and the councillors get bitch-slapped).
6 comments:
That building - Oak Combe - to the right of the "Pink 'Un" (which does indeed look a distinctly more washed out mellower pink in the Google Maps 2009 image) would appear, to my untrained eye, to have been roofed in a manner completely out of keeping with both its neighbours, and other dwellings in the village so I look forward to reading about how the owners of that have been told to "replace the thatch" at some point in the future ...
Comparing the Google image against the BBC one, I'm inclined to believe that it has been painted exactly the same shade of pink as it was before. It just looks brighter now because it's new paint. Give it a couple of years to get sun-faded and rained on a bit and it will look no different to how it's always looked.
From the Telegraph at the other end of the spectrum- Britain’s Stately homes are in crisis! Give their owners money!
“The HHA survey suggests what I’ve been saying for a long time: we are privileged to live in these places, but if we, as a nation, want to continue to have them, we have got to be helped along the way somehow.”
“The 2,000-acre estate also hosts 21 weddings annually to supplement his rent from the 50 properties in the village that he owns. He estimates the annual income at around £500,000 a year. “
“I’ve never qualified in anything, my job is running a stately home. Nobody can qualify you for that. It’s just part of life. And I love it.”
Some of these conservation area rules can be pretty bizarre. I once lived in one and was informed that I needed consent to replace the render on my house, even if it was with exactly the same render, but I didn't need consent to paint it a different colour.
B, that's the bit which puzzles me.
In the one instance where I have some actual real life experience*, the council (or whoever) insisted that the outside of the building remain as it was when it was listed - so no air conditioning ducts on the outside, which is fair enough.
But, as TS said, there were some external alterations which were a) ugly and b) had happened between the building being built and it being listed. But they wouldn't allow those to be changed back again.
Even worse was they insisted on most of the interior decoration being true to the original. Well, who gives a shit? Nobody has to see that apart from the people who occupy the building. The value of the building to "the community" (i.e. people who walk past, neighbours) would be entirely unaffected.
* An old building which my then employer moved into as offices.
Mark, listing applies to the inside of a building as well as the outside but, having said that, a good conservation officer will allow "natural development" of a listed building, where alterations that reflect the previous changes over the years are allowed. However, far too many COs know jack all about building conservation or historic buildings, and take the line that nothing must change, as that way they can't make a wrong decision on allowing an alteration.
Post a Comment