Would you buy a grade 2 listed cottage?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I’m sure the OP has noticed this, but all the windows in the terrace look to be modern and of different styles and gutters have been replaced. Presumably the entire terrace is listed? As someone who would follow the rules and also would want to change the windows, I’d be slightly concerned about creating bad feeling with the neighbours if I brought the attention of the authorities and landed the neighbours with listed building enforcement notices.
 
Generally the opposite. It adds value if done well.
Nope, simply because very few people want to have the privilege of living in a heritage building. Price is driven by demand, not by how much you spend on something. I think herpes is probably more popular than a listed building. Clearly, a few philanthropic people exist, and those with naive dreams of a trad cottage, but, they are a rare breed and getting rarer.
 
I live in a Grade II-listed mid-16th-century timber-framed cottage in Kent. I have dealt with various conservation officers, and they are reasonable, provided they understand that you have the property's best interest at heart.

It is useful to obtain the Listing to see when it was originally listed and if there are any denotable features. This will (as MikeG correctly said) define the extent of the listing, which is both inside and outside the property and up to the curtilage at the time of listing. Any adjoining fixed structure (garden wall, Neighbour's house, etc.) will also be listed. It may be that the property in question is listed because it is connected to the adjoining property that is listed. You will also be legally liable for any previous non-authorised alterations; however, this is rarely enforced, and you can purchase insurance for this, which is very cheap (see reference to the LPOC below).

BCOs and conservation officers have very different roles, and there are times when they conflict. When this happens, the balance of importance generally takes precedence.

I would actually open up a discussion with the local CO pre-purchase and discuss your plans - this will give you a feel what they are like and how easy they are to work with. The key is that you want to make the property habitable but ensure the character is maintained, but not to the detriment of the property, and so it is used and maintained accordingly. When dealing with COs, there are many ways to argue against their requirements (some legal and some practical) and some simple legal phrases to use that can often bring them back to reality.

One key point to remember is that you are preserving the "character" of the building, and this must always be remembered. If the alterations to the property can be undone without affecting the character, then this is useful to explain.

The Listed Property Owner's Club (LPOC) is useful.

Conservation Officers, like any profession, vary in their knowledge and abilities (most, contrary to various posts, are well qualified). It is often how you approach them and the issue that is the most important. For example, be clear that you have the property's interest at heart, explain what you want to do, an how and why and if it can be reverted to the way it was without detriment to the property, then you will be 90% there.

What is often forgotten is that repairs do not require LBC.

I would suspect that the CO will even allow double-glazed units if you explain that they will be timber construction with slimline DGU and in keeping with the neighbours, etc. One point to consider is that if you start replacing windows (and obtain LBC), this may open up issues for your neighbours if they don't have consent, which may lead to ongoing problems with your neighbours.
 
What I don't understand is that a new build has to be insulated to the nth degree with windows that are sealed tight in order to comply with building regs. A listed building? All this goes out of the window and you have windows, that are as effective at keeping wind out and heat in as an open door. The system is frankly bloody stupid.
Grenfell I guess highlighted the idiocy involved in planning and building.
How can one insulate the likes of Anne Hathaway's cottage without compromising its looks and history? I guess the answer is - you can't. 🤔
 
How can one insulate the likes of Anne Hathaway's cottage without compromising its looks and history? I guess the answer is - you can't. 🤔
You can.
In general by insulating under the roof and/or across the ceilings of the upper rooms. Usually completely out of sight and also usually the most cost effective.
Next would be draught exclusion of doors and windows - but always leaving gaps as air changes are absolutely essential.
After that it all depends on what is possible. Electric cookers need no air change. Curtains are good, particularly with attention to how they are fitted - ideally they need to hold still the air between it and the door/window, but anything is better than nothing.
Unused open chimneys can be blocked, thick carpets help, and so on.
Loads of info out there e.g. https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/insulation/article/guides.
 
Last edited:
In general by insulating under the roof and/or across the ceilings of the upper rooms. Usually completely out of sight and also usually the most cost effective.
Next would be draught exclusion of doors and windows - but always leaving gaps as air changes are absolutely essential.
After that it all depends on what is possible. Curtains are good, particularly with attention to how they are fitted - ideally they need to hold still the air between it and the door/window, but anything is better than nothing.
Unused open chimneys can be blocked, thick carpets help, and so on
Specifically that cottage was a three room dwelling. It has not been lived in for decades. There are no ceilings in the upper rooms apart from a small span covering the apex. The roof is thick thatch. It has exposed stone floors throughout the ground floor and to lay carpets would destroy the historic character.

It's a poor example for modern heat retention. Lots of old houses are problematic for all sorts of reasons and there is a huge trade off between retaining old features and keeping the place warm. I think in many old buildings the best bet is to choose a smallish area to insulate as a hot core and just keep that optimally warm.
 
My experience was very different. We weren't allowed to change any windows (10 foot high sashes). They all fitted where they touched so we had to stuff newspaper round the gaps in winter to stop the draughts. We weren't allowed to install secondary glazing. One of the kids broke a window with a football. I replaced it but when the conservation officer came round to look at an unrelated problem (with roof flashing) he spotted the glass and I had to change it for 'period' glass. Any idea how difficult it is to get hold of a four foot square piece of 400 year old glass? Got some eventually but cost an arm and a leg.
Draughty sashes need maintenance by an experienced person. Set up properly the draught can be minimal. The gaps between meeting rails and between bottom rail and staff bead can be close but never closed off as these allow drainage of condensation- turns them into passive dehumidifers on a cold day
"Period" glass is unobtainable unless you can find old stuff big enough to recycle, but a good substitute is 3mm horticultural glass which is cheap and may have enough ripple to mimic the old. Might have to shop around as the quality varies.
 
Specifically that cottage was a three room dwelling. It has not been lived in for decades. There are no ceilings in the upper rooms apart from a small span covering the apex.
Seems to ceiling here and plenty of scope for insulation. I imagine it would hardly be necessary what with the low ceilings and thick thatch outside.
Screenshot 2024-10-03 at 10.51.23.png

The roof is thick thatch. It has exposed stone floors throughout the ground floor and to lay carpets would destroy the historic character.

It's a poor example for modern heat retention. Lots of old houses are problematic for all sorts of reasons and there is a huge trade off between retaining old features and keeping the place warm. I think in many old buildings the best bet is to choose a smallish area to insulate as a hot core and just keep that optimally warm.
I don't know the building but as it's tiny and thickly thatched I'd guess any further insulation would have marginal effect and hardly worth it. Cold floor is a prob but carpets don't destroy anything - they can be rolled up!
 
Last edited:
Warning, if @Jacob has been involved with the building I highly recommend you do not buy it! It’s clear from his advise that his knowledge of old building is to put it politely limited. If you add insulation to an old building there is almost 100% chance you will end up with damp, rot, and black mould developing very quickly. The whole point of lime plaster and lime cement and traditional wash paints is to allow walls to breathe. If you don’t, the walls literally will become damp as they act like a sponge with nowhere for the water to escape. If you block all the draughts the interior of the building becomes humid, black mould will grow in every cool surface. You need air exchanges to keep the humid air from the walls drying out of the building. Of course you can add mechanical air systems, but good look getting that approved!
 
Warning, if @Jacob has been involved with the building I highly recommend you do not buy it! It’s clear from his advise that his knowledge of old building is to put it politely limited. If you add insulation to an old building there is almost 100% chance you will end up with damp, rot, and black mould developing very quickly.
Utter nonsense.
.....If you block all the draughts the interior of the building ...
Everybody knows that there has to be air exchange and circulation.
Nobody says you should block all draughts, but there is often a case for reducing/controlling them.
You do say some very daft things Deema! :ROFLMAO:
Talking of draughts - we had to open up existing air vents in our basement/ground floor of the chapel, to allow air circulation under the suspended floor. It had led to dry rot problems which we also had to remedy - new timber and boron treatment.
Insulation would have been possible between the joists and directly under the floor boards as long as air was circulating in the space below and keeping the joists dry, but didn't do this as it was all workshop and not living space. Did insulate the walls however.
Some of them were "periscope" vents (inside floor level below the outside ground level) which had simply filled with rubbish over the years and never been cleaned out. I guess people didn't know what they were there for.
 
Last edited:
What is often forgotten is that repairs do not require LBC.

There in lies the issue, so you have to restore a ‘dangerous’ thing back to its equally dangerous original old form. Does the irony of that not make you very sad. So either LBC is necessary or it isn’t, either structural engineers over specify everything and should all be sacked, or they don’t. A 50mm square bit of oak over a 1 meter opening is a perfectly acceptable lintel of its in…….a grade 2 listed **** hole. Let’s not worry about EPC ratings (yep they don’t apply to listed buildings either) as we don’t care that they arnt energy efficient…..as long as they look nice. It will be fun to see how the proposed Awaabs law which is being extended to private landlords which is on top of the Homes act 2018 will be considered.
Yes my lord, the poor sick child died of air born black spores that caused an asthma attack created by the mould. The defendant didn’t do anything about the mould as it’s a Grade 2 listed buildings and the Conservation Officer wouldn’t let it be modernised😭
 
I was involved with one of Jacob’s very old buildings it’s was highly insulated with no damp, he specified everything that went into it some of it cutting edge & new to me.
Installing insulation can lead to damp but it doesn’t have to if done correctly.

Nice bit of plastering round that window you posted @Jacob ;) 😂
 
Nope, simply because very few people want to have the privilege of living in a heritage building. Price is driven by demand, not by how much you spend on something. I think herpes is probably more popular than a listed building. Clearly, a few philanthropic people exist, and those with naive dreams of a trad cottage, but, they are a rare breed and getting rarer.
Far from it. If your argument held true then we'd have a lot of empty Listed Buildings. If a Listed Building has already been renovated then all the gripes and groans mentiined in this thread would not be present. A lot of people appreciate the aesthetics and design of an old building. Listing is incidental for many people.
 
Warning, if @Jacob has been involved with the building I highly recommend you do not buy it! It’s clear from his advise that his knowledge of old building is to put it politely limited. If you add insulation to an old building there is almost 100% chance you will end up with damp, rot, and black mould developing very quickly. The whole point of lime plaster and lime cement and traditional wash paints is to allow walls to breathe. If you don’t, the walls literally will become damp as they act like a sponge with nowhere for the water to escape. If you block all the draughts the interior of the building becomes humid, black mould will grow in every cool surface. You need air exchanges to keep the humid air from the walls drying out of the building. Of course you can add mechanical air systems, but good look getting that approved!
I rarely come down on the side of Jacob but in this instance he knows what he's talking about.
 
I was involved with one of Jacob’s very old buildings it’s was highly insulated with no damp, he specified everything that went into it some of it cutting edge & new to me.
Installing insulation can lead to damp but it doesn’t have to if done correctly.

Nice bit of plastering round that window you posted @Jacob ;) 😂
Yes thanks for all your work Doug it was brilliant! The new owners love it too.
 
There in lies the issue, so you have to restore a ‘dangerous’ thing back to its equally dangerous original old form. Does the irony of that not make you very sad. So either LBC is necessary or it isn’t, either structural engineers over specify everything and should all be sacked, or they don’t. A 50mm square bit of oak over a 1 meter opening is a perfectly acceptable lintel of its in…….a grade 2 listed **** hole. Let’s not worry about EPC ratings (yep they don’t apply to listed buildings either) as we don’t care that they arnt energy efficient…..as long as they look nice. It will be fun to see how the proposed Awaabs law which is being extended to private landlords which is on top of the Homes act 2018 will be considered.
Yes my lord, the poor sick child died of air born black spores that caused an asthma attack created by the mould. The defendant didn’t do anything about the mould as it’s a Grade 2 listed buildings and the Conservation Officer wouldn’t let it be modernised😭
Don't be silly Deema!
 
There in lies the issue, so you have to restore a ‘dangerous’ thing back to its equally dangerous original old form. Does the irony of that not make you very sad. So either LBC is necessary or it isn’t, either structural engineers over specify everything and should all be sacked, or they don’t. A 50mm square bit of oak over a 1 meter opening is a perfectly acceptable lintel of its in…….a grade 2 listed **** hole. Let’s not worry about EPC ratings (yep they don’t apply to listed buildings either) as we don’t care that they arnt energy efficient…..as long as they look nice. It will be fun to see how the proposed Awaabs law which is being extended to private landlords which is on top of the Homes act 2018 will be considered.
Yes my lord, the poor sick child died of air born black spores that caused an asthma attack created by the mould. The defendant didn’t do anything about the mould as it’s a Grade 2 listed buildings and the Conservation Officer wouldn’t let it be modernised😭
Sorry, deema. You usually post a lot of good stuff but in this instance you really are not being very rational at all and coming across as very emotive. Talking of 'dangerous' buildings ! What's that all about ? Use of the word '**** hole'....calm down, dear :)
 
I’m talking from absolute experience. I employed to resolve issues I was having at the time with the property a highly respected specialist who worked / advised on some of the most well known historic buildings on what and how we should do things. We looked at insulation, every form of it and he provided experience, and examples of why it should never ever be used in single skin walls or anything that’s lime mortar and plaster.

The 50mm oak was a real life example of a family’s listed building. Out came the 2” oak riven timber….and the conservation officer insisted replaced like for like despite a structural engineer stating it wasn’t safe to do so.

I don’t make stuff up, and endeavour to stick to facts / researched experience.
 
I’m talking from absolute experience. I employed to resolve issues I was having at the time with the property a highly respected specialist who worked / advised on some of the most well known historic buildings on what and how we should do things. We looked at insulation, every form of it and he provided experience, and examples of why it should never ever be used in single skin walls or anything that’s lime mortar and plaster.

The 50mm oak was a real life example of a family’s listed building. Out came the 2” oak riven timber….and the conservation officer insisted replaced like for like despite a structural engineer stating it wasn’t safe to do so.

I don’t make stuff up, and endeavour to stick to facts / researched experience.
Yes there are ways of doing it badly. We all know that, I think.
 
Last edited:
. A 50mm square bit of oak over a 1 meter opening is a perfectly acceptable lintel of its in…….a grade 2 listed **** hole. Let’s not worry about EPC ratings (yep they don’t apply to listed buildings either) as we don’t care that they arnt energy efficient…..as long as they look nice.
I suppose the reasoning is that if it hasn't failed over the several hundred year period in which the building has been in existence - then it is hardly likely to fail if replaced like -for -like.

Jacob's approach, though a minimal intervention one, certainly compromises the history of a building. The only way I could see of not doing so, would be to enclose it inside a much lager one. :LOL:
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top