building control is generally known. However, because these dual control cases are rare, it seems that officers in district planning departments are often unaware of this precedence; this can lead to considerable confusion, particularly in respect of new uses and changes of use. Some steps should be taken to make planning officers aware of the legal position, particularly at a time when more of these buildings are being considered for new uses, and also more are being listed. In addition, HBMC propose a Scheduling Enhancement Programme (SEP), which aims to increase the number of scheduled sites four—fold.

Looking in detail at the four areas of concern which have been identified:

At Southchurch Hall, Southend—on—Sea (Grade I and SAM Essex No 196), a toilet block extension was proposed. This was given Scheduled Monument Consent, but no opportunity was given for either HBMC architects or the local planning authority to comment upon the design adequacy of the proposal. Although the toilet block had no detrimental effect upon the archaeology of the monument, or the integrity of the structure of the C14 timber—framed building, visually it left much to be desired and was indeed below the standard which would be required under listed building consent procedures for an owner who wished to extend a simple C16 Grade II building.

2. Suitable uses

Part of Coggeshall Abbey (Grade I and SAM Essex No 85), originally a chapel, possibly the guest—house, latterly an agricultural building, was converted without consent of any kind to house a straw—burning boiler. It seems that no planning change—of—use consent was needed because the use was to remain agricultural.

No objection was raised to the works when a subsequent retrospective

application for consent was suggested by the local authority, despite the danger to the structure posed by the hazardous straw—burner, and the fact that a psedo—Tudor chimney stack had been erected. It is assumed that, because there was no direct (underground?) archaeological threat, the changes were unobjectionable.However, in listed building terms, the local authority (supported by specialist advice from the County team, and no doubt with the additional support of HBMC architects), would have refused both applications; one for the danger posed by the fire risk, and the other because of the historic distortion created by superimposing a fake period chimney on a formerly unheated building. It appears that little or no consideration was given to either of these two aspects of the case.

In allowing the conversion of Rochford Hall Barns (Grade I and SAN Essex No 41) to four dwelling houses, major new structural works have been given consent. These include new upper floors, re—formed roofs, new partitions and party walls and all the necessary new plumbing and drainage works. These would all normally be controlled by the local authority building control officer under the Building Regulations 1985. However, works which have Scheduled Monument Consent do not come within the scope of these regulations unless the buildings are to be de— scheduled on completion of the works. The works have now started, and as yet no decision has been taken as to whether or not the building will be de—scheduled.

If the works are completed without the necessity for building regulation control, it is possible that new owners or their solicitors will enquire as to the adequacy of such items as drain construction, thermal and sound insulation, fire—stopping of party walls and the construction

Page 4