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:

1.

The design of new additions

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 con-

verted 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 (under-

ground?) 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 un-

heated building. It appears that

little or no consideration was given

to either of these two aspects of the

case.

3.

Building regulation control

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