Can the Cottage be moved?

[FulhamStu]

Boring post coming up from a development professional who specialises in listed buildings.... 092.gif

Both the cottage and the JH stand are separately listed. A listing covers the whole building and everything attached to the building. 'It's only the facade that's listed' is a myth repeated about all listed buildings by lots of people at some point and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law around listed buildings. And it is a myth that can land you in prison or cost you an unlimited fine - the whole building inside and out is listed and unauthorised works that need consent are a criminal offence.

However, consent is needed only where the works affect its special architectural or historic character. Changing a modern food kiosk won't do that, changing the roof or the wooden seats for example would, so would need consent. The law is set up so works that 'harm' the special interest of a listed building needs a very very special justification. 'special interest' has a very broad definition, typically.  The harmful side in law and in practice is given a lot weight and councils are very conservative about listed buildings and a raft of case law supports that position.

There is not a chance in hell that the cottage would be severed from the stand and moved - it would be considered all hinds of harmful, to its fabric, setting and historic interest.   There is not a chance in hell that the JH would be demolished or ever allowed to be developed on top of. Maybe years ago, but not nowadays - we have a much broader concept of preservation of special buildings now.

Are you saying that the rules have changed since the Alfayed new ground which had permission to move the cottage to Bishops Park and clear the Johnny Haynes stand but retain the facade ?

[flyingfish]

Boring post coming up from a development professional who specialises in listed buildings.... 092.gif

Both the cottage and the JH stand are separately listed. A listing covers the whole building and everything attached to the building. 'It's only the facade that's listed' is a myth repeated about all listed buildings by lots of people at some point and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law around listed buildings. And it is a myth that can land you in prison or cost you an unlimited fine - the whole building inside and out is listed and unauthorised works that need consent are a criminal offence.

However, consent is needed only where the works affect its special architectural or historic character. Changing a modern food kiosk won't do that, changing the roof or the wooden seats for example would, so would need consent. The law is set up so works that 'harm' the special interest of a listed building needs a very very special justification. 'special interest' has a very broad definition, typically.  The harmful side in law and in practice is given a lot weight and councils are very conservative about listed buildings and a raft of case law supports that position.

There is not a chance in hell that the cottage would be severed from the stand and moved - it would be considered all hinds of harmful, to its fabric, setting and historic interest.   There is not a chance in hell that the JH would be demolished or ever allowed to be developed on top of. Maybe years ago, but not nowadays - we have a much broader concept of preservation of special buildings now.

Are you saying that the rules have changed since the Alfayed new ground which had permission to move the cottage to Bishops Park and clear the Johnny Haynes stand but retain the facade ?

The basis statutory framework is the same but the way it is applied has changed immeasurably, driven by changes in national planning policy, local planning policy and case law (the latter being arguably the most important). The effect combined is really ro make the effect on listed buildings an the most important consideration in these sorts of proposals.

Radical changes to listed buildings can be achieved, including their demolition, (it is my day job to advise developers on these matters) but in order to justify that, such radical works must be shown to be necessary to deliver very substantial public benefits. The law directs that the harmful side of the balance is given very considerable weight. So the benefits that emerge from a scheme would have to be genuine and far reaching to justify the sort of scheme such demolition would involve. It wasn;t quite the same 20 years ago.

Also community interest in historic buildings is bigger now and grows every year. Imagine the furore if the JH and cottage were proposed for demo. The Victorian Society, who are influential (before anyone points out that the buildings are not Victorian, their remit covers up to 1914) and statutory advisers on architecture of this period would campaign vociferously against such a proposal, with a great deal of public sympathy.

Such consents are very very rare 

The 2001 consent will have expired (I will look into it as I didn't know about that tbh). What was allowed 20 years ago would not in any way set a precedent for what would be allowed now as the prevailing circumstances and philosophies around historic buildings have moved on.

Honestly, as a specialist in this area I would rate the chances of securing consent for demo of all or large parts of the cottage and JH stand as zero to nil.

[toshes mate]

Boring post coming up from a development professional who specialises in listed buildings.... 092.gif

Not boring at all, IMHO.  It is accurate and impartial.

Here is another informative article about the man who did the work, his trials and tribulations and his legacy to British football.  He even patented the way terraces were built in stadia.

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/meet-archibald-leitch-man-who-invented-football-stadium

As can be seen both his JHS and 'Pavilion' are valuable reminders of why he built stadia the way he did and why it is important to value their presence and preserve them for future generations. 

Not sure what went on with the MAF plans but it seems fairly clear that they may have fallen at some stage of the planning process since his 'pavilion' was designed to complement the JHS. 

[flyingfish]

Boring post coming up from a development professional who specialises in listed buildings.... 092.gif

Both the cottage and the JH stand are separately listed. A listing covers the whole building and everything attached to the building. 'It's only the facade that's listed' is a myth repeated about all listed buildings by lots of people at some point and is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law around listed buildings. And it is a myth that can land you in prison or cost you an unlimited fine - the whole building inside and out is listed and unauthorised works that need consent are a criminal offence.

However, consent is needed only where the works affect its special architectural or historic character. Changing a modern food kiosk won't do that, changing the roof or the wooden seats for example would, so would need consent. The law is set up so works that 'harm' the special interest of a listed building needs a very very special justification. 'special interest' has a very broad definition, typically.  The harmful side in law and in practice is given a lot weight and councils are very conservative about listed buildings and a raft of case law supports that position.

There is not a chance in hell that the cottage would be severed from the stand and moved - it would be considered all hinds of harmful, to its fabric, setting and historic interest.   There is not a chance in hell that the JH would be demolished or ever allowed to be developed on top of. Maybe years ago, but not nowadays - we have a much broader concept of preservation of special buildings now.

Are you saying that the rules have changed since the Alfayed new ground which had permission to move the cottage to Bishops Park and clear the Johnny Haynes stand but retain the facade ?

I've had a quick look and there are a load of applications for demolitions in the late 80s and early 1990s ll of which were refused. No permissions for demolition as far as I can see.

You've piqued my interest now, so I am going to pull all the hisotirc drawings out if I can find them, and post them somewhere as there is obviously a lot of interest in this topic.

EDIT - I stand corrected - I see now the 200s consent.

[flyingfish]

Boring post coming up from a development professional who specialises in listed buildings.... 092.gif

As can be seen both his JHS and 'Pavilion' are valuable reminders of why he built stadia the way he did and why it is important to value their presence and preserve them for future generations. 

Spot on. Theor relationship is fundamnetal to their appreciation and interest - and adds to the overall interest of the site.

[clarkey]

Thanks Flyingfish the cottage is one of the reasons we support FFC and make it special. Must never be moved or changed. I love the JHS too, the Stevenage road facing is absolutely iconic and in great condition thanks to Mo. I also agree that the Khan's design and build looks spot on. Very exciting times, especially for those of us who remember back to the bleak Ernie Clay days and the threats to the stadium.
The Council has been good too.
The design is excellent, will be amazing for evening matches. Bring it on.

[ScalleysDad]

Cracking post. My pennies worth is to say nothing is off the table. Back in the late sixties a house dated circa 1430's was set to be demolished to make way for a road. A group of archaeologists ganged up on the Exeter City planners and it was listed before the bulldozers could start. The redevelopment of the city centre area was deemed essential, it had been flattened a bit by the Luftwaffe, so after considerable planning and a huge expenditure for the time the house was moved using cranes, pulleys, rollers and a whole lot of muscle. It must have been quite a project as the senior engineer on it reminisced some forty years later that it was 'his legacy' and that we would overcomplicate such a project nowadays leading to it falling over.

I have been in the Cottage once, many many years ago when the old radiators were being ripped out. I wanted to buy one and just wandered in to speak to the foreman but it seemed a brown envelope on the gate to the builders yard with the skips in it was the way forward and I had no cash.

Question for ff then. Health and Safety is king these days. Do current listing specifications take fragile infrastructure into consideration for such things a fire prevention/safety. I would imagine the weight of a standard fire door these days would need bespoke steel frames as opposed to the fragile brickwork I saw exposed.

Wow what a project that would be. Moving the Cottage into the park a centimetre at a time. Still quicker than some of the midfielders we have had over the years mind.

[H4usuallysitting]

Wembley was demolished, with the new planning law's coming in - don't rule out anything

[flyingfish]

Wembley was demolished, with the new planning law's coming in - don't rule out anything

Yes the towers were listed. This was nearly 20 years ago and was probably justified as  matter of national interest. Similar arguments would not hold at CC and the new planning laws will not relax things as far as listed buildings are concerned, I can assure you. Traditional tory voters love old stuff and it would anyway be hugely unpopular

[flyingfish]

Question for ff then. Health and Safety is king these days. Do current listing specifications take fragile infrastructure into consideration for such things a fire prevention/safety. I would imagine the weight of a standard fire door these days would need bespoke steel frames as opposed to the fragile brickwork I saw exposed.

Interesting question, and I 'm glad you asked! The best way to preserve historic buildings is to keep them in the use for which they were designed. This helps secure ongoing investment in the building. If there was an overriding case for this type of safety intervention then that would be justified as a public benefit and the least harmful way of keeping it in use (vs say converting it to flats). This type of adaptation is very important in keeping old buildings in use, but usually you would do the minimum necessary to achieve the aim and be as sensitve as possible