I believe that the primary problem is that there is no concerted opposition to the whims, and occasionally policies, that CO's use to dictate what is and is not acceptable. They seem to be a loose group of individuals, often working independently and using their own personal preferences as a guide to what shall and shall not be deemed acceptable.

As I've mentioned before, we need to rationalise all the, often conflicting, rules and regulations that are applied to housing and there needs to be central guidance as to the need to balance energy efficiency with conservation desires.

Is there a body that lobbies to try and balance the view of COs towards energy efficiency? If not, perhaps there needs to be one, a group that will act as a repository for examples of good practice in achieving an energy/conservation balance and which can support individuals faced with dealing with some of the awkward sods.

Posted By: JoinerThe big influence on COs are the post-grad conservation courses

Sadly, my daughter, who was my great ally and v talented designer/artist but now is so full of dogma and jargon that she's moving up v nicely in the Planning world - strategic planning now.

Peter, It used to happen with the old Historic Buildings grant which paid up to 25% of cost of work to a max of £4,000 in any twelve months but that vanished a couple of years ago. There are still match-funded regeneration grants for specific schemes.

Posted By: renewablejohnWhats energy conservation in a Grade 2 listed building. Surely you need to be a hardy breed living in old stone walls with single glazing and lots of natural draughts.

Normal housing down here, but then they will tell you that a foot of granite makes it cosy and you can't beat a slate roof

Hadn't heard that version, Peter.

A sizeable percentage of my customers could only afford to have the work done at all - let alone "properly" - by taking advantage of the scheme. Those who could afford the work as determined by the CO, used the "extra" money from that grant to have work done elsewhere on the property which would otherwise have been put off for another year.

The grant was resented by many in local government because it was seen as a perk for "the rich bastards who can afford to live in places like that, so why should they get what I can't have?" A sentiment sort of echoed by one CO who, in my presence, told a customer of mine that if they couldn't afford to pay to have the work done properly then they shouldn't have bought a Listed building. The customer was in tears, not of self-pity but anger because the problem that had been uncovered only came to light when a (modern, 70s) stud wall came down, obviously erected by a previous owner to hide extensive rot in posts and beams in the first floor, none of which would have been obvious (or suspected) during the full structural survey she'd had done prior to purchase. The CO was arguing that if she wanted funding she should claim against the structural surveyor's PI insurance. Because I was so well known to the Conservation department my written report on the problem and how it was discovered was accepted and funding was given, in that case 60% of the overall cost, the extra coming from EH match-funded monies. In that case it was a case of "Thank God for Tudor over-engineering!".

... not too late for some sort of family intervention:http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=4&Itemid=7 ...?

Thaaank you James.

Actually my daughter, being v bright and radical in her way, has done some pushing-the-limits work at planning strategy level, introducing truly relevant and far reaching criteria into consideration of eco/energy/carbon implications of this strategic plan vs that one - recognising the long-term effect that LA policies do have on eco/energy/carbon. When I proudly talked publicly about this in the past I got ticked off - and still embargoed AFAIK - must check.

This lot started me sorting through all my old files and I found the copy of 'Best Practice Guidance on Listed Building Prosecutions', given me by a CO who said I was "getting above" myself and needed to be reminded of just "who has the power here". I thanked him and, within his hearing, phoned his boss who backed him "as a matter of principle", which is when I got back into the van and drove home where I wrote direct to his council's Chief Executive with copies of all the correspondence concerning the job to date and making a formal complaint against the CO and his boss. A "compromise" was reached after a formal site meeting where all the correspondence was reviewed and decisions made "in the light of the new evidence". My ass!

Anyway, here it is. Worth reading because there are defences in there too.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/bestpracticeguidance