Structural Assessment of Historic Assets Proposed for Demolition

Kim: Good afternoon. My name's Kim Rochard. I am the Structural Engineering Team Leader at Historic England, and I would like to welcome you all today to our Technical Tuesday webinar on the structural assessment of historic assets proposed for demolition. So, this is a new guidance note. It's been published by the Conservation Accredited Readers Register of Engineers, CARE, in conjunction with the Institution of Structural Engineers and the Institution of Civil Engineers. The note is intended to provide clear advice to structural engineers who have been asked to report on historic assets when demolition or partial demolition is proposed. So, the aim is to prevent unnecessary loss. So, today we're joined by Ed Morton, managing director of the Morton Partnership and co-chair of the CARE Panel, and he will present the guidance and answer your questions. So, welcome, Ed.
Ed: Thank you very much, Kim. And hello, everyone, and welcome to this session. So, why have we produced this guidance note? Sorry, I should say, hopefully most of you know about CARE, which Kim has mentioned. It was set up in 2003, and it is for- to help identify engineers skilled in the conservation of historic structures, buildings, bridges, et cetera. As Kim said, it's administered by the Institution of Civil engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers. And as of earlier this month, we have 99 registrants, which we are delighted with, and very keen to break that 100 barrier and increase our membership. And at the bottom there is the link to the register. So, why have we produced this guidance? Well, I suppose in CARE panel meetings, and also talking to other registrants, a lot of us have been really dispirited, and actually often appalled at engineers reports that we've seen supporting the demolition of the whole of the historic building, or partly demolition of the historic building or asset.
Of course, we're not saying that it's not always warranted, but the starting point must be with the historic asset, that the engineer should be an advocate for the building first. So, today I'm going to run through why we've produced this guidance which I've just alluded to, some of the context behind it, competency for those engineers who are assessing such structures, the assessment process, and then ultimately the application which will need to be made, generally, for the demolition or partial demolition of a historic asset. This is an example. This is a station hotel up in Scotland a few years ago, And I was asked to go and report on this on behalf of Save Britain's Heritage. By the time I was asked to report on it, the southern wing, which is the wing at the bottom of the building, was encapsulated to help protect it.
That was put up by the local authority, because there was an absentee owner. This is the northern range, which got netting over to stop slates and the like falling off, and also fencing up around to keep people away from the building because of concern over falling objects and parts of the structure. I was commissioned to do a report setting out if I felt the building could be saved, and some of the sequence, it was a fairly brief report, but quite clearly from my assessment, I felt it could be saved. This was the building, the north range, about four or five weeks after my report had been issued, and when four simultaneous fires started in the building. Children were thought to be responsible for it. And I was asked to then revisit, to see the damage, and to see if I felt it could be secured.
I did feel it could be secured, although it would be tricky, but accepted there were some health and safety issues, which obviously play a very high part in any assessment. Unfortunately, it was felt by the local authority that the health and safety issues were so great that demolition was the only option. And this is part of the north and southern range being demolished. Sadly, this extended further to the northern range as well. So, this is a sad case for me, and obviously for Save Britain's heritage and this is one which wasn't actually saved. Moving to another case study of a much more low-key structure, not listed, a non-designated heritage asset. As you can see, it's a late Victorian or early Edwardian building, relatively simple masonry structure with a slated roof. And a few photos inside showing the condition of it, which had a lot of mold in it, which seemed to be a huge issue for the owner and the engineer who subsequently looked at it.
So, in March 2021, an application was put in for the demolition and construction of five properties. That was refused. It went to appeal, which was then dismissed. October 21, a second application for demolition and construction of five properties was put in, this time supported by a structural report. And just reading a few words from the conclusion, overall, the building is in a very poor condition and requires some major works to first ensure it's safe, and then remedial works to make it habitable and usable. In our opinion -- that's the structural engineers -- with its current condition, it would be safer and easier to demolish the property in full, and rebuild something new in its place to modern specification. So, a clear statement of support for the demolition of this non-designated heritage asset.
A CARE engineer was asked to do a desktop assessment of the information within the application. Obviously, that was paid for by the local authority, and they try to save money where they can. And on the basis of that and other factors from the Conservation Authority, the application was refused. It went to appeal, and it was dismissed. In February 2022, the CARE engineer who had done the previous assessment, desktop assessment, was appointed by the owner/developer to carry out a detailed report. And I think on the basis that they thought, well, if they went inside the building and saw the condition, then they would support demolition. However, that report concluded that the building could be retained, and in fact it was not an unreasonable structural condition. That report was not released to third parties.
In April 2023, a further application for demolition and construction of a semi-detached dwelling was lodged. This included the original report. In this case, The local authority then appointed a different CARE engineer to carry out a survey. And this also confirmed that the building could be retained. Simple issues like the previous engineer's report, there were leaks through the roof. There weren't leaks through the roof. It was really mold due to the building being locked up, no airflow in it, et cetera. Unfortunately, permission was granted, albeit it was against the officer's advice. Interestingly, in June 2024, a further application was submitted for partial demolition that was keeping the front facade, and construction of ten flats. So again, I think you can see the sort of flow of that particular project and the way it went.
A simple case study here, which was a potential enforcement action, because two chimneys on this listed building had been demolished without approval. The applicant subsequently provided evidence and justification for the reasons why it was demolished, and this included an engineer's report. So, the engineer's report, one of his conclusions, the costs to rebuild are currently unknown, and as such would be prohibitive and an uneconomic exercise, and could be a fruitless exercise, as you would not likely be able to construct a replica of the original chimney stacks. Well, I think that sentence sort of speaks for itself in a way. You know, if the costs are unknown, how can they be prohibitive? So, advice was given. And of course, I suspect you won't be surprised to hear that without those chimneys, the layout of the interior of the building was different, and was better for the developer. They got more out of it.
So, the guidance note was produced at the end of 2023, and it was issued to the Institution of Civil Engineers and Institution of Structural Engineers for review. And this culminated in the note being published following their agreement in the March 2024 Structural Engineering Magazine. So, since that time, the guidance note has been out there, and it is in use by different parties, be it local authorities, or be it by CARE engineers giving advice to people who approached them about demolition, et cetera. Indeed, only yesterday I was contacted by a government officer who wanted to know if the guidance issued was current because they were using it in a planning appeal. So, hopefully useful guidance. We did send it out at this stage for consultation to a number of parties, including those listed below, and we have now received consultation back, and we have recently updated that.
I'm very grateful to my colleague Bridget at Historic England for assisting with that. And we will be submitting it shortly to the two institutions again for their verification, and also going back to the consultees and asking them, hopefully, to endorse it. The sense that the guidance hasn't changed, and the detailed steps have not changed. It's more about some of the words and finessing them. So, the context for it is that the guidance note is intended to provide clear guidance to engineers who have been requested to inspect and report on heritage assets, which may, on a cursory inspection, appear to be in poor condition. The historic environment, of course, forms part of our cultural heritage and informs our sense of identity, and is irreplaceable, once lost, a finite resource which should be sustained for the benefit of future and present generations.
Of course, heritage assets are afforded either legal protection, or require consideration under public planning policy. So, heritage assets, as most of you know, include buildings and structures which are listed as in the UK, protected in Ireland, monuments scheduled in Great Britain, historic monuments in Northern Ireland or national in Ireland. And also, we shouldn't forget non-designated heritage assets as determined by the local planning authority, or those situated in a conservation area. The guidance note is intended to provide... So, if an engineer is approached to provide a report on a heritage asset where a client or owner is pursuing partial or full demolition, the engineer needs to give very careful consideration to if this demolition is justified. It should be remembered that a report produced by a chartered engineer may be relied on by the owner to demonstrate demolition is urgently necessary, and that it's not practical to secure the safety and health and preservation by other means, and that may include repairs or temporary support or shelter, and that the extent of demolition outlined in the engineer's report is the minimum immediately necessary. Keyword there: "minimum".
Of course, demonstration of the preceding points provides a defense to unauthorized works to heritage assets, providing that notice in writing justifying in detail the works is given to the local planning authority or government department as soon as practicable. If this defense is later discredited, prosecution can successfully be brought by the responsible authority against someone who calls his works to be executed. So, this could include the engineers whose report led to the demolition, as well as an owner or a contractor. And then we move on to competency. So, from the professional codes of conduct for the institution, one of the most important points is, an engineer should undertake only those tasks and accept only those appointments for which they are competent.
Engineers must act with integrity and fairness, having regard to the public interest as well as due regard for the environment and for the sustainable management of natural resources. The latter includes the embodied carbon of existing buildings and structures, of course, which is becoming more and more relevant. So, an engineer, when requested to report on a demolition case, they should set out, make sure that they have appropriate experience. And of course, they should explain to their client that they need to be acting as an advocate for the building in the first instance, i.e., is it possible to save the building? Obviously, the Conservation Accreditation Register for Engineers provides a list of engineers who've been through a detailed process to become accredited. It demonstrates advanced attributes in conservation that exceed those required for professional membership.
Of course, there are engineers who are not accredited who may be approached, and they should be demonstrating also their competence. And that should be through relevant experience, advising on comparable heritage assets, including those in poor condition. An engineer without appropriate conservation competence should decline the commission. So, once an engineer is appointed, then we have set out what we feel is an appropriate assessment process of the heritage asset. Firstly, you need to establish the designation of the asset, to understand if it has legal protection. Obviously, using online resources is a very simple way of doing that, to establish whether a building is listed or protected, or even by contacting the local authority planning officer or conservation officer.
Obviously, they have desks and a duty planning officer who should be able to provide you with some limited advice. You also need to assess the significance of the asset. That's a sort of our understanding of why it's important. it could be elementally, in terms of a particular feature or features inside a building, or indeed, it could be through an association with a particular person or a historical event. And Historic England have some good guidance on assessing the significance of assets, and the weblink is included in the updated guidance note to assist. It's also really useful to review historic information, such as previous planning applications and photographs. Now, a simple search on the Web often throws up lots of useful information. Street View and historic views at Street View can also be extremely helpful.
The engineer should also request all relevant information from the client and the owner. This could include previous reports, drawings, information, planning, applications. And of course, if the client has owned the building for some time, they may be aware of risks related to the building, be it internally, externally, asbestos, et cetera. So, drawing that information out from available resources is really important. Obviously, then, a key aspect in all cases is to carry out a detailed site inspection. This has got to confirm or otherwise the overall and elemental condition of the asset, including whether movement noted is historic or progressive, whether it can be stopped, if it is progressive, and whether there are alternate ways of physically accessing the building if it is considered dangerous. I think care is needed.
Cases have been noted where clients have said, "We can't let you go into the building because it's too dangerous." But normally, there are ways of at least removing doors and protecting the building so that the engineer can form his own judgment about how dangerous the building is or isn't. So, this is just a case of a building which has obviously moved quite significantly, but actually is completely static. We know that because it's a building that's been looked at for a great many years, an important Grade One listed building. And therefore there are no issues of safety, despite its slightly distressed view here. Monitoring, obviously a key tool for any conservation or other engineers. Now, actually understanding if something is moving or not, there's a couple of techniques here, you know, simple studs over a crack, and on the right, more high-tech remote monitoring, using crack gauges, two meters, et cetera.
Of course, there is a whole range of options out there now for monitoring buildings, but the fact that the building leans, the walls are out of plumb, does not necessarily mean it's unstable. So, having that key information available to the engineer making the assessment is important. Obviously, again, if safety is being cited, the engineer has to make a judgment about whether there are imminent risks of collapse or failure with the building, which could endanger The public or others. Just an example here of the technology available. These are simple MEWPs, mobile elevated working platforms which, you know, get you to all sorts of places. The one on the left was to inspect the slightly wonky cross at the top of a needle spire to see if it was safe. On the right, it simply shows that, because that's a 90-meter cherry picker. So, with an extendable arm.
So, there is equipment out there that can get you most places safely to allow detailed inspections. It might be the need to carry out further surveys, such as timber decay surveys. Here is somebody using a micro drill to check the condition of the embedded ends of timbers. And on the right, drones, which are, again, a useful way of inspecting a building to a degree from a high level, to give the engineer an idea of what the issues are, what the problems are, and how significant and how safe or not the building structure may be. Quite often, you know, you find that the building will not have very much information, and the engineer will have to undertake a dynamic risk assessment as they proceed in order to determine whether the building is safe to enter or if there are alternative options to inspect it safely. Some of those I've previously mentioned.
As I said, health and safety for such assessment must always take priority. This building here has got a scaffold up which has been up for a number of years, and before using the scaffold, an assessment had to be carried out by a competent person, in this case a scaffolding contractor, as to whether it was still safe to use the scaffold. But once that was signed off, it allowed an inspection at high level, which allowed the condition of the structure to be better ascertained. And in the end, this building was entered with care. And of course, you've always got to keep your eyes open. On the right, on the floor, are scattered needles. So, again, identifying those risks on an ongoing basis with dynamic risk assessments is really important. The assessment of heritage assets must always start from the presumption that the asset should be retained.
Unless there is specific and imminent risk of collapse, or third parties are put at risk. Of course, temporary works may be required to provide support to allow this assessment to be made. On the right is a building where the scaffolding had to be erected internally to support the roof structure due to decay. That scaffold has been up for about 10 years now, so a reassessment is needed each time the building is entered. Once that assessment is carried out in detail, that leads us to the ultimate application which the engineers report is likely to be supporting, which could be a listed building consent application, scheduled monument consent, planning application, or similar for demolition. What's really important is that report must be very, very clearly set out. I think it's important that the brief provided by the client should be set out by the engineer.
And if that brief at the beginning by the client is, "I want to demolish that building," then that needs to be declared. and the reasons why. It's important that an indication of the experience of the engineer who is assessing the structure is given, and making sure also that includes their experience of looking at buildings in poor condition, as well as setting out the engineer's qualifications. A clear statement needs to be made on the status of the building in relation to statutory protection, and also including a statement of heritage significance. That can be by the engineer, of course, based on his research, or it could be by a third party. So, So, it's important for the engineer to set out a clear statement of the areas of the asset that have been assessed. And if there's areas that cannot be assessed for safety reasons, then again, those must be clearly set out in the report.
We feel it's important that a statement of the current verticality and the way the loads are transferred down the building is set out in the report, and a clear description of the issues which are arising out of the assessment, with detailed records of any measurements taken, sketches and photographs to record the defects referenced where appropriate. This can be annotated with structural plans and sections, and importantly, setting out where the building is also sound. The conclusions should provide an overall assessment of condition, including identifying the major issues, and options for temporary or remedial works if possible. If either partial or full demolition is deemed necessary, the extent must be clear, with marked up drawings and sketches or photographs to indicate the areas affected.
And also highlighting those parts of the buildings which can be retained and stabilized. Clear and concise justifications setting out the reasons for demolition is required, together with alternative options and temporary works which have been considered, and why they've been discredited. Really importantly, it should include a non-technical summary to allow non-specialists to clearly understand the conclusions and recommendations. It's got to be remembered that local authority, conservation officers, planning officers and committee members are not technical experts necessarily. Therefore, that non-technical summary becomes really important. In conjunction with the above, any application is likely to require a heritage statement which is going to set out the background to the building, its importance and significance, et cetera.
As I said before, the engineer is strongly recommended to try and contact the conservation officer or relevant planning authority at the earliest stage to discuss the asset and to receive their advice. However, if the guidance set out above are not followed, the local planning authority is likely to refuse any applications. I should add there that it should be noted that local planning authorities are increasingly requiring heritage assets to have been inspected and reported on by a CARE-registered engineer. So, to finish up, a couple of short case studies. This one isn't so much about demolition, but sort of demonstrates a similar point. So, this is a Grade Two listed building in Colchester, in Essex, and the building had a listed building application then which was approved with conditions. However, during the course of the work, further aspects, both of the significance of the building, and obviously of defects came to light.
Information was submitted to the local authority, who were uncomfortable with some of the structural advice received, and therefore felt that it would be appropriate for a CARE engineer to overview. I received a very grumpy telephone call from a developer saying, "I've got to get somebody like you to come down and look at my building when I've got a perfectly competent engineer." And I apologized, and said, "Sorry, but you know, I'm happy to help. However I would like to meet your engineer." So, I went to site and I met the engineer, and indeed, he did have good experience, but maybe not more recent experience, and current experience. Anyway, we simply walked around the building looking at the items which the local authority had highlighted, and we chatted, and there was a junction of two beams which had got some later added iron straps to help assist it.
And it didn't look right, to be honest, but I thought, well, you know, it's all going to work together. We've got floorboards on top. Anyway, I asked the project engineer to wait downstairs, and I walked upstairs, and I gently jumped up and down on the floor. And when I came back downstairs, the engineer said, "Oh, that's not as bad as I thought." So, we discussed some options for improving it a little bit, helping it along, and sort of came to a joint conclusion as to what was a sensible way of doing it, and with less impact on the building. We continued to walk around the building in that same vein, looking at a number of aspects, and at the end of it the developer took me on one side and he goes, "Well, you know, that was really illuminating. I think you may have saved me about £40,000 this afternoon." However, whilst that was great for him, I think equally as gratifying was the conversation with the other engineer who was really happy to take on the advice.
He then wrote up the alternatives discussed and agreed, and I simply endorsed that, and they got their approval through. So that educational aspect of that exercise and indeed encouraging that engineer to consider the CARE registry in the future was really important. And this was the end result of the works. A building brought back into long-term and sensible, viable re-use for the town, or the city, as it is now. A similar story in the case here. This is a building in the jewelry quarter in Birmingham. And the developer did approach me, and it was clear in his requirements that he would prefer to demolish it. It's not listed, but it's in a conservation area and it's an original early nineteenth century townhouse, but subsumed within the later industrial buildings around it.
When I spoke to the developer, I was honest. I said, "Well, you know, I'm not sure. If that's your aim, I have the right engineer for you, but I'm very happy to come along and look at the building. And ultimately, I suspect that's what's going to be required by the local authority." And I said, "I will look at it pragmatically and sensibly, and I will let you know if there are areas of the building which I do not think are possible to save, and those which I think are possible to save." I was appointed on that basis and went up and spent the day inspecting it. And importantly, I suggested that we meet with the conservation officer and Historic England at the end of the day. It was a cold and snowy day, as you can see, and you can see the way that the later and subsuming of the townhouses sort of impacted on the significance of the building.
However, whilst it was in poor condition, as I worked through it, there were clear elements that could be retained. Some of the roof was, I felt, beyond re-use, and some of the floors had collapsed, so would clearly have to be rebuilt. I ended up with the plans, old plans which were provided from the Heritage Statement, setting out by marking up on the drawing areas which would need rebuilding and those which could be saved. And that clear setting out of the extent is a really important tool in helping both the owner, the developer, and also the local authority and others understand the impacts, the heritage impact of the works. The building was saved, and this is a view inside. And it's interesting how things move around. And this is a statement from the developer that the building has returned to its former glory as the jewel in the crown of the new development of the apartments and townhouses.
So, again, it's sort of completely turned on its head. And I've had several cases where this has happened, and it changes the developer's mind. It makes them think about actually the potential for re-use of historic assets, and actually it can be more economic to do than to tear them down, and it can be the jewel in the crown, and it can be obviously clearly a more sustainable option. And that's the building as it is now, fully repaired and restored to its former glory as part of a new development. The final case study is non-listed buildings. This is the Welsh Streets up in Liverpool, and this is where nine streets of these late Victorian, Edwardian, early twentieth century houses were scheduled for demolition. The people who were living in these were removed. They had to vacate them because of the proposed demolition of them.
Save Britain's Heritage were on the case of trying to save these. This is after the occupants were asked to leave. All boarded up. So, no air ventilation, and typical problems you'd expect to see in this sort of houses. There was water ingress. But they were clearly able to be retained, in my view, when I did the report. And indeed, when I met the City Council's surveyors and engineers, we were able to come to mutual conclusions that these buildings were possible to be retained and reused. That didn't mean it wasn't a long battle that went to planning appeal and which was unsuccessful, but was overturned by the government minister eventually, to keep and save the buildings. And they are now back in residential use. The nine streets have been fully restored, some with the extensions on the back, two up, two down with extensions on the back. And indeed, they are used by Historic England as a design case study of how mixed residential developments can work. retaining and reusing historic buildings. Thank you very much. That's the end of the presentation.
Matt: Ed, thank you so much. What a lot of information to take on board. Absolutely fantastic. Oh, applause. That's absolutely marvelous. We're going to go on to our Q&A session now. I have noticed that we've got quite a few questions and only twelve minutes left, so, let's see how we get on. We will go through all the questions, but obviously we may run over slightly beyond two o'clock, in which case, for those of you who have to leave at two, you will have the recording to refer back to. If I could ask Ed and Kim to turn your webcams on, please. Let's put a face to name, shall we? And then we'll crack them with the three questions. Okay. Over to Ed and Kim to answer your questions.
Kim: Thanks, Ed. That was great. Although I don't think I would have enjoyed being at the top of that 90-meter… So, first question was, councils are asking for CARE-accredited engineers, but it can be quite difficult for clients if there aren't many accredited engineers locally. Do you have any advice on what they should do about that?
Ed: Personally, I've never met a CARE engineer who isn't willing to travel. And I think, certainly, I travel country-wide. And I think one of the outstanding- I think CARE engineers are hugely passionate, and they don't mind going long distances. And I think it's often worth ringing round the list. And you often find that you will find somebody who's doing something not a million miles away. And, you know, there is way of them trying to help the client make it work financially. So, I shouldn't- I don't really think it should actually cause any issue. It's just a case of searching, really?
Kim: Yeah, absolutely. Are there any workshops that one could attend to help with the CARE accreditation?
Ed: That's something... Yeah, that's something we have been exploring with the panel, and we have another panel meeting in March after the conference, which I hope you've all heard of. And hopefully Kim is going to post a link any minute now. So, there is a care conference in Bath this year, it's running over a few days, and it would be good to see as many people there as possible. So, yes, it is something we are exploring. I think one of the... probably what everybody has to realize is that the CARE panel is all volunteers, and they have to fit everything in with their day-to-day job as well. However, we are really, really keen to encourage as many people to become registrants and going through the process. And I think if we could ensure that there was a good body of people who would be attending a session, then yes, I'm sure the panel will be willing to put on a session to assist registrants in the application process. I would say that we always encourage registrants to send in their case studies, their CV, et cetera, to the registrar, and it sort of gives the assessors a look at those, and try and give a heads up as to if we think you're in the right place to go for the application or if we think a bit more experience is needed. And one of the really important things I will add is CPD. You know, demonstrating your conservation CPD is really important, and one of the things that the assessors to look at very carefully.
Kim: I've just put a link in the chat to the guidance on becoming CARE-accredited. and I'm going to skip a couple of questions because we have gone further down the line about the five case studies and whether they had to be within five years. I don't think they do, do they? But we do have to demonstrate relevant competence on an ongoing basis.
Ed: Yeah, I can't remember off the top of my head. I think three of them are meant to be within the past four years. I think the other advice I would give is that- and can be tricky for some engineers, is we want to see diversification of their experience within the case studies. So ,you may be working on a huge multi-million-pound project, and you know, having three case studies about brickwork and the repair of brickwork doesn't demonstrate a wide
Kim: But similarly, if an applicant have lots of smaller examples of, say, brickwork or stonework, then they could potentially be grouped to comprise one case study.
Ed: Absolutely. And, you know, I think that's where submitting what you'd like to submit is really useful. It doesn't have to be a longer than a paragraph on each. setting out what you intend to do is really, really useful.
Kim: Super. So, we've got a question about your experience of builders demolishing and rebuilding more than perhaps was shown on the structural drawings. I don't know whether you've got any comments on that. I suppose that comes down to how tightly the consent was tied down, it's a listed building or...
Ed: It is. The case study I showed you about the chimneys was a good case study and a good point. You know, I went there, I arrived early and was met by the owner, and there was quite clearly a are of rebuilt rear walls which weren't on the consented drawings. And I said, "Why have you- Has that wall been rebuilt?" I said to the owner before the conservation officer arrived. And then a shouting match- well, him shouting at me. And so he says, "You shouldn't be looking at that. Why are you looking there? That has nothing to do with you." And I had to agree to walk away until the conservation officer arrived. So, yeah, it's tricky. And in that case, I had to ask the question of the conservation officer. I said, "Well, that doesn't appear on the drawings. Presumably you will review that." They may have agreed to it verbally or in an email, but I wasn't aware of that.
Kim: Yeah. Your first case study, what health and safety concerns did the local authority raised to justify demolition?
Ed: Well, they considered that one gable end, the southern gable end which ran close to a public highway was, you know, at risk. In fact, they had to close that public highway. And it did bring a slight sense of chaos to air for quite a considerable period of time. Personally, I did not consider, even after the fire, that gable was at risk, and I felt it was possible to retain it.
Kim: Super. And another question on your case studies, what was the conclusion of the chimney removal case?
Ed: If I'm honest, I don't know. I provided my report to the local authority, and obviously they then had to take a decision whether they took enforcement action or not, which is a tricky balance. And, you know, one of the things I've heard from a number of local authorities, is it in the public interest, i.e., is it a good way of spending public money? And that's got to be balanced with the damage that has been done to a historic building, a listed building without consent. So, you know, these are the tricky balances I think the councils have to struggle with. I think I saw Bob Kindred's on the talk, listening in, and Bob will have lots of experience of that type of discussion, I suspect.
Kim: Thanks, Ed. How can local planning authorities insist applicants use CARE engineers? That one I know the answer to.
Ed: Carry on, then.
Kim: Is it via the code of practice of the accreditation body that an engineer is required to be an advocate for the building? I'm not sure that it is, but it is certainly part of the listed building legislation that we look to keep as much historic fabric as possible.
Ed: Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think from the sustainability point of view as well. So, just jumping back to the previous question about whether local authorities can enforce it. I think the examples I can give is that local authorities that- there's a number of local authorities I know that are definitely saying the application has to be by a CARE engineer, or the structure information has to be by a CARE engineer. Or, if not, and something I do encourage quite a lot, is that it needs to be overseen by a CARE engineer. Quite often applications will have an engineer, and they produced information to ask them to start the whole process again is not necessarily the right thing. And I think, again, from an educational point of view, working with an application engineer, CARE engineer, working with an application engineer is a really good educational aspect. So... and I don't think any local authorities I'm aware of have been challenged when they've forced a CARE engineer on the project. I will also say that, on a number of cases, local authorities have requested and required the developer or the applicant to pay the care engineers fees as well.
Kim: Yes. And that follows on as a question further down the line about CARE engineers probably being more expensive or adding cost to a project. But the idea would always be that we would aim to save money rather than cost money. And in the long run, obviously, if you've got to demolish something and then build something else, that's going to inherently be more expensive than repairing what you've already got.
Ed: I did a building in Jersey, a bakery building built by the Germans, and, you know, it was a development, and the developer did not think it was viable, and had an engineer's report to support the demolition of the building. And I was asked, because the state of Jersey did not go along with that, I was asked to go and look at it, and I felt it was perfectly easy to retain and restore the building. And again, at the end of the process, the developer said to me, "You know, that was so much more economic to keep that building than to get rid of it." And actually, interestingly, the same developer working on historic sites in Jersey is now using CARE engineers to support the work and to retain. So, as you said, on the whole, it can be a much more economic way and end result for the owner of the building.
Kim: Yeah, absolutely. We had a question about: can drones be used, inspect interiors that are considered unsafe to enter? Which they can. We've got some internal drones in our team.
Ed: I think the other one I heard the other day is that the drones, I think... There was a drone being demonstrated, and they basically gave the drone to an operator who wasn't experienced and they said, "Try to crash it into something." And because they've got sensors on them now, it's meant to be impossible. So I think, yes, with care and with the right people managing the process.
Kim: Yeah. As long as you don't run out of battery while you're in there.
Ed: Yeah.
Kim: Have you come across situations where developers or owners have attempted to use dangerous structures or powers to bypass normal consent processes?
Ed: Yes. And dare I say even councils as well, to do the same. So, yes. But... Indeed the Station Hotel was a case where they used the Building Safety Act and Health and Safety to demolish. So, yes, it can, but I think it's a case of trying to get there as early as possible to defend the buildings and situation. And quite often, it's not normally as bad as, you know, people might make it out to be.
Kim: Absolutely. The guidance that you presented today, can that be issued nationally to the local authority building control officers? I think this is something that we're looking into, getting it out to as wide audiences as possible.
Ed: It's been shared very widely. And we are in contact with the IHBC, of course, and Bob Kindred, as I've mentioned before, kindly has provided some consultation. o, once we get the updated guidance, which doesn't change dramatically, as I've said, that will be pushed out there as far and wide as possible, and hopefully we will distribute it to all local planning officers. We're also hoping to get it in context. The magazine of the IHBC. So, personally, you know, this is a tool particularly for local authorities to help them when assessing applications, and, presumably, in quite a lot of cases, actually refusing applications because they haven't followed the guidance.
Kim: Yeah. And then a follow-on question, are the components of a CARE engineer's report available online somewhere? That's sort of included in the guidance, isn't it? It's... You've listed out the components that you'd look for in that report.
Ed: Yeah, quite a lot of the presentation today is sort of taken paragraphs from the guidance note. So yeah, the guidance note is already on the IStructE and, I think, ICE website, so it is out there and available. And maybe Kim will be able to put a link up there if you haven't been able to yet.
Kim: Yep. Hopefully we've got a link out there. So the questions are a bit of a moving target now. I'll move on to the ones that have come in since you finished speaking. So, that one we've already looked at. I don't think we can provide addresses for the case studies, can we, Ed?
Ed: No, no. Welsh Street- Welsh Street up in Liverpool is a very well documented one by Save Britain's Heritage and others, so that should be freely available. And as I said, it's actually a case study in Historic England... Well, on their website.
Kim: Super. I think we've made it through all the questions, Ed. Thank you very much. That was great.

[END]