»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp

Works to drains are unlikely to require listed building consent, nor are the drains part of the fabric of the building. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapprefore, the works would not be ‘approved alterationsâ€�.

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp replacement of existing guttering is not an ‘approved alterationâ€� unless there is a significant change in how it is configured.

In C N Evans (VTD 4415): Replacement of a cast iron gutter with a plastic gutter. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp Tribunal held that it was repair or maintenance.

In Parochial Church Council of All Saints Church, Tilsworth (VTD 10490): »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp guttering for the church tower roof was changed to flow through two chutes on the north wall instead of flowing through a single chute on the west side. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp Tribunal held that is was an approved alteration. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýappy stated:

»Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp works effected a new drainage system for the roof which made the repair or maintenance of the old gutter unnecessary. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýappy altered the building so that it became a building with an altered system of drainage leading to altered chutes.

In Walsingham College (Yorkshire Properties) Ltd (VTD 13223): A sewerage treatment plant in the estate of a listed building was found not to meet the required standard of purity. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp replacement plant was built in a new location and discharged into a different stream. It also served some cottages, which previously had their own septic tanks. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp Tribunal held that it was an approved alteration.

Comment: It is questionable whether the work constituted an alteration to the listed building. Similar cases should be referred to the Construction Unit of Expertise.

In Logmoor Limited (VTD 14733): Gutters and rainwater goods were installed which was not a strict substitution for the originals, which had been ‘lostâ€� - that is they were no longer present on site. »Ê¹ÚÌåÓýapp Tribunal held that it was repair or maintenance.