Listed dwelling roof repairs at Ivy House The Row, Nenthead, Alston

What was proposed

The application sought listed building consent to re-roof the dwelling using existing stone slates, with insulation and chimney repairs.

“This application seeks listed building consent application to re-roof the dwelling using existing stone slates with chimney repairs.”

“The existing roof has been the subject of closer inspection in the target areas, revealing that the proposed remedial works can be undertaken without disruption to the internal finishes. In this instance, the proposal is to remove the existing stone slats (sic – this refers to the stone slates) over the whole roof (excluding dormer) and their tiling battens.”

Officer report

The building and its setting

Ivy House is a grade II listed dwelling from about 1825, in Nenthead village within the North Pennines National Landscape.

“Ivy House is a grade II listed dwelling built in approximately 1825. The walls are of a squared rubble with a lime wash, the roof is graduated slate with a corniced end chimney. Window openings are surrounded by red painted stone blocks and the front door is surrounded by a stone lintel and stone quoins either side painted red. The listed building description by Historic England includes: “House, originally built for mine agent by London Lead Co. c1825.”

“The site is located within the village setting of Nenthead and close to the main road through the village. Adjacent structures and buildings around the property are also Grade II listed buildings (Nenthead Methodist church, Reading Room/Post Office, Memorial Pump and Canopy) and the site lies within the North Pennines National Landscape area.”

Officer report

Earlier listed building works

Earlier applications for windows, walls, internal works, a chimney, and a wastewater pipe were approved with conditions.

“Application: 2024/2253/LBC Listed Building Consent for the replacement of existing timber single glazed sash windows and single glazed top opening windows with wooden double glazed windows to match the windows which have been previously approved and replaced. Approved with conditions 25/07/2025”

“Application: 19/0011 Listed Building consent for works to exterior walls, internal walls, chimney and upstairs windows. Approved with conditions 03/05/2019”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council supported the application, while the Conservation Officer objected to the proposed unventilated spaces; no National Landscape response was received.

“Conservation Officer: Recommend refusal. A series of consultation responses were made seeking further details, clarification and justification of the works proposed particularly with regard to the proposed use of unventilated void for the re-roofing and new insulation proposed.”

“While some moisture may be able to escape through the permeable insulation and lime mortar, there remains a long term risk of decay in any unventilated void. This risk could be avoided by ventilating the voids. As previously suggested, if the proposed TXL Gold membrane requires an unventilated void, a different membrane could be used. Aside from the concerns with the unventilated void, the rest of the proposed materials, methods and details are now acceptable.”

Officer report

Public representations

No letters of representation were received.

“No letters of representation have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The Planning Officer explained the proposal, the Conservation Officer explained the ventilation concern, and the applicant addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members questioned the objection, the ventilation evidence and whether the plans incorrectly labelled a ventilated area as unventilated.

“In addition to this Councillor Hanley asked for more detail on the reasons for the objection noting that only brief detail had been provided in the Committee report. The Conservation Officer responded that the plans had no indication of a ventilated space in the proposal which posed the risk of warm damp air becoming trapped and creating condensation in the roof space leading to the risk of damage to the building.”

“Conservation Officer confirmed that this detail had been the reason for their recommendation to reject the application. The applicant stated that this had been an error and that the plans should have shown this area as “ventilated”.”

Minutes

The final decision

After clarification that the disputed roof space was ventilated and the label was an error, the committee conditionally approved the application subject to amended plans.

“The Conservation Officer advised the Committee that following clarification with the applicant that it was now clear that the space marked “unventilated” had been shown in error. They added that based on the new information and the clarification that the area within the roof was ventilated that they would withdraw their objection to the application.”

“RESOLVED, that the application be conditionally approved subject to the submission of amended plans.”

Minutes