BY MICHAEL BRESLIN
A Derrygonnelly family has declared war on the Historic Monuments and Listed Buildings Branch of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) for stopping plans to provide a downstairs bedroom for their critically ill 12-year old son.
Due to the fact their three-storey home is 'listed', as a building of architectural interest, it can only be adapted in accordance with EHS criteria.
It was built between 1843 and 1910 as two houses, and is a Grade B2 listed property, which is defined as, 'buildings of local importance or which are good examples of some period of style. Some degree of alteration or imperfection may be acceptable'.
Its owners, Gerry Tanner and his wife, Judi, the parents of four children, have been battling for its delisting since 2002 when extensive renovation grant works that were agreed with the NI Housing Executive to make their home more habitable and less expensive to run were rejected by the EHS.
Local Councillor, Bernice Swift, who has taken up the family's fight, told the 'Herald' that it took 2,000 litres of oil every three months to heat the property, yet nothing can be replaced without permission from the Environment and Heritage Service.
"Their son, Conor has a congenital heart defect, and his condition is deteriorating. He needs a new bedroom and lift as a matter of urgency, but, even its the low level listing does not allow for all the changes his father needs to make.
"Conor is currently sleeping in an upstairs room on a bed that is propped to make it balance as the floors are so badly warped. There are massive gaps above some of the old windows, and all windows are single-glazed. Heating this house is an astronomical cost to the family".
Mr Tanner moved his family to Derrygonnelly from Derrylin to be nearer the Erne Hospital for Conor's sake, and to be close to a GP's surgery and pharmacy for urgent medicines for Conor. In addition, the local school was a short walking distance for the two girls, Tia and Tessa, enabling easier management of the parents' time since Conor requires 24/7 attention. Dan (2 years) completes the family.
The family applied for a Renovation Grant to the Housing Executive, and in mid 2002, the Tanners received from the Housing Executive a detailed schedule of required works. It included, for instance, the replacement of windows, defective plasterwork in the internal walls was to be hacked off and replastered and skimmed.
This week, Mr Tanner said the scheme fell by the wayside after EHS objections: "There is so much work they insist we do, including restoring what's missing. Don't forget the building has been altered so many times. It used to be two houses and one of them used to be a shop. But, we have never asked for it to be demolished, only for it to be delisted so that we can go ahead and do all the repairs which are necessary".
In August, 2006, a structural condition report on the property was received from the Works Procurement Division of the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Report's conclusion was that the Tanner home was in need of 'a substantial amount of repair', although the main structural elements of the building were still serviceable.
It found 'some uneveness in the floors and noticeable deflections', a situation similar to the roof purlins (rafters). However, it stated that the floor had been serviceable for many years and that 'some evidence of serious defects would be needed before replacement could be considered'.
It went on: 'Elements, such as windows, rainwater goods and plasterwork all need to be renewed. There is a significant problem with damp penetration and rising damp which needs to be addressed'.
Turning to the purlins, the Report noted a sag in the roof. But, as against that, the roof was watertight and no evidence of decay was found in the roof timbers.
Earlier in 2006, the Tanners had commissioned their own structural inspection. It described the general condition of the roof as, 'poor'. It also noted that the exterior walls were 'obviously' out of alignment. It recommended the rebuilding of the rear wall and questioned the structural stability of the front wall.
As regards the windows, the Report said the majority appeared to be in poor condition, and recommended they be treated for infestation and those sections suffering from rot replaced. Likewise, the rear entrance door and frame needed to be replaced.
As for the walls, high meter readings were recorded throughout all three floors, 'primarily as a result of penetrating damp'.
'The property', the Report concludes, ' is in an extremely poor condition, with major structural problems of primary concern'.
Earlier this month, the Tanners received a copy of the EHS response to their surveyors' Report. It was forwarded to the EHS's architect responsible for Fermanagh, Richard Pierce who, in turn, was invited to read the two Reports and give 'an honest arbitration'.
In all, Mr Pierce makes 18 points where, at various stages, he agrees and disagrees with proposals contained in the Tanners' own report. For instance, he disagreed that the back wall of their home needed to be demolished, yet he felt it 'reasonable' that windows should be removed and even replaced. He also agreed that the back door should be replaced along with some internal walls.
Crucially, in view of the Tanners' desire to relocate their son, Conor, a wheelchair user, to a downstairs bedroom, as recommended by an OT, Mr Pierce specifies that doors 'must remain in the same position, configuration and height'.
However, his letter acknowledges the Tanners' anxiety to have double glazing installed and he suggested a further meeting with the family.
Asked how he felt about a meeting, Mr Tanner said he was unsure: "We asked away back for the building to be delisted because it didn't meet, in their view, the criteria but, what we find, is one says one thing and another says another thing. There is no consistency.
"Their structural engineer tells us there's nothing wrong with the building and, yet, Richard Pierce says there are parts which need replacing. If something needs to be replaced, it needs to be replaced, end of story.
".We've put in for a grant for Conor's downstairs bedroom, toilet and bathroom. I'm getting architects's drawings done at the moment but I know the EHS will turn them down because they want the doors retained. Yet, they're not big enough for Conor's wheelchair".
"We don't agree with the listing because there isn't enough of the original fabric, and if you take what remains you have to ask, 'why is it listed?".
Mr Tanner has had to take time off work to help look after Conor and the only break he and his wife get is when nurses stay overnight to deliver respite care.
"The nurses even agree it should never have been listed in the first place", he said. "It's my house. It doesn't belong to the EHS. They don't pay the bills, I do. What is more important: a family in this situation or a building that should not even be listed?".
