DC Casebook: DC Forum

NEW QUERIES

My client wishes to replace some non-original windows on his grade II listed property on a like-for-like basis, but the replacements would be double glazed. The planning authority wants any replacements to reflect the character of two remaining original windows. This means employing a bespoke joiner, which would make the project unviable. Given that the proposed windows would be very similar to the existing ones and would not harm the building's character, is the authority reasonable in requiring replacements of original design? JP.

Listed building consent is required only for alterations affecting a listed building's character as such. From your description of the proposed works, it is arguable whether this is required. Unfortunately, there is no procedure equivalent to a lawful development certificate application to establish whether building consent is required. There seems to be a case for introducing one, as it is not always possible to define what affects a listed building's character. I advise you to submit a listed building consent application for the windows your client wants. Assuming it is refused, I consider that you would have a strong case on appeal as the building's character would not be significantly harmed, energy consumption would be reduced and alternatives are not viable. Paragraph 152 of the Historic Environment Planning practice guide recommends secondary glazing for significant windows, suggesting that for non-original windows conventional double glazing would be acceptable. JH.

Class B, part 2, schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 allows vehicle access where it is required in connection with development permitted by any class in the schedule other than class A, part 2. A householder wants to create a new access to a hardstanding on a non-classified road. I consider that this needs permission because it is not required in connection with a development permitted by another part of schedule 2, since the hardstanding already exists. Is this correct? AM.

I have not been able to find an appeal case tackling this issue. My inclination, however, is to say that planning permission is not required as this gives a more logical interpretation. Clearly a hardstanding and access constructed at the same time do not require permission. It would therefore seem unreasonable to insist that if a hardstanding is constructed and an access laid later, producing the same end result, planning permission should be needed. Furthermore, there is no requirement in the order that such work must be carried out simultaneously. JH.

The Land Use Gazetteer advises that a self-catering holiday home falls into the C3 use class. I presume that if someone wishes to use a class C3 dwellinghouse as a holiday let this would not require permission as long as no more than six holidaymakers stay at any one time. Once the property is used as a holiday let, would householder permitted development rights apply? EA.

Second homes and homes let as self-catering holiday homes all fall within the C3 use class, as confirmed in R v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council ex parte Blue Boys Developments [1989] and Moore v Secretary of State for the Environment and Another [1998]. This is why in popular tourist areas second and holiday home demand results in a shortage of homes for local people, leading some authorities to introduce policies restricting occupancy of new houses to local residents. A home used for holiday letting would enjoy normal domestic permitted development rights. JH.

PREVIOUS QUERIES

SP enquired whether proposals involving the change of use of more than 1,000m2 in an existing building constitute major development (Planning, 20 August, p19).

JH states that changes of use are not included in the major development category for the purposes of PS1 and PS2 returns. Could you clarify how a change of use of an area of land exceeding 1ha from, for example, agriculture to horse keeping is classified under these? I assume from JH's statement that they are not classed as major development. Please could you also clarify whether or not they would fall under the major category under the Development Management Procedure Order 2010, therefore triggering the need to advertise the proposal as a major application? EE.

I have now realised that my answer to SP was not wholly correct. Change of use applications where the proposed end use is "large-scale major" or "small-scale major" should be entered as such on the PS1 and PS2 returns submitted by planning authorities to the government. Only non-major changes of use should be included in the "minor developments - change of use" category. I indicated that all change of use applications should be classed as minor developments. So as long as the horse-keeping site is less than 2ha, it would be a small-scale major application. As indicated in my previous reply, the change of use of a building larger than 1,000m2 does not need to be advertised under the Development Management Procedure Order 2010. However, if a proposal involves the change of use of a site of 1ha or more, then it should be advertised as a major application. JH.

Email your queries or your replies to earlier queries to casebook@haymarket.com or post them to Development Control Casebook Forum, DCS Ltd, Casebook Suite 1, Fullers Court, 40 Lower Quay Street, Gloucester GL1 2LW. Comment and post at PlanningResource.co.uk/forum/dc


Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Sign up now
Already registered?
Sign in

Join the conversation with PlanningResource on social media

Follow Us:
Planning Jobs