Permitted Development in Conservation Area. Cladding clause.

lohr500

Calling any planning experts !

We have run into issues with our local planning officer over a proposed conservatory extension. Our property is in a conservation area but not subject to an Article 4 restriction.

We want to add the conservatory to the front elevation, which DOES NOT front any highway (vehicular, footpath or other right of way). Planning permission has been submitted on the original advice of the conservatory supplier and the planning officer has recommended against development. Consultation period ends next week. He believes the design is not in keeping, blah, blah, blah and is not really being helpful. His only suggestion as to what might be acceptable is a stone built sun room type extension to the side of the property which would involve removing a tanked retaining wall, an old stone trough water feature and hundreds of tons of steep banking! In other words he approves of nothing

I have studied the contents of the 2008 General Permitted Development Order Amendment, Schedule Article 3 Class A, and I actually believe our planned conservatory falls within the scope of permitted development.

The only clause I have concerns over relates to A2 :

In the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1 (5) land, development is not permitted by class A if -

(a) it would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior of the dwellinghouse with stone, artificial stone, pebbledash, render, timber, plastic or tiles.

If the lower walls of the conservatory are stone faced to match the existing property and the soffits are uPVC, then is this deemed to be cladding and so outside of permitted development in a conservation area?

What is the definition of cladding with respect to the clause in the permitted development order?

If anyone can help with this definition it would be appreciated.

Once I am confident I will submit a request for a certificate of lawfulness.

Thanks

iamcornholio

Those rules apply to cladding an existing building

If you are building a new conservatory, then you follow the PD definitions for new work. The probelm you may have is that the material used should be similar to those used on the existing building

However, your post is not clear on what you are asking - the title mentions permitted development and yet you say you have made an application - for something which seems to be permitted development. If the "front" does not front a highway, then it may not be the principle elevation and so the proposal may not require permission

lohr500

Thanks for the reply iamcornholio.
Sorry that I didn't make myself clear

Yes, we did originally put in planning permission because that is what the conservatory supplier's planning agent suggested.
Given the conservation area I think they wanted to opt on the cautious side.
However now that the planning officer has reviewed the application and added his comments I am sure that the planning committee will reject it.
That is what triggered me to look very closely at the PD option.

The proposal is to build the conservatory using yorkshire stone for the lower wall section, to match the existing property and then coloured uPVC sash frame style for the windows and French doors.
The roof will be in an orangery style.
The existing property windows are large wooden framed double glazed units. The glasswork in the conservatory has been designed to complemnt the existing window style.

It is an old farm house and the elevation on which we want to add the conservatory is what I would describe as the front, but it faces open countryside. The main road is to the left side elevation of the property and is approx 1/4 mile away. The access road to the house also runs away from the left of the property to the main road.

From following the PD 2008 order I can't see anything that we would fall foul on, other than this cladding clause.

I have checked on the planning portal and there is definitely no Article 4 order on the conservation area in which the property sits.

Still waiting for the planning agent to come back to me with his thoughts on PD. He was going to speak to the planning officer but I don't know how helpful that will be, given the current lack of enthusiasm from the planners.

Any other comments or experience welcomed.
Thanks.

iamcornholio

If the proposal is PD, then withdraw the current application and do the work under PD. Also get the fee refunded by the conservatory company for their bad advice.

If the work is PD, then the planning department should not refuse an application as they will then lose on appeal.

The thing will planners and conservation areas, is they are very blinkered to any development and want to resist it - even if it is permitted or does not affect the locality. They will try and push through what they want rather than what policy allows. You, or your agent need to look into the local planning policy and compare this to your proposal and point out where and why your application meets the policy and therefore should be approved. If it goes to committee, then you would normally have an opportunity to speak at the meeting and tell them why your application should be approved - especially if it will succeed on a subsequent appeal

As I mentioned, that clause on cladding relates to cladding an existing building, but from your description of the stone and soffits, this is not cladding. It seems that the planner just does not like the conservatory? If so, then that is purely subjective. All conservatories, by their very nature do not match the house which they are attached to, and so that is not a valid reason for refusal.

I think your agent should be sorting all this out for you. His job does not end by just submitting a drawing

lohr500

Thank you for the extra input.
I will be calling the agent tomorrow to find out what he is doing and why this is dragging on.

lohr500

After doing a lot of research myself on permitted development, I had a sensible chat directly with the planning officer yesterday, explaining all the reasons why I thought PD was applicable. My planning agent wasn't grasping the nettle so I decided on a direct approach.

The planning officer promised to call me back today with a decision which he duly did.

Good news : He agreed it did fall under PD.:rotfl:
Bad news : An earlier planning application on the property for an extension by the previous owners in October 1978 had a clause excluding any future Class 1 development from PD :mad:.

I checked through my house files and tucked away there was a copy of the 1978 pp confirming this, so PP is required after all.

I presume the only option now is to let the existing application run its course. Though some miracle it may pass, although I doubt it given the input from the planning officer. If it doesn't then is the only option to appeal, arguing that but for the restrictive clause it would qualify for PD anyway?

Pretty hacked off with the whole thing because if the agent had done his job properly in the 1st place, the planning submission could have been worded very differently.

iamcornholio

How can you have a planning condition in a 1978 application preventing any permitted development, when PD only came into existence in 1995?

Could it be that that 1978 condition does not apply or is invalid?

Or have you got the year wrong?

lohr500

Hi there iamcornholio,

The clause on the 1978 planning approval reads :

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of and Class 1 of the First Schedule of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977, no development of the types specified within that class shall be erected, constructed or carried out within the application site without the prior written approval of the District Planning Authority to an application in that behalf submitted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

I am struggling to find an electronic version of the 1977 Order, but I believe Class 1 refers to extensions within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse and that a conservatory would fall into this class.

If you think I have mis-understood the clause then I'd love to hear back from you as this seems to be all that is stopping me from proceeding as PD.

Thanks

iamcornholio

You will find that the GPDO 1995 (the act which enabled permitted development) supercedes that condition on your 1978 planning application

Speak with your agent, or get this clarified by the planning officer - ask for this in writing and hint that if they give you incorrect information then you will complain to the local government ombudsman and/or take legal action to recover all your losses due to the councils misinterpretation

lohr500

But wasn't Article 3 and Class 1 of the 1977 act all about what was allowed without planning permission? If the GPDO 1995 superceeds it, then wouldn't the clause in the 1978 planning approval transfer to the GPDO 1995?

iamcornholio

lohr500 wrote: »

But wasn't Article 3 and Class 1 of the 1977 act all about what was allowed without planning permission?

Yes, but the later GPDO 1995 was a completely new Act and altered the scope of the previously consolidated GDO's (general development orders)

My interpretation of this, in basic terms, is that the condition made pursuant to the GDO 1977 is no longer valid as a completely new regime of PD has subsequently come into force, and the "old" PD rules (and conditions imposed related to those rules) are no longer valid. New rights granted by the new GPDO legislation, can not be taken away by the old [no longer valid] GDO

To argue this, you need specific advice, and I doubt if a planning officer will be able to interpret this without referring to either one of their experienced enforcement officers, or one of their in-house planning solicitors. If the planners can't give you a definitive interpretation, then you may want to get specialist independent advice.

But obviously, this is just my interpretation based on the limited details posted, so don't take it as definitive, but use it as something to investigate further