Planning department demands for new windows (conservation area)

TELLIT01

The fact that the relevant department wasn't aware of the previous change doesn't mean that another change now won't have to comply with regulations.

thearchitect

BUFF said:

thearchitect said:

I am not as familiar with English legislation as I am Scottish, but I think Freebear is probably correct.   You would only be required to seek PP where there was a material change in the external appearance of the building and hence true like-for-like (I don't mean "sort of the same") replacement would not normally require consent. 

Buff - you've probably received bum advice from the planning officer, I'm afraid. To test it should would have to make an application for a Certificate of Proposed Lawfulness, which is about half the work and fee of a full application.

I have wondered especially as the Scottish Govt. is consulting atm on changes & from reading that their interpretation of the current rules did seem to differ from the GCC interpretation.

Also, my understanding is that if the planning permission application is only required because of the Conservation Area then there is no charge ... & replacing a window in a non-Conservation Area doesn't require planning permission.

If it's GCC then you might want to look at the Council's Planning Portal for, hypothetically speaking, a window replacement programme in the Govan area.   Certificate of Proposed Lawfullness.   Just saying.......

thearchitect

TELLIT01 said:

The fact that the relevant department wasn't aware of the previous change doesn't mean that another change now won't have to comply with regulations.

Not quite, at least in Scotland.

If the windows were replaced prior to designation of the CA then the local authority is unable to ask for a PP application for like-for-like replacement (section 26(2)(a)(ii) of the 1997 Act if you want to check).  The same situation arises if the windows were previously consented as, for example, they were in the Govan case I refer to in the post above.

On the other hand if the replacement was following designation but not consented then yes, the planning authority may well decide to require regularisation as part of any future works.

Seperately, of course, we have the Building Regulations (or more properly the Domestic and Non-Domestic Technical Handbooks).   These will usually not require a Building Warrant application for window replacement however the new units must comply with the current Regulations.   My experience is that many people don't bother with this and then look surprised when it is flagged up during any sale of the property.   The Regs exist for a reason and people would do well to ensure any work complies.....

TELLIT01

@thearchitect If the location wasn't designated as a CA when the previous windows were installed there would have been nothing for the local authority to be aware of.  I'm not aware of any regulations brought in by local authorities which is applied retrospectively.

thearchitect

TELLIT01 said:

@thearchitect If the location wasn't designated as a CA when the previous windows were installed there would have been nothing for the local authority to be aware of.  I'm not aware of any regulations brought in by local authorities which is applied retrospectively.

I admire your confidence that the planning officer's view reflects the legal reality of the situation.  

In the cases I have dealt with the planning authority has introduced a new policy or, indeed, a conservation area management plan and then tried toapply the recommendations retrospectively.  Whilst I understand the desire to reinstate original fenestration (and am sympathetic to it) that doesn't actually change the procedural position.

gm0

Anger management pills on standby.

Building control can sometimes be installer certified - FENSA etc.  Which can remove the council from one process without causing you an issue later.

Once trapped in a planning application by conservation, listing, or via revoked PD, it can be tedious to get permission approved for what seems an energy efficiency improving, sympathetic change.  As in OP's example. 

Being mucked about nearly endlessly just to shift planning application metrics along - while they mostly ignore you and focus on bigger stuff which they should be looking at.  Sadly while not really being interested in householder stuff - they don't apply 80:20 rule and just sign you off - but rather kick you down the touchline again and again on process !!!!!!.  Better to muck you about than make a mistake approving.  "We will reject unless you agree extension to schedule and provide invented item number 27 and answer this new question I pulled out of my backside on friday afternoon having read none of the papers"

My lot took a full 12 months and two complete planning cycles as they applied insane conditions the first time around.  Comedy overtook rage eventually.