GPDO and Listed Buildings - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Natasha This is covered by section 55 (2) of the 1990 Planning Act: "The following operations or uses of land shall not be taken for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land— (a)the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which— (i)affect only the interior of the building, or (ii)do not materially affect the external appearance of the building, and are not works for making good war damage or works begun after 5th December 1968 for the alteration of a building by providing additional space in it underground;" Therefore unless the repairs include for external changes which would material affect the appearance of the barn then the repairs do not amount to development at all. Undoudtedly in processing your LBC application the LPA would have advised you at the time if, in thier opinion, permission was separately required.

Thank you - that is really helpful. The problem is that the LPA have changed their mind! When we intially replied for LBC, we were advised that it didn't require planning permission, but a week before the LBC was determined, we had an e-mail from the planning officer that her "informal opinion" was that planning permission was required. She has said that she considers our repairs do materially change the appearance of the building (an opinion that I can see in our case is arguable), but she then went on to say that even if this were not the case: "the fact that the range of barns are located within the curtilage of a listed building means that planning permission would be required even if the works were considered to constitute maintenance or improvement." In effect, she is saying that any maintenance or repairs to buildings within the curtilage of a listed building automatically require planning permission - is this really true? Surely if it were this clear-cut, then we would have been advised of this when we went through our pre-application discussions? Any thoughts welcom

As Martin says the place to start is S55 of the Act which is where you find the definition of 'development'. Only if the works amount to development is it necessary to look in the GPDO to see if they are permitted. On this basis it would appear that the Planning Officer's logic is flawed as there is nothing in the Act that states that solely because the building is listed, any works will amount to 'development'. Only if the works have a material effect on the external appearance of the building will a planning application therefore be necessary (because of E.1(f) of Class E). Mike

Sounds very much as if the LPA want their cake and eat it. The continuing change in advice is of itself an indication that they unsure themselves. Options - a) make an application. b) seek a certificate of lawfulness (and if aggrieved by LPA decision you can always appeal it). c) carry out works approved under the LBC and apply retrospectively. d) carry out repairs and do not apply (effectively calling their bluff and they then will have to make a professional judgement as to whether it is "expedient" to serve an enforcement notice. One has to ask, the LPA having granted LBC, what material harm is caused by the repair work which would justify taking formal action? I have my doubts that this would meet the test of "expediency" and be in the public interest?

I would endorse the Lawful Development Certificate approach. Mike

Because Class E allows "the maintenance, improvement or other alteration" of a curtilage building, many people assume that an application is required for such works if the building is excluded from Class E. I think that is the likely source of the PO's confusion. However, as Martin and Michael rightly say, it must be established whether the works are "development" before any consideration is given as to whether they are "permitted development" under the GPDO. Although she is wrong on that point, the PO has still identified the correct test and has said that in her opinion the works would materially alter the external appearance of the building and therefore require planning permission. I wouldn't rule out that she assumed the works were covered by Class E at first, and has now realised her mistake. Your options are therefore as Martin has presented them. If you do decide you might apply for planning permission it would be worth asking for further pre-app advice, since although the heritage/visual aspects have effectively been determined in the LBC there may be other issues arising, such as the need for ecological surveys (any bats?). If there are concerns in that area it would be (even more) unwise to proceed without sorting the matter out with the Council one way or the other beforehand.

Thank you all so much for your replies. Many things to think about here (particularly as I need to have an ongoing relationship with the LPA as we continue to maintain and repair the house and barns), but I feel much happier to work out my best route with the clarifications you have outlined. Nick, your comment about bats was spot -on: fortunately we have had the survey and mitigation measures already approved in principle by the Wildlife / Countryside officer - I submitted them with the LBC application.