Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Logo
Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Ouvert | En cours - juillet 2012 | Dernière modification - Hier

removal of PD for external alterations prior to part 40 coming into force.

Former Member, modifié il y a 12 années.

removal of PD for external alterations prior to part 40 coming into force.

My query is whether a condition removing PD on an application that was granted prior to Part 40 and which removed PD for roof alterations, extensions, and goes on to specify no external alterations could be capable of also preventing solar panels. The reason I ask this is that there have been a couple of instances in my Authority where solar panels have been put on re-occupation dwellings and barn conversions where we have said that as PD had not been removed under part 40 (as Part 40 did not then exist) then permission was not required. This clearly is at odds with the decision that was made at the time where the Authority had sought to gain control over any future external alterations. At the time, we would have considered that solar panels required planning permission and therefore there would have been no requirement to specifically specify that solar panels were not allowed. My question is therefore, that if we have a pre part 40 removal of PD that specifies removal of the classes that relate to roofs, extensions etc. and also goes on to clarify that pd is removed for external alterations of the building, then could that be considered to override the provisions of part 40 and mean that planning permission would be required for Solar Panels on the roof?
Former Member, modifié il y a 12 années.

Re: removal of PD for external alterations prior to part 40 coming into fo

We have come across this issue in the past and discussed it with our solicitor chums. There was some debate but in the end we decided that we should treat these in the same way as we have treated amendments to the rest of the GPDO, i.e. that we would still require an application. It's not that the old regs override part 40, it's that part 40 does not override the conditions. Whether an inspector would take the same view...? Not sure there is a definitively "right" answer. Councils can solve such interpretive problems by not referring to The GPDO in restrictive conditions. So instead of controlling "works within Class B of etc." they can control "extensions and alterations to the roof". This also allows you to control extensions without controlling more minor alterations. For example a council may consider that a proposed outbuilding is so large that they want to control future extensions to it under Class E of Part 1., but if they restrict that whole class by condition instead of just "extensions" they will also be requiring applications for inserting a window - which they (currently) have to deal with for free!
Former Member, modifié il y a 12 années.

Re: removal of PD for external alterations prior to part 40 coming into fo

Most pd removal conditions are standard conditions and they usually include a section stating including any amendment or revision to that order, to cover the fact that there may be amendments to the GPDO if this is included in the condition would this not resolve the issue. However the problem with most Pd conditions is that as they are standard conditions they often take a blanket approach by removing all Pd rights, this can substantially impact on the enforceability of the conditions as it would not meet the five tests. For example if the concern is to avoid any more rear extensions only the relevant part should be removed.