LDC for rebuilding of post-1948 outbuilding in Listed Building in Conservat - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hello Peter, From what you have said, you are proposing the erection of a new outbuilding in the curtilage of a listed building and therefore planning permission is required. You are on a hiding to nothing with the 'maintenance etc.' argument. You will need Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing outbuilding if its volume (measured externally) exceeds 115 cubic metres. I won't get into prior approval for demolition because you need planning permission anyway. You do not need listed building consent provided the outbuilding is indeed post-1948 and is not attached to any listed structure.

Thanks John. But by "hiding to nothing" do you mean it is your (and others'?) opinion that I would not succeed at Appeal with my argument that it is "maintenance, improvement or other alteration"? It's a long time since I expected sustainable decisions from LPA, and I would expect to go to Appeal. If my "improvement" requires demolition, then that is OK on Conservation Area grounds as it's well under 115m3, and is OK on LBC grounds as it is post-1948. Prior approval, as I poorly understand it, is merely a nuisance; only being required in order to sanction the method of demolition, and to require or not an EIA, not the whether or not it can be demolished?

Yes, my advice is that you have no chance of success either with your LPA or at appeal, but if you go ahead I wish you luck. If you win please do post the decision on here because it will be very interesting! I suggest having a look at the Planning Jungle website for precedent. I agree with your views on prior approval.

Thanks for the advice, maybe I'll go for Plan B which is "radical renovation", without involving demolition (as such). The shed is adjacent to boundary, but because it is just under 15m2 floor space I understand it is not subject to Building Control (apart from electrical work). I believe I can renovate floor, walls, roof, etc however I wish, to whatever thermal performance I wish, in whatever materials, of whatever colour I wish, and I can insert windows and doors however I wish. But having said all that, I would of course do it sympathetically to its surroundings, its neighbours, and to how it was. So would you agree that what I describe above, short of demolition, would fall under, "maintenance, improvement or other alteration"? Even so, I suppose it would be prudent to make a LDC application, with a suitably uncontroversial design/appearance. My LPA web site says, "there are no Article 4 directions within this Conservation Area". Yes, I really ought to invest in Steve's excellent "Planning Jungle" service.

Peter, in my view the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of a building within the curtilage may still be excluded by E1(f), so you may yet end up at appeal! But I accept the point is arguable given that E1.(f) states development would not be permitted by Class E if "the building WOULD BE situated within the curtilage of a listed building, " (as opposed to if it already IS within the curtilage). Presumbly this has been tested - can anyone advise? Imho Class E should read: "The provision, maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building, enclosure, swimming or other pool..." (as per Class A).

Hi Peter, The phrase "the maintenance, improvement or other alteration" within section 55(2)(a) of the TCPA 1990 has been the subject of several court cases, as shown by the following extract from Blackhall's "Planning Law and Practice": http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QKhVJZHFdZUC&lpg=PA69&dq=larkin%20basildon%20two%20walls&pg=PA69#v=onepage&q=larkin%20basildon%20two%20walls&f=false As shown by the above extract, even if the rebuilding of a property is done in stages, this will still normally fall outside the phrase "the maintenance, improvement or other alteration". The other issue (as referred to by John) is the interpretation of limitation E.1(f) of Part 1 Class E, which states the following: "E.1 Development is not permitted by Class E if— ... (f) the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated within the curtilage of a listed building". My understanding is that, within the curtilage of a listed building, the above limitation not only prevents the erection of a new outbuilding under Part 1 Class E, but also prevents the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of an existing outbuilding under Part 1 Class E. In other words, my understanding is that, for a listed building, the above limitation rules out Part 1 Class E altogether. In my opinion, for the above limitation to be interpreted differently, it would need to contain one of the following types of phrases: 1) A phrase along the lines of "... as a result of the works ..." (e.g. similar to limitation B.1(b)), or, 2) A phrase along the lines of "In the case of the provision of a building ..." (e.g. similar to limitation H.1(b)). For info, I haven't seen any appeal decisions that have dealt with this exact issue (i.e. relating to limitation E.1(f)). However, in the following recent appeal decision relating to limitation E.1(d), the Inspector concluded that the phrase "would exceed" could not be interpreted as being equivalent to the phrase "would exceed as a result of the works": http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2189256&coid=2106952 In my opinion, the above conclusion implies that the phrase "would be" within limitation E.1(f) could not be interpreted as being equivalent to the phrase "would be as a result of the works", which means that the former phrase would apply not only to the erection of a new outbuilding, but also to the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of an existing outbuilding. For info, there was an earlier appeal decision relating to E.1(d) in which the Inspector concluded the opposite (as is often the case!), but in my opinion the reasoning within the earlier appeal decision was much weaker than the reasoning within the later appeal decision. Thanks, Steve

Hi Steve, OK, dropping the idea of replacing one wall at a time, maybe it's Plan C, an internal structural renovation. The logical conclusion of what you say seems to be that my shed (in a Conservation Area and within a Listed Building curtilage, but not being itself a listed building, because it is post-1948) must be left to deteriorate, because I cannot maintain it, without a planning consent. I've read that Inspector's report, thanks, regarding E1(d)(i), and I understand the point to be that because the existing building is already above 4m high, you cannot do anything to maintain, improve or otherwise alter the existing building. E1(f) mirrors E1(b) - so are we saying that if an existing shed were forward of the principal elevation (i.e. in full view of the street) you cannot do anything to maintain it, a much more common circumstance than my case of a shed in a listed building, so maybe there's more case history to E1(b) sheds? This cannot be right (but hey, this is planning!!), so if we accept that there must be some point to the phrase "...or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration" being there at all, then we must accept that there is some degree of operation on the existing building that is permitted? So how about the following: The current construction is timber uprights with horizontal timber cladding, with a felt roof. The cladding would be removed and replaced (so that a vapour barrier can be installed behind it) any damaged cladding timber would be replaced, and the structure would be strengthened and thermally insulated inside. The poor condition roofing felt would be replaced, or replaced by slate tiles, and similarly the roof would be strengthened and insulated from below. I like to think none of that goes beyond a reasonable understanding of "maintenance, improvement or other alteration", but I should also like to add a couple of extra windows and rooflights, and a glazed door (replacing the solid door), none of which face a boundary.

Hi Peter, Even though you wouldn't be able to maintain the outbuilding under Part 1 Class E of the GPDO 1995 (i.e. because the outbuilding is within the curtilage of a listed building), you still would be able to maintain it under section 55(2)(a) of the TCPA 1990. Although it's a case of fact and degree, section 55(2)(a) would normally allow works such as replacing areas of cladding, replacing an existing window, re-roofing, etc, so long as 1) the new works wouldn't materially affect the external appearance of the outbuilding and 2) the new works wouldn't be so comprehensive as to constitute the rebuilding of the outbuilding. With point "1)" above, this is why people often say that "like-for-like" replacements don't require planning permission. It's worth noting that the wording of section 55(2)(a) does allow some degree of variation beyond having to be an exact "like-for-like" replacement, although as this degree of variation is a case of "fact and degree" the safest option is often to aim for an exact "like-for-like" replacement. In my opinion, it's unlikely that replacing the felt roof with slate tiles, or inserting an extra window, or replacing the solid door with a glazed door would fall under section 55(2)(a) of the TCPA 1990, meaning that it's likely that such works would require planning permission. With point "2)" above, this is the issue covered by the extract from Blackhall's "Planning Law and Practice" in my post above. Again, whether works constitute "the maintenance, improvement or other alteration" of the outbuilding, or the "rebuilding" of the outbuilding, is a case of fact and degree. If an outbuilding is left to deteriorate to a stage where the only option is to replace a significant proportion of the outbuilding, then this will increase the risk that such works will constitute the rebuilding of the outbuilding. Thanks, Steve