C O N T E X T 1 0 1 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 7 3 ...extracts from the institute’s responses to government consultations need for the secretary of state’s approval at any stage. It is important that the local planning authority should be able to act quickly in cases where it believes harm is being done by the exercise of permitted development rights. Nevertheless, Article 4 designation should not be seen as a substitute for a specific permitted development regime for conservation areas. The institute believes that the proposed limits for extensions are too permissive. They will lead to larger numbers of unsightly extensions than previously. It will be harder to convince applicants for planning permission of the seriousness of the government’s commitment to improving design quality and the delivery of public places of quality. In terms of size, extensions proposed to be permitted are similar to existing limits for ordinary property. The impacts will be greater for larger property because of the greater width available. But for designated areas, the limits will be considerably increased. This is not acceptable. The proposal does not seem to deal adequately with extensions with monopitched roofs. It seems they could be allowed to have a ridge height of 4m on a boundary, which we do not think is intended. Draft Rural Development Programme for England, 2007–2013 The institute is concerned that the farming community may misinterpret the constant references to farm modernisation (on this and other tables) in the role of diversification and other areas of rural development, and that this means that there have to be clear measures to mitigate against the potential loss of the cultural environment. Farm modernisation since the 1970s has been something of a death knell for all aspects of the historic environment for aspects such as traditional farm buildings and hedgerows. Any danger that this could happen again needs to be mitigated. The institute takes comfort from the recognition that the growth of the market for energy crops needs to have minimum impact on the rural environment. for a fashionable church tell the story of the scheme and the family that planned and promoted it.The exhibition devoted to the Adelphi, and to the subsequent speculative projects of the Adams in Portland Place and Fitzroy Square, includes Robert’s visionary designs for Bath and his magnificent proposals for Edinburgh and Glasgow. Vaulting Ambition breaks new ground in its presentation of the Adam brothers as business men, working in the building trade as well as their profession. Besides the richness of their creativity, the exhibition explores how these Scottish entrepreneurs promoted their scheme, installed anchor tenants within the development to attract potential investors and purchasers, targeted clients of high net worth, faced down a potentially devastating financial crisis, and yet in the end were forced to pay an exceptional price for their ambition.The exhibition will tour to three regional venues in 2008–9. Subject to confirmation, the first venues of the tour will be the Talbot Rice Gallery in Edinburgh, Robert Adam’s great University Building, and Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum. Prepare for take-off Airport operator BAA is being forced to remove unsuitable plastic double-glazed windows which it has installed illegally in one of the listed buildings the company owns near Stansted Airport in Essex. Action is being taken against BAA after the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) alerted the local authority to the unauthorised work. The building, a Grade II listed timber-framed and thatched cottage at Woodgates End in Broxted, dates from the 17th century or earlier. Uttlesford District Council is insisting that BAA submit a formal application to replace the windows with more suitable glazing. If it does not comply, BAA could face prosecution. The SPAB has been concerned about the plight of listed buildings owned by BAA near Stansted for some time and will continue to monitor their condition. Plastic double-glazed windows in a BAA-owned listed building Improving the appeal process in the planning system The institute is not convinced that either of the options for charging fees for appeals is well-founded. The amount expected to be generated by the flat fee is of little consequence given the cost of the appeal process as a whole. This might be more appropriate for householder and small-scale appeals. A fee of 20 per cent of the planning application fee is unlikely to have much effect on the numbers of larger appeals, but might deter some appellants with a good case altogether. The institute suggests that, if a fee system is introduced, it could be used to influence choice of appeal method (ie be cheaper for written appeals) and might be part returnable in the event of success to discourage appeals with low chances of success. As with applications for listed building consent, fees should not be charged for listed building appeals. Changes to permitted development The institute has serious reservations about the proposals as a whole because they do not adequately recognise the importance of protecting the setting of listed buildings which is a duty placed upon decision makers by the planning acts or the special qualities of conservation areas. It is also apparent that many of the proposals will work counter to the government’s aspirations for improved design quality and placemaking. Conservation areas are designated for their special character but, because of the lack of control over permitted development in them, many are constantly under threat of losing their character. The route to deal with this, article 4, is time-consuming, costly and repetitive to the extent that often it is not used when it should be. In the institute’s view, conservation areas would be best served with a specific permitted development regime of their own that reflects their general sensitivity. This is not to suggest that conservation areas should not accept new development, merely that it should be seen to be to a high standard through the scrutiny of the planning application process on a more widespread basis than at present. The institute agrees that local planning authorities should be able to make an Article 4 direction without the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=