38 C O N T E X T 1 0 8 : M A R C H 2 0 0 9 gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure within the curtilage of a dwelling house, and the painting of its exterior or of any building within this area. One of these directions may also be made to restrict the removal, alteration or construction of a chimney on a dwelling house or on any building in its curtilage, despite fronting on a highway, waterway or open space. In contrast, Article 4(1) directions can be made not only to restrict permitted development works to dwellinghouses in conservation areas that do not front on to highways, waterways or open spaces, but also to other types of property such as flats and commercial buildings within conservation areas. Recent research by RPS Planning into the use of Article 4 directions by English local planning authorities has established that only 15 per cent of the conservation areas designated by the local authorities consulted benefit from Article 4 directions. This is despite being recognised by most local authority conservation officers as being an effective tool in the management of conservation areas. The low level of activity is blamed on the lack of staff to undertake what is seen as a timeconsuming process of making and consulting residents on the directions, the lack of member support for withdrawing permitted development rights, and a fear of having to pay compensation arising from the refusal of planning permission for works that were previously permitted development. Of those local planning authorities consulted, some 81 per cent had Article 4 directions covering one or more of their conservation areas. Very few had one for each of their conservation areas. For example, Hart District Council had a direction for each of its 32 conservation areas and each of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council’s 11 conservation areas was covered by a direction. Of the 19 per cent of local planning authorities consulted without Article 4 directions for any of their conservation areas, the most notable were Leeds City Council with 65 conservation areas and Kirklees Metropolitan District Council with 59 conservation areas, none of which benefited fromArticle 4 directions. Other councils with a large number of conservation areas but few covered by Article 4 directions included Bristol City Council with just two directions for its 33 conservation areas, and Stroud District Council with just three for its 42 conservation areas. Of the Article 4 directions made by the authorities consulted, some 79 per cent were of the simplified post-1995 4(2) variety; that is, those that do not require the secretary of state’s approval and only apply to dwelling houses fronting on to a highway, waterway or open space. However, a few authorities have been more adventurous and have persuaded the minister to approve Article 4(1) directions to bring under control permitted development works to agricultural, commercial and industrial properties, flats and dwelling houses not fronting on to highways, waterways or open spaces. Most notable among these authorities are Derbyshire Dales District Council, which has had approved a 4(1) direction bringing under control works to properties in commercial use and residential flats in the Matlock Bath ConservationArea. Chesterfield Borough Council has also secured the secretary of state’s approval for a 4(1) direction, which has introduced controls over the painting of the exterior of all properties within its town centre conservation area. Many of the newArticle 4 directions have come about as a result of the government’s best value requirement for local planning authorities to prepare appraisals and management plans for their conservation areas. The appraisal element of the work has often highlighted the damage caused to an area’s character and appearance by permitted development works. A key component of the accompanying management plan has been the introduction of Article 4 directions to protect the special interest of the conservation area. A limited number of authorities have produced design guides in an attempt to assist property owners subject to Article 4 restrictions, with detailed guidance on the types of alterations that would be acceptable, significantly reducing the number of planning applications that have to be refused. Most notable among these guides are those published by the London Borough of Ealing for its Hanger Hill Garden Estate Conservation Areas in connection with small-scale works to residential properties, and the colour scheme guide published by Chesterfield Borough Council in respect of the range of British Standard paint colours that would be suitable for painting the exterior of buildings, including shop fronts, in the Chesterfield Town Centre Conservation Area. The research revealed that the principal deterrent to the use of Article 4 directions by local planning authorities was the threat of compensation payable in the event of the refusal of a planning application made following the imposition of a direction. Such compensation can cover any loss or damage directly due to the removal of permitted development rights. This problem appears to be one of perception, however, as no cases of compensation were reported from any of the authorities consulted. The author’s experience of dealing with these directions over the past 30 years has not brought to light a single case of compensation being paid in respect of the withdrawal of permitted development within a conservation area. Andrew Dick is a director of RPS Planning and leader of its historic environment team.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=