LAW & PRACTICE THATCHED LISTED BUILDINGS - PLANNING v THE BUILDING REGS This is an interesting case where the DoE dismissed an appeal for a dispensation under the Building Regulations to enable thatch to be retained on a listed barn conversion because the 'aesthetic arguments' did not justify it. The building was a good medieval barn c. 1500 (listed grade II) with almost all its original timber framing and wind-braced roof complete. Listed building consent and planning permission were granted for conversion into a single dwelling. Extensive negotiations had already ensured that the applicants would not subdivide or lose the internal volume. The thatch was to be retained as an essential part of the building's character. As the building was within 12 m of the site boundary the requirements under Approved Document B4(2) concerned with external spread of fire could not be met. The Building Regulations Application was therefore refused. The planning authority had been mindful of Paragraph 108 of Circular 8/87 that Building Regulations and Approved Documents now enabled a more sympathetic and flexible approach co be adopted for historic buildings. The building inspectors therefore reduced their requirement to 6 m but as the west elevation of the building formed a site boundary with adjoining land and other buildings were within the 6 m zone a dispensation under the Regulations was refused. The Planning Department followed the advice in Appendix IV of 8/87 that "thatched roofs should be preserved as far as possible as they are important survivals of a craft and a very early vernacular type" and "relaxation of the Building Regulations may sometimes be possible for thatched buildings". They were not willing to see the thatch replaced by pantiles in this instance. An application was then made cochange the roof materials co pantiles. Listed building consent was refused. The Planning Authority argued that the importance of the thatch to the character of the listed building was such chat consent should not be granted before the Building Regulations appeal procedure had been exhausted. The appeal for a dispensation under Section 39 of the Building Act 1984 was referred co the DoE as the conservation and building regulations requirements were in direct conflict. In his decision letter the Secretary of CONTEXT 29 State determined that the "aesthetic arguments" (NOTE this was not expressed as the architectural and historic interest) did not justify dispensing with the Building Regulations requirements in this case. Further, it commenced chat if the appeal was refused the local planning authority would give listed building consent for replacement of the thatch with some other acceptable material. The local authority committee report had made it clear, however, that if the DoE dismissed an appeal under the Regulations, then the planning authority might need to reconsider its decision refusing the consent to remove the thatch, not quite the same thing. The comment about what the planning authority might allow was disclosed to the DoE by the Building Inspector and was a matter about which he had no jurisdiction co comment! The planning authority in question has since commented chat this problem stemmed from the Building Regulations requirement not having been picked up before consent for the conversion was granted. Both sides are now aware of the issue and it is always raised in any application which relates to thatched roofed buildings. Bob Kindred SECTION 54 NOTICES AND NON-LISTED BUILDINGS I am interested co know if anyone has experience of using repairs notices (s 54, formerly s 101) with regard co unoccupied non-listed buildings in conservation areas. I am particularly interested co find out if anyone has had any success in requesting the Secretary of State to serve such a notice. I have a number of cases involving buildings which have, over time, fallen into disuse, or are suffering deliberate neglect. They range from residential co agricultural buildings. All the usual methods of persuasion, insults and threats are ineffective, and I am forced co take recourse to legal action. I would like co hear from anyone who has attempted this procedure, whether successful or not. Please contact Joanna Smith on 0483 444665 at Guildford Borough Council. ACO STUDY OF REPAIRS NOTICES During November, questionnaires were circulated to all 404 English Local Planning Authorities to try to determine the extent to which repairs notices (leading co the compulsory purchase of listed buildings) have been used in the six years up to 31 March 1990. The survey has been supported by Ispwich Borough Council and the Buildings at Risk Section of English Heritage. Replies were requested by 21 December and by that date 230 (57%) had been received. For administrative reasons, it was not possible to target questionnaires to ACO members in every instance. Some requests for information went straight to Chief Planning Officers. I would like to express my thanks to all those authorities which took the trouble to respond (including those who made a nil return) and especially to those which took the trouble to forward copies of schedules of repairs, notices and other information. These will be very valuable in the months co come. I hope chat by the time this article appears many of the remaining authorities which did not reply will also have done so. It should now be possible co put forward suggested procedures and standard notices, and a checklist with some standard draft conditions, as had been the original intention. I also hope co draw conclusions from the many comments and advice offered by those who have faced this difficult process. A fuller analysis will appear in the September issue of Context, but the following initial conclusions can be put forward. First, it was something of a surprise co find that nearly one third of all respondents (73) had authorised the necessary action. This would equate co nearly 18%of all English local planning authorities. Only three had authorised more than seven notices over six years: Boston and Norwich with 13 each and East Cambridgeshire with 10. An East Anglian phenomenon? Fifteen authorities had authorised two notices and a further 42 authorities had authorised one each. Secondly, of the 163 notices authorised, 96 (about 60%) went on co be served. Of the 42 authorities which had only used the legislation once, 30 went on co serve the notice, suggesting that once they had 35
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=