M'LearnedFriend Planning and the Historic Environment- Notification and Directions by the Secretary of State: Charles Mynors FRTPI ARICS MIHBC Barrister explores the new Joint Circular with the above titlefrom the DETR and the DCMS. Observant readers of this journal may have noticed a certain anxiety abroad, following the decision of the House of Lords last year in the case of Shimizu v Westminster CC (1997] JPL 523 (see my piece in Context 54). The Government too was not entirely happy with it, and has therefore produced a new Circular (DETR Circ 14/97, DCMS Circ 1/97) which aims to sort it all out. So that's all right, then ... Well, no, actually; or at least, not entirely. The new Circular does, broadly, restore the position with regard to the processing of applications for listed building consent to what it was thought to have been prior to Sbimizu. But it does not resolve the small difficulty regarding the control over the "demolition" of minor features in conservation areas - namely, that there isn't any. Notification of planning applications affecting listed buildings First, then, planning applications. Works to a listed building itself .will almost always require listed building consent (LBC) as well as planning permission, and so planning applications for such works are not generally required to be notified to anyone (although LBC applications are: see below). Works which do not affect the building itself, but which do affect its setting - contra1y to much popular misunderstanding - do not need LBC, just planning permission (see Cotswold DC v Secretary of State (1985] JPL 407); but they may be just as significant. It is thus important that planning applications in such cases are subject to proper scrutiny In addition to publicity, however, planning applications are to be notified to English Heritage in most cases, where they relate to works in the following categories: (a) all development affecting the setting of a Grade I or II* building; (b) all development within the curtilage of a Grade II building in London and affecting its setting; and (c) other development affecting the setting of a Gracie II building in London if it involves: (i) the provision of more than 1,000 m2 of gross floor space, or (ii) the construction of a building more than 20 m in height. This is the result of the direction at para 8 of the new Circ 14/97, which replaces the former direction at para Circular 14/97 also updates the directions hitherto in DoE Circ 8/87; that Circular is accordingly now cancelled in its entirety, and can (at last) safely be consigned to the bin -except by those who feel that, although now redundant and probably in need of repair, it is nevertheless part of the familiar and cherished local scene and should be conserved accordingly. ((Thenew Circular does) broadly) The new Circular took effect on 1 October 1997. For eager readers who cannot wait for it to be reprinted in the Encyclopedia, it can be purchased from the Stationery Office at £6.75. It extends (as with all Circulars these days) only to England; but guidance for Wales is expected before the encl of 1997, which is likely to be similar (subject, obviously, to differences to reflect the different constitutional status of Caclw and English Heritage). The bulk of the Circular, and of this article, deals with application procedures. Before going into too much detail, I would merely make two comments. First, the new procedures are all clearly summarised in Appendix A to the new Circular. Secondly, it may all sound complicated, but the new arrangements are in fact either the same as_the old or simpler. Good luck! Context 56 December 1997 restore the position with regard to the processing of applications for listed building consent to what it was thought to have been prior to Shimizu. )) It is therefore not surprising that local planning authorities are under a duty to publicise (on site and in the press) all planning applications for works which would affect the setting of a listed building (P(LBCA)A 1990, s 67(1)). As to-how far this extends, para 2.7 of PPG 15 suggests that "this provision should not be interpreted too narrowly ... if there is doubt about the precise extent of a building's setting, it is better to publish a notice". And it should be noted that setting is not the same as curtilage. See in particular Revival Properties v SSE (1996] JPL B86 (noted in Context 52, p 37). 29(a) of Circ 8/87. The new direction is slightly different in respect of buildings in Greater London (the old one required all applications for works affecting the setting of a Grade II building to be notified), but is unchanged in relation to works elsewhere. There is no specification in the new Circular as to the period which must elapse before it can be assumed that English Heritage has no comment to make - it merely refers (at para 13) to "the relevant period of notice". The previous Circular (at para 30) suggested that if nothing was heard in 28 41
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=