Source: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/control-of-demolition.html
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 07:07:23
Document Index: 563328708

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 31', 'art 31', 'art 31', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 11']

Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Control of demolition
Posted by Martin H Goodall LARTPI at 15:42
Anonymous 3 October 2014 at 23:43
Paragraph 31 of Circular 01/2001 (which I believe is still in force) contains a direction by the SoS under section 75 that takes certain descriptions of buildings out of section 74, includung "any gate, wall, fence or means of enclosure which is less than one metre high where
abutting on a highway (including a public footpath or bridleway), waterway or open
space, or less than two metres high in any other case"
p.s: A truly fantastic blog. Thank you.
Evan Owen - Snowdonia 4 October 2014 at 10:10
Anonymous 4 October 2014 at 10:10
Blimey! valiant effort Martin (as ever), and hope you are now recovered and rested with a cup of very strong tea! 'fraid I'm going to need to read your piece a few more times and very probably also repeat the laying down in a dark room followed by the drinking of strong tea! ... I don't suppose all that can be translated into a 'simple' Q&A on particular operations/works within a conservation area not affecting a listed building?
Anonymous 8 October 2014 at 07:59
We recently had this ground c appeal dismissed, with regards to a pier and section of wall (the pier was over 1m, the wall was not). The inspector said...
"An appeal on this ground is based on the claim that there has not been a breach of planning control.
3. The demolition of a wall is development because of the Town and Country Planning (Demolition – Description of Buildings) Direction 2014. Under Article
3(1), the demolition of “…(b) the whole or any part of any gate, fence or wall or other means of enclosure” does not involve development, but this does not
apply by virtue of Article 3(2) to “the whole or any part of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure in a conservation area”.
4. Although the demolition of a wall or any part of a wall is permitted development under Part 31, Class B, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO), it is not permitted by virtue of paragraph B.1 where the demolition is “relevant demolition” for the purposes of section 196D of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 as amended. “Relevant demolition” means the demolition of a building that (a) is situated in a conservation area in England; and is not a building to which section 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (PLBCA) does not apply by virtue of section 75 of that Act.
5. Thus, the demolition in whole or in part of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure in a conservation area constitutes development for which planning
permission is required. In this case, planning permission is not granted by the GPDO and it has not been expressly granted by the local planning authority either. Consequently there has been a breach of planning control and so the ground (c) appeal cannot succeed."
Anonymous 10 October 2014 at 09:21
Hello Martin. Thanks for trying to untangle that. Does paragraph 9 of article 3 of the 1995 GPDO have any bearing on partial demolition/alteration? (assuming it's still current)
Martin H Goodall LARTPI 10 October 2014 at 18:03
As I read it, Article 3(9) is intended to make it clear that demolition of a building (as opposed to ‘alteration’ – see Shimizu) can only be authorised by Part 31, the terms of which must be complied with in order for it to be Permitted Development. If the whole of building has to demolished in order to be able to carry out development that is permitted by some other part of the Second Schedule, that demolition cannot be carried out in reliance on the permission for development granted by that other part of the Schedule; it may be carried out only in compliance with the terms of Part 31.
The proviso that in paragraph (9) “building” does not include part of a building would appear to conform to the position that was confirmed by Shimizu, namely that demolition of part of a building does not amount to demolition, but is simply an alteration of the building. Thus such partial demolition can be carried out in reliance on a part in the Second Schedule that permits other development, if it is a necessary part of the development which is permitted by that part (e.g. the alteration of a fence, gate wall or other means of enclosure under Part 2).
I've recently had a s.192 application to remove a chimney from a building in a conservation area refused by the LPA despite having set out the position in Shimizu. The LPA refused on the basis that it was either "structural alterations" or "other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on the business as a builder". The LPA doesn't appear to have considered s.55(2)(a)(ii) - whether it would materially affect the external appearance of the building. In my view removal of chimneys from a large three storey building (in office use) would not materially affect the external appearance of the building. It is obviously a question of fact and degree, but it would be interesting to hear the views of others on this point. There are many properties in the conservation area where the chimneys have been removed without the owners even telling the LPA so this decision was somewhat galling!
Martin H Goodall LARTPI 13 October 2014 at 14:23
The pressures on my time recently have prevented my dealing with the anonymous query of 08/10/14. Without knowing the full facts, I cannot usefully comment on this appeal decision, but I do wonder whether the Inspector may have got it wrong in this case. The problem is that the only way to go behind this appeal decision would be by appealing to the High Court.
This was an enforcement notice appeal, in which case there would be only 28 days within which to apply to the Court for leave to appeal. In any event, it would be disproportionately expensive to go to the High Court over what appears to be a comparatively small matter.
Martin H Goodall LARTPI 14 October 2014 at 10:51
Turning to the latest query (13/10/14), I am afraid I don’t agree with my anonymous correspondent’s interpretation of section 55(2)(a), unless in practice the chimney is not visible from normal viewpoints (see Burroughs Day). I would have said that the removal of a chimney does affect the external appearance of a building, so it is development.
However, it strikes me that this alteration would probably be permitted development under Part 1, Class A of the Second Schedule to the GPDO. This would need to be carefully checked out (e.g. for any conditions precluding PD, any Article 4 direction, etc.), but in principle it should be lawful, and I don’t think the LPA’s refusal of an LDC application would affect the position. You could, however, appeal the refusal of the LDC application under section 195, if you want to be sure about this. It would seem to stand a good chance of succeeding, although you need to drop the argument about section 55(2)(a) and concentrate on the GPDO.
[N.B. As per the disclaimer in the Introduction to this website, the above comments do NOT constitute legal advice, and must not be relied upon without taking specific legal advice before proceeding further.]
As the prior approval procedure requires the applicant to provide a date for demolition, if they do not comply with their stated date, do they need to reapply? Otherwise, what is the purpose of making the date of demolition a requirement of the application?
Martin H Goodall LARTPI 24 December 2018 at 12:53
The provisions of Part 11 are slightly anomalous. The site notice (but, apparently, not the prior approval application itself) must state the date on which the applicant proposes to carry out the demolition, but it does not appear that the developer is bound by this date in any way.
There is a generous time limit for carrying out the demolition. Paragraph B.2(ix) simply requires that the demolition must be carried out within a period of 5 years from the prior approval date.
The only stipulation as to the actual timing of the demolition is in paragraph B.2(vii) which prohibits the commencement of demolition before the prior approval date (which, in default of waiver or approval by the LPA within 28 days, is not less than 28 days from the date of the prior approval application).
I do not see that any requirement arises to re-apply under Part 11 if the demolition is carried out at any time within the period of 5 years after the prior approval date (notwithstanding the stated date in the site notice).
Minor amendments to Part 11 in 2017 do not appear to have affected the position.
Michael Hyde 1 March 2019 at 13:28
Hello Martin, is there any thing that you are aware of that would help to define "method of demolition" in the contect of prior approval? I'm aware of a case where the LPA is of the opinion that this can include the submission of details of an archaeological evaluation and a bat survet report? Personally I think that is stretching the scope of the provisions.
Martin H Goodall LARTPI 4 March 2019 at 15:43
I am not aware of any specific authority on this topic. But it seems to me that one must apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the words “the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site”
The LPA’s powers under Class B of Part 11 are strictly limited. They simply have to decide whether their prior approval will be required “as to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site” and that is all. The demolition must be carried out in accordance with the details approved, where the LPA’s prior approval is required and is granted or (where their prior approval is not required) in accordance with the details submitted with the application.
However, I am not aware that any details can properly be required other than as to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site. Planning permission for demolition is granted by the GPDO itself, and so prior approval (where required and granted) is strictly confined to the method of demolition (plus any proposed restoration of the site). I cannot see any justification for the LPA attempting to impose conditions purporting to require the submission of details of an archaeological evaluation or a bat survey report.
This is not to say that such issues can be entirely ignored, but they are subject to protection by other legislation. They would appear to me to be entirely irrelevant to a prior approval under Class B of Part 11.
[Note that I haven’t had time to see if there is anything in the PPG on this. I would be interested to hear if an LPA has succeeded in making conditions of this sort stick. But I remain extremely sceptical.]