Article 4 (2) Direction & painting house exterior.....

[mims&pip]

I intend to contact the council about this but just wondered whether anyone had any ideas -

The house we have just purchased is not listed but is in a Conservation Area. Our house and a handful of others in the lane are of 'townscape merit' and as such have had an Article 4 (2) Direction placed on them. I understand this means that permitted development rights have been removed and planning permission has to be sought for any changes we might want to make. We don't intend to change anything really, but anyone that has viewed the pics in my other thread will have seen that currently the external paintwork on said house is a delightful shade of primrose yellow :shock: (We have a matching cloakroom suite too :lol: )

Anyway, we will obviously want to change the paintwork in time to something more period appropriate and I realise we will need to seek PP for works to the street elevation - which in our specific case is the rear of the house, the front actually faces onto the garden.....at the back, lol!

Does anyone know if we also need to seek PP to repaint the garden frontage, which btw cannot be seen at all from the lane/passers by?

Thanks in advance,

Mims x

 

[MatthewC]

"Never ask a question to which you might get an answer that you don't want!"

In my experience, if what you are doing is not visible from the road or any other public place, then I would do it without asking, especially if you are actually reinstating the sort of thing that used to be there. It is quite possible that the horrible colour might be quite recent (even since the Article 4(2) direction) and yet they might still decide that you should not repaint. Such illogical decisions can be baffling and could have been avoided by just doing it without asking!

It is of course also possible that you could argue that "townscape merit" does not, and cannot, include what can't be seen, which would seem quite logical, but see above!

Disclaimer: I am not legally qualified...

 

[mims&pip]

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for your response I must admit I was thinking along those lines myself, especially regarding what actually qualifies as *townscape merit*.

The majority of our windows and doors (two bays, fourteen windows, five doors and a set of French doors) are not visible from the lane and tbh it is these that concern us most, colour-wise. The three tiny windows (a wc and two landings) that are situated on the *front* (lane) elevation are of far less consequence and if they did have to remain that rather fetching shade of primrose, then so be it :roll:

I'm going to do some digging - when I get the opportunity - to establish when the offending colour was applied. A builder neighbour admitted to Pip that he did the work.....if I had been there I would have enquired 'when?' Typically we haven't bumped into him since.....

Anyway, we've plenty more things to be getting on with till the weather is good enough for painting outdoors!

Thanks again for your thoughts,

Mims x

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The Article 4(2) Direction should specify precisely which of the many items of Permitted Development it has restricted. In my experience it would be unheard of for the painting of exterior joinery to be covered.

 

[mims&pip]

The Article 4(2) Direction should specify precisely which of the many items of Permitted Development it has restricted. In my experience it would be unheard of for the painting of exterior joinery to be covered.

Thank you Gareth - I was hoping you might drop by with your extensive knowledge on such matters :wink:

Regarding the wording of the Article 4(2), all I have had sight of so far is an online document relating to our Conservation Area that specifically mentions which properties are of townscape merit and covered by said Article. It is rather vague when it comes to the *nitty gritty*, so I guess we will have to contact the council to establish exactly what it covers.....but it is very interesting to hear that in your experience, it is unheard of that it would cover painting external joinery!

Mims

Edited to add - I've had a further perusal of the online document and I believe it does not cover the painting of external joinery as you rightly suggested, Gareth

The document reads - "The incremental loss of original building materials, boundary walks and architectural detailing and the replacement of painted timber windows and doors with UPVC and treated timber alternatives has been noted as a 'negative' in the ***** Conservation Area......"

So from this I understand it to imply that as long as we are *repainting* the existing joinery, that is ok.....phew!

 

[parkview094]

Careful here - it depends very much on the local authority.

Havering have just consolidated their various Article 4/2 interpretations at the end of 2014 here:

http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/do...New Article 4 Direction and Apendices 123.pdf

Included is *any* painting to the exterior front and sides (whether visible or not). Note this also applies to repainting in the SAME colour, although I previously had it on informal authority from the council that they would likely never prevent like-for-like painting. One of the neighbours had a replacement window application rejected on the basis they were proposing to replace white timber with black..

 

[mims&pip]

Careful here - it depends very much on the local authority.

Havering have just consolidated their various Article 4/2 interpretations at the end of 2014 here:

http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/do...New Article 4 Direction and Apendices 123.pdf

Included is *any* painting to the exterior front and sides (whether visible or not). Note this also applies to repainting in the SAME colour, although I previously had it on informal authority from the council that they would likely never prevent like-for-like painting. One of the neighbours had a replacement window application rejected on the basis they were proposing to replace white timber with black..

Thanks for the heads-up Parkview......I know that's for a different local authority (we just moved from Wilts to W.Mids), but even so I need to do a bit more digging methinks, before launching into this project :!:

 

[malcolm]

At the bottom of the linked PDF it clarifies that specific Article 4 would require planning permission for painting "the whole exterior". Some git painted all of our brickwork in waterproof magnolia so I can see the case for protecting against that sort of thing. If re-painting woodwork required planning permission many people might just leave it to rot which would is far from the intention of the Article 4.

If you want to repaint the windows in a tasteful colour I wouldn't imagine anyone would complain. I certainly can't imagine a planning department wishing to increase it's workload by requiring planning applications every time someone wanted to repaint their windows.

 

[garnett]

The repainting in the same colour is rather and interesting one. I can understand instances where PD is removed to protect group value. But surely as with LBs, precise like for like repainting would be repair and would not be development?

Most A4.2 directions were about protecting from partial demolition and also PVCu windows. Local authorities run a mile from them now as there is no fee for an application triggered by the removal of PD.

I am aware of a case recently were LBC was required for a like for like replacement of a slate roof. This triggered a habitat survey and bat mitigation works costing almost as much as the roof.

Any other COs have a view on this?

Garnett

 

[mims&pip]

Thank you for your continuing thoughts on this guys, they are much appreciated

I confess I haven't got any further with contacting our local council regarding this issue, as we have been too busy making the most of the (reasonably) good weather by clearing areas of the (somewhat overgrown) garden, then replanting with many of the plants that accompanied us from our previous house.....of which there were legion :shock:

Tbh, we have too long a list of more pressing priorities for this year than painting externally (new kitchen, three cloakrooms, not to mention removing acres of woodchip before redecoration.....as well as restoring the garden to the condition it was in for the original EA pics :roll: ), so I have a feeling this will go on the back burner till next year.....or the next....or the next :lol:

Mims x

 

[formerly known as]

I would suggest that if the LPA has not specifically itemised repainting (of already painted fabric) then this is not subject to restriction. For the avoidance of doubt, you might want to email the LPA to seek confirmation of this.

 

[formerly known as]

The repainting in the same colour is rather and interesting one. I can understand instances where PD is removed to protect group value. But surely as with LBs, precise like for like repainting would be repair and would not be development?

Most A4.2 directions were about protecting from partial demolition and also PVCu windows. Local authorities run a mile from them now as there is no fee for an application triggered by the removal of PD.

I am aware of a case recently were LBC was required for a like for like replacement of a slate roof. This triggered a habitat survey and bat mitigation works costing almost as much as the roof.

Any other COs have a view on this?

Garnett

Surely you mean Building Regulations as opposed to LBC?

 

[MatthewC]

I certainly can't imagine a planning department wishing to increase it's workload by requiring planning applications every time someone wanted to repaint their windows.

I wouldn't put it past my local council who insisted on knowing the EXACT make/specification of our new woodburner and actually spoke to the manufacturer of my new single piece double sash window to enquire why the centre architrave was "so wide" (er, to accommodate three thicknesses of wood and two lead weights!).