The building in questions is protected with the wording simply saying "The whole of the exterior (excluding the recent west wing) together with the roadside railings as shown on the plan below". I am interested in opinions on whether the word 'exterior' would include the roof frame. The structure is not expose visually or to the weather as it is underneath the slates, felt and battens and therefore in the ordinary sense of the word the structure is not an 'exterior' surface. It has also been suggested that the the roof forms part of the exterior envelope of the building and on that basis forms part of the exterior. Any opinions on which is right or wrong?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
definition of exterior - Protected Building
- Thread starter Alex F
- Start date
Roger H
Member
- Messages
- 338
- Location
- Northumberland
When you say ‘protected’ how do you mean? Is the building statutorily listed (grade II etc..?), in a Conservation Area or has it an Article 4 Direction placed on it withdrawing certain permitted development rights? If it is statutorily listed, the listing covers the entirety of the building, both internally and externally, and also extends to its curtilage and potentially structures therein.
If it has an Article 4 on it, this is usually restricted to publically visible points e.g. from a road.
If it has an Article 4 on it, this is usually restricted to publically visible points e.g. from a road.
It's located in the Channel Islands so the process and categories for Listing are not the same. I believe it is equivalent to grade II listed but the listing is specially those characteristic and parameter mentioned and not the whole property as it would simply be in the UK mainland. The principles in terms of planning definitions and legal principles are the same.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Well, for what it's worth, in the ordinary sense of 'exterior' I'd say it meant anything that was visible because everything you can't see must inside of the 'exterior'.
I've seen plenty of building sites in London where the 'exterior' of a building has been supported and protected while everything else on the site is demolished and rebuilt, leaving the 'exterior' looking the same as it always did, so perhaps that would constitute 'exterior' protection, but of course it does nothing to protect anything inside.
I say 'for what it's worth' though, because there will undoubtedly be a legal definition of 'exterior' in the context of such a protection order, and I simply don't know what it is. If I wanted a definitive answer then I'd talk to whoever is responsible for the protection order.
I've seen plenty of building sites in London where the 'exterior' of a building has been supported and protected while everything else on the site is demolished and rebuilt, leaving the 'exterior' looking the same as it always did, so perhaps that would constitute 'exterior' protection, but of course it does nothing to protect anything inside.
I say 'for what it's worth' though, because there will undoubtedly be a legal definition of 'exterior' in the context of such a protection order, and I simply don't know what it is. If I wanted a definitive answer then I'd talk to whoever is responsible for the protection order.
There does not appear to be a legal definition of 'exterior' in a planning context.
Then department responsible for the protection order (i.e. the planning department), or rather the individual (as that is what these things come down to in practice) is taking the view that exterior includes external envelope as mentioned. I think they are moving the goal posts to suit themselves and deciding on a rather wide and creative definition. This is point capable of being contested and hence my question.
Then department responsible for the protection order (i.e. the planning department), or rather the individual (as that is what these things come down to in practice) is taking the view that exterior includes external envelope as mentioned. I think they are moving the goal posts to suit themselves and deciding on a rather wide and creative definition. This is point capable of being contested and hence my question.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I think that's probably your answer then - the people responsible are defining how to interpret the rules. Not an entirely unknown situation when each case can be very different and the rules are not crystal clear in the first place.
Most planning matters have an appeal system, though my bet that you'd need a very strong case to get a higher authority to overturn such a decision, especially if it's not wholly unreasonable under the circumstances - i.e. they are charged with protecting the integrity of the building.
If you are convinced that your definition is correct and it would mean that you don't need planning consent to do whatever you want to do, then I suppose you could go ahead with it anyway and let them bring any subsequent fight to your corner. That would at least force a legal decision and thus set a precedent that might help others in the future, though I don't think I'd want to blaze that particular trail myself - local authorities usually have deep pockets and full-time legal advisors! When you're outgunned, a lonely charge towards the massed ranks of the enemy may not be the best approach - even if you feel your cause is just. :wink:
What is it that you're trying to do anyway (if you don't mind me asking)?
Most planning matters have an appeal system, though my bet that you'd need a very strong case to get a higher authority to overturn such a decision, especially if it's not wholly unreasonable under the circumstances - i.e. they are charged with protecting the integrity of the building.
If you are convinced that your definition is correct and it would mean that you don't need planning consent to do whatever you want to do, then I suppose you could go ahead with it anyway and let them bring any subsequent fight to your corner. That would at least force a legal decision and thus set a precedent that might help others in the future, though I don't think I'd want to blaze that particular trail myself - local authorities usually have deep pockets and full-time legal advisors! When you're outgunned, a lonely charge towards the massed ranks of the enemy may not be the best approach - even if you feel your cause is just. :wink:
What is it that you're trying to do anyway (if you don't mind me asking)?
Just trying to go about our business of repairing the roof and maintain the building without interference of an exceptionally and notoriously difficult conservation officer. It's a matter of principle that applicants should not be bullied and coerced in to the procedures, red tape and horrendous delays that will result, from unreasonable interpretation of what is really some very simple wording and parameters.
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
If you removed it would the exterior still be there?
If yes, ok
If no, sorry.
If yes, ok
If no, sorry.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,168
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
If the work is really just repairs, then do you need consent anyway? In which case their definition doesn't really matter does it? Just do the repairs, ensuring the exterior remains the same. It would then be up to the CO to argue why the work was more than simple repairs.
Just beware that the line between alterations and repairs can sometimes be quite fine.
Not a nice situation to be in though and I can appreciate your frustration if the work is truly just repair/maintenance.
Just beware that the line between alterations and repairs can sometimes be quite fine.
Not a nice situation to be in though and I can appreciate your frustration if the work is truly just repair/maintenance.
MatthewC
Member
- Messages
- 1,733
- Location
- Central/South England
Your first post above says
As others have said - what are you wanting to do? If it's put a room in the loft then the above interpretation would prevent you fitting a rooflight.
I would have interpreted that to mean that the roof covering is protected (i.e. you can't fit cement tiles in place of slate) but not the roof structure which cannot be seen.Alex F said:It has also been suggested that the the roof forms part of the exterior envelope of the building and on that basis forms part of the exterior.
As others have said - what are you wanting to do? If it's put a room in the loft then the above interpretation would prevent you fitting a rooflight.
Hi
As you realise, the two states have their own planning law. Interestingly they are part of the Southwest Region of the RTPI so I have visited. I know that they had a policy of façade retention which allowed redevelopment behind. It is way out of line with most conservation thinking across Europe, but the Chanel Islands are outside of the EU!
I think that this is so specialist that only a local architect or planning officer can advise you on this. The definitions that you are looking for are likely to be in EU country laws.
I know enough about this to know that this is not a question that 99.9% of people on here can answer!
Thanks
Garnett
As you realise, the two states have their own planning law. Interestingly they are part of the Southwest Region of the RTPI so I have visited. I know that they had a policy of façade retention which allowed redevelopment behind. It is way out of line with most conservation thinking across Europe, but the Chanel Islands are outside of the EU!
I think that this is so specialist that only a local architect or planning officer can advise you on this. The definitions that you are looking for are likely to be in EU country laws.
I know enough about this to know that this is not a question that 99.9% of people on here can answer!
Thanks
Garnett