Demolition of Unlisted Buildings in Conservation Area

[Roger H]

Hi all.

A technical question - I'm trying to formulate an argument to resist the demolition of some unlisted buildings in a conservation area. The owner has applied for conservation area consent for demolition but is very vague about what will replace them - apparently demolition is 'required' to enable 'redevelopment of the rest of the site' (this is cobblers - the buildings could easily be retained).

Digging through PPS5 (Planning Policy Statement 5) I can't see anything that states explicitly that an applicant for demolition needs to have a realistic plan of what will replace demolitions? Is this a requirement or can they make an application on a vague assertion that the site will be developed at some future time to some unspecified form?

Ta for your help,

Roger

 

[Penners]

I can't answer your question, Roger, but I'm bumping you up to the top in the hope that one of our experts will spot your thread.

 

[Pford75]

Roger - I too am no expert on planning law, but I would have thought that irrespective of the demolition, any new construction would be subject to planning at that time and would therefore have to fit into the Conservation Area.

It would seem unlikely (from my lay person view) that the demolition would specify details of the replacement construction, since the replacement may or may not occur, will be at an uncertain date and there is a risk that the planning conditions at that time would conflict with the 'terms' outlined in the demolition. So, I would imagine that the demolition application would be assessed on it's own merits (ie. is the structure an integral part of the conservation area?) and then any reconstruction would be assessed separately under planning policy guidelines

 

[Roger H]

Thanks guys. Well, the problem is that once the demolition is done, you've lost the building so unless there is an approved scheme how can you ensure that what will be proposed will be as good as what has been lost?

The Local Plan policy is quite good from this perspective - "Buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a Conservation Area should be retained Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of buildings in conservation areas will only be permitted subject to the following criteria:
(a) the structure to be demolished does not make a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the area; and
(b) detailed proposals for any replacement buildings have been approved, and
(c) the letting of a contract for approved redevelopment of the site has been secured."

The problem is identifying support for this policy, especially 'b', from the PPS. In this instance there is definitely no detailed proposals for replacement, but that hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of the demolisher! One for Gareth I expect...

 

[Lime]

I'm no expert either but neither are those who sit on our planning committees etc.
They will be swayed by good argument and good photos where they show the buildings "make a significant contribution to the character or appearance of the area".
I think speaking to your local councillors regularly and in a friendly manner would help too, assuming you haven't done that already.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

This seems to be something that has been lost between good old PPG15 and the new PPS5. There was a general presumption that demolition in a conservation area would not be permitted unless the replacement had been designed and approved. If it has slipped out of the PPS that's something I've missed so far (although a lot of the old guidance from PPG15 is supposed to be reappearing in a series of "Practice Notes" from English Heretics).

Local plan policies will gerally, at the moment, reflect the old PPG, but they remain valid policies which development (and demolition) proposals are supposed to conform with.

 

[Roger H]

Thanks Gareth - Couldn't see a lot of clear reference to the issue in the EH guidance notes either, but at least the local plan policy is strong in this area.

It is a problem that the PPS omits it though, especially in areas where the developer is unlikely to offer something of quality, and where councillors are likely to be pleased with any rubbish.