listed building consent

[shobo]

Hi
A bit of a moan about the planning process.
So, I submitted information to get LBC for an oil tank (probably not proceeding with it actually- another story).
Why LBC and not a traditional planning application ? Because if my house wasn't listed, it would not need pp for an oil tank - it would be permitted development. It is the fact that I want to put an oil tank within the curtilage of a LISTED building that I need to make an application. So logically and morally, LBC is the way to go. But its been rejected on the basis that it should have been a planning application not a LBC. Or - is it because LBC is free and planning requires a fee of £206 ! If this wasn't a moderate forum there would be some choice words going in here !

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Did you phone the council before putting your application together and ask which sort of application you needed to make?

But no, it's not because a planning application carries a fee and LBC is free.

 

[Flyfisher]

If the oil tank is permitted development then PP is surely not required?

But because the house is listed then LBC is required and the CO must surely be involved?

Also, why should the council refuse to accept an LBC application? Surely they should just grant or deny, not refuse to even consider it.

Besides, if/when PP is granted, won't Shobo STILL need LBC anyway because the house is listed?

 

[88v8]

We, or rather our architect, made an LBC application for our detached garage. The CO decided that as it was detached and some distance from the cottage, they were content that it be transferred to Planning. I like to think that they were also influenced by the fact that I made it jolly pictureskew.

Perhaps this transfer process is routine for works in the curtilage.

No idea about fees, they were lost in the architect's huge bill

Ivor

 

[Flyfisher]

We, or rather our architect, made an LBC application for our detached garage. The CO decided that as it was detached and some distance from the cottage, they were content that it be transferred to Planning. I like to think that they were also influenced by the fact that I made it jolly pictureskew.

Perhaps this transfer process is routine for works in the curtilage.

Surely this ‘development’ should require LBC (because it’s within a listed building cartilage) AND planning consent because it was non-permitted development? What might happen when he house is sold, the CO has changed and has a different view and the buyer’s solicitor is particularly picky about the paperwork? No doubt another sale for indemnity insurance just because the council didn’t follow the rules.

 

[Bogart]

You state the application has a fee of £206. I assume this fee is related, as it usually is, to the perceived cost of the works. I would have thought the install of a new tank fell under LBC not Lpp.
When you pay put in a figure that puts you in the lowest band. Who is to say what it will in fact cost. You could go as far as buying the tabnk yourself then all you need to do is quote them the instal figure.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Just to be clear -

The is a distinction betwen works to a listed building (which require LBC), and works within the curtilage of a listed building (but not to the building itself) which would be Permitted Development in many other cases but which are not PD because they are within the curtilage of the listed building. These require Planning Permission, not LBC.

It used to be the case that such planning applications (and those brought about because of the use of an Article 4 Direction, in a Conservation Area) did not attract a fee, in my view rightly so, but the government, being the government, decided there was a "revenue stream" going untapped.

Planning application fees are not based on the perceived cost of the works. They vary considerably, but "householder applications", which this is, are £206.

 

[Flyfisher]

So normally permitted works to a listed building requires LBC not PP, but normally permitted works within the curtilage of a listed building requires PP not LBC, even though the listing is the very reason for protecting the curtilage in the first place?

Seems very confusing/inconsistent.

 

[shobo]

Yeh I can confirm, and Gareth was correct, apparently "it has to go through planning, and not LBC, because the oil tank whilst within the curtilage of the building is not attached to the building". Its an arbitrary ruse to increase the numbers of applications that are deemed planning instead of LBC and therefore they can charge.
Not gonna do it now, that'll show 'em.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Yeh I can confirm, and Gareth was correct, apparently "it has to go through planning, and not LBC, because the oil tank whilst within the curtilage of the building is not attached to the building". Its an arbitrary ruse to increase the numbers of applications that are deemed planning instead of LBC and therefore they can charge.
Not gonna do it now, that'll show 'em.

It is not an arbitrary ruse, it's the rule that everyone else is expected to follow, and that you should be following too.
You haven't answered my original question - did you phone them before applying to check what was needed?
Having publicly announced you don't intend to "do it", do i assume you mean the work? or do you mean not going to make the application, in which case you may be getting into very hot water indeed.

 

[Flyfisher]

It may be the rule but why make things so confusing?

Surely it would be more consistent and intuitive if all planning matters related to a listed property went through the LBC process?

Whether it's a ruse to increase fee revenues or not, it will certainly skew the planning statistics and, who knows, could be used by a council to justify not requiring a full-time CO. Perhaps this sort of thing is a contributory reason why so many posters on here find it difficult to access their CO?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

It may be the rule but why make things so confusing?

Surely it would be more consistent and intuitive if all planning matters related to a listed property went through the LBC process?

Whether it's a ruse to increase fee revenues or not, it will certainly skew the planning statistics and, who knows, could be used by a council to justify not requiring a full-time CO. Perhaps this sort of thing is a contributory reason why so many posters on here find it difficult to access their CO?

Admittedly I deal with this every day, but I don't think it is confusing. And as LBC doesn't attract a fee but planning permission (for whatever historic reasons) does, it wouldn't be consistent either.

 

[Flyfisher]

It may not be confusing if you happen to know the detailed rules but I'd wager that most lay people have a basic understanding that PP is required for most building work. The more enlightened layman might even know that some works do not require PP because they are automatically 'permitted'.

Similarly, most owners of listed properties understand that listing adds another layer of planning bureaucracy that is administered through the LBC process. The more enlightened owner might even know that such listing extends to the curtilage of their house. Given that, what would be the logical conclusion about the consent process required for works within their curtilage? PP or LBC? I'd wager most people would plump for LBC, as did Shobo, because the consent process is determined by the listing status of the property in the first place - ie Shobo's oil tank only requires permission because the house is listed and listing implies LBC. There's even a clue in the name. :wink:

I'm not having a go at you Gareth as it's not your fault (I hope :wink: ), just trying to explain how planning bureaucracy can be viewed by us mere temporary owners rather than those blessed with professional knowledge and experience.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

But being in the curtilage of a listed building is only one of several reasons why an oil tank might need planning permission...
https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/24/fuel_tanks

 

[Flyfisher]

Fair enough.
But if the house is listed and it's the listing that's the reason for needing permission then it would be more logical to handle such applications through the LBC process.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Fair enough.
But if the house is listed and it's the listing that's the reason for needing permission then it would be more logical to handle such applications through the LBC process.

That would, unfortunately, require a change to the primary legislation, parliamentary time and the usual speedy process of lawmaking.

 

[Flyfisher]

Quite!
I'm not suggesting things should be changed now and am certainly not living under any delusion that it will be changed any time soon - if ever. I'm just bemoaning the fact that professional experts and legislators can concoct such a confusing and unintuitive system in the first place.

C'est la vie (if we're still allowed to use such phrases in the forthcoming post-Brexit world :roll: ).

 

[MatthewC]

...I'm just bemoaning the fact that professional experts and legislators can concoct such a confusing and unintuitive system in the first place.

You were also suggesting that government and logic should have something in common:

But if the house is listed and it's the listing that's the reason for needing permission then it would be more logical to handle such applications through the LBC process.

It's most unlikely that will ever change, Brexit or no, period. 8) :evil:

 

[Flyfisher]

You’re right of course - what on Earth was I thinking?

NURSE . . . .