Period Rant - Planning Consents!

[Flyfisher]

So, am I the only person in the country who didn't realise that 'normal' planning permission may also be required for work approved under LBC?

 

[MdB]

So, am I the only person in the country who didn't realise that 'normal' planning permission may also be required for work approved under LBC?

There has to be a story behind that Flyfisher. Come on, spill the beans..

 

[Carol]

So, am I the only person in the country who didn't realise that 'normal' planning permission may also be required for work approved under LBC?

No. I was told by our CO we would need LBC and 'ordinary' pp for our last major project. Luckily we weren't delayed by it, but it was more paperwork I could have done without! And the CO was still the one who needed most pleasing, apart from Highways, BC, Archaeology and the bat man.

 

[tobydog]

If I recall correctly, for our extension in 2010, both were required but they pretty much ran concurrently so didn't cause any additional waiting time.

 

[robgil]

So, am I the only person in the country who didn't realise that 'normal' planning permission may also be required for work approved under LBC?

Nope , I didnt realise that either.

 

[Flyfisher]

There has to be a story behind that Flyfisher. Come on, spill the beans..

We've all heard the PPUK adage about being 'five years into a one year project', well I seem to be one year of planning bureaucracy into a two month build.

Long story short, I'm waiting on the formal sign-off for an LBC application. It has been approved by the CO and EH (finally - but that's another story, soon to be told) so I've been talking to builders (there's only so much DIY I can do) and the subject of planning permission came up because it turns out LBC alone is not sufficient because it includes an extension that isn't covered under permitted development.

I guess I had become complacent after successfully applying for two previous LBC applications, but I'm annoyed that I missed it and also annoyed that the council planning procedures don't automatically merge the two different requirements into a single application process. Why would anyone apply for LBC and not want to apply for 'normal' PP if it was also deemed necessary?

So now I have to make another identical application - albeit using a different form ( :roll: ) - using the already submitted supporting information and drawings. It's the sort of thing that gives bureaucracy a bad name! :evil:

 

[lordmulberry]

Did bureaucracy ever have a good name???

 

[tobydog]

To be fair FF, our architect arranged everything and followed the whole process through with the planners and builders, especially when it came to submitting samples of pantiles and various window designs. They made the process so much simpler and their fees were fair.

 

[Flyfisher]

I realise it's ultimately my responsibility, but I've had an architect prepare (though not submit) all the drawings and have worked closely with the CO over the past year, including numerous site visits and during all that time the issue of possibly requiring PP did not arise. I've also successfully made two previous LBC applications and the possible requirement for PP did not arise. There is also nothing on the LBC forms. It's one of those 'joined up government' things or having a system that serves the people instead of requiring expensive expertise to serve the system. So, yes, ignorance is no defence etc, etc, but I've hardly been wilfully negligent.

Fortunately, I've caught the matter in time and it won't have any significant impact on the project (unless I'm not granted PP ), but I wonder what would have happened if I had gone ahead and finished the work without PP from the local council but with LBC approved by the local council, English Heritage and the Secretary of State. :lol:

 

[88v8]

Mmmm, I didn't know either. I have the LBC forms in my hand as I write, no overt reference to needing PP as well. I had assumed I would apply via the CO, and there would be internal liaison.
This assumption is reinforced by extensive references on the paperwork to matters which are pure Planning - site access, visibiity, landscaping, car parking - and nothing to do with a listed building. Perhaps my Council does work in a joined-up fashion. I shall pay them the compliment of assuming so when I apply... to the CO only...

Ivor

 

[MdB]

I know that in my local council that there is zero communication between building control and planning. Even though they are in the same building... :roll:

 

[Flyfisher]

88v8 makes a good point about the LBC application including all sorts of issues not directly relevant to the heritage aspects but always part of PP applications. Indeed, even the inclusion of public consultation for LBC is a little strange when you think about it, though perfectly understandable for more general PP.

I suspect the confusion arises because although all changes to a listed building require LBC, not all changes require PP.

 

[middi]

I realise it's ultimately my responsibility, but I've had an architect prepare (though not submit) all the drawings and have worked closely with the CO over the past year, including numerous site visits and during all that time the issue of possibly requiring PP did not arise. I've also successfully made two previous LBC applications and the possible requirement for PP did not arise. There is also nothing on the LBC forms. It's one of those 'joined up government' things or having a system that serves the people instead of requiring expensive expertise to serve the system. So, yes, ignorance is no defence etc, etc, but I've hardly been wilfully negligent.

Fortunately, I've caught the matter in time and it won't have any significant impact on the project (unless I'm not granted PP ), but I wonder what would have happened if I had gone ahead and finished the work without PP from the local council but with LBC approved by the local council, English Heritage and the Secretary of State. :lol:

The above truly highlights the " disturbing" truth about the beurocratic and contradicting views of our planning system, no wonder it leads to simple " mistakes" in assuming that LBC by itself should be adequate to take care of all aspects of listed building extensions on private properties.

As highlighted in your last paragraph:-
1)You applied for LBC- it was approved. ( as far as we understand this implies tha consent is granted to extend an axisting listed building and complies with english heritage guidelines. This added structure will, in itself, become part of a listed building structure)
2) You build the structure ( without PP application)
3) the " beuracratic" system says you have not complied with PP

The way I see it ( and as the law stands at present), PP " division" should then apply to EH to have part of a listed building demolished as they ( LBC) gave permission to be erected. If PP division win their case against EH what are you then suppsed to do, sue EH for giving you consent ?

Wouldn't it be much simpler fot LBC ( and EH) division to " tick a box" somewhere on their ( duly filled) original application form to advise PP that modification ( or additions ) to a listed building has been approved. The only " mercky" grounds I can see about simplifying things in this way is the little matter of " comply to building Regs" as PP and structural Regu;ations does not imply the same thing.
Then again, if the application is good enough for EH why should PP stick their nose in it. I would have thought that EH would be more stringent to the fact that an " inappropriate" addition to a listed building would stick out like a sore thumb.
Well, I suppose that, as they say, evry cloud has silver lining. A lot more people are kept in a job.

Middi

 

[MatthewC]

I'm surprised to find myself leaping to the defence of the bureaucracy which caused me a lot of hassle!

My District Council has a set of "Planning Guides" which are all just 2 sides of A4 available on line in pdf; one of these is "Listed Buildings - a Guide for Owners and Occupiers" and it says quite clearly that "The works may also require Planning Permission and Building Regulations Approval or compliance under the Housing Acts" so I was never in doubt of the need. I'm sure their form asks "what are you applying for?" so you say "PP + LBC" and they create two applications from your single one.

I know that in my local council that there is zero communication between building control and planning. Even though they are in the same building... :roll:

Now that IS true here as well, which is why I never got BC for my new roof, although I had to get LBC just because the introduction of a membrane under the slate was a change - and that's the sort of change that should not require specific LBC and thus save them (and me) the time and hassle.

 

[Flyfisher]

Bureaucreacy, by its very nature, is always correct so it's not really a question of defending it. My council has similar information guides and (I've since checked!) also points out that LBC works may also require PP and BC. Fair enough - I missed that and made the wrong assumption that LBC covers everything.

However, I also initially failed to include an adequately detailed site plan in my LBC application and this was caught during the validation stage, again fair enough, so I was able to send the required detail before the application was fully validated and entered into the LBC process. I suppose I am just a bit surprised that the need for PP (in this case) was not also raised during the validation process, at which point it would have been simple to apply for PP concurrently.

So, yes, my fault for falling down the crack but a little frustrating that the crack existed at all.

 

[Pford75]

A further minefield arises when, having agreed the details with your CO, Building Control get involved (courtesy of your PP application) and start insisiting on different specifications....

We've had a situation before where the two parties wanted different things....It became so frustrating that we asked them to speak to each other, decide what a sensible compromise would be and then ask us to do that....we weren't capable of doing both!

AIUI, LBC applications are dealt with by the Planning Committee and documented via the Planning Portal (same as what is used for PP applications)...why does this group not think to ask why there is a solo LBC application or a solo PP application for Listed Buildings?

 

[Lime]

LBC applications are dealt with by the Planning Committee

I don't think they are.
AIUI the Building inspector makes the decisions as he/she interprets the Building Regulations.
I don't think the planning committee has anything to do with LBC.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

LBC applications are dealt with by the Planning Committee

I don't think they are.
AIUI the Building inspector makes the decisions as he/she interprets the Building Regulations.
I don't think the planning committee has anything to do with LBC.

Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission are part of the same consent "regime", all of which comes under planning and might be decided by the planning committee (though it is rare for applications to go to planning committee - fewer than 10% of ours do, the rest being dealt with under delegated powers).
Building Control, and the requirements under the building regulations, are a completely separate thing, set up under completely different (and originally earlier) acts of parliament, and having completely different aims.
A competent agent / architect would (should) not apply for planning permission of LBC for something that they knew would not also comply with the building regulations, bearing in mind that various relaxations are available in many historic building cases.

 

[Lime]

LBC applications are dealt with by the Planning Committee

I don't think they are.
AIUI the Building inspector makes the decisions as he/she interprets the Building Regulations.
I don't think the planning committee has anything to do with LBC.

Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission are part of the same consent "regime", all of which comes under planning and might be decided by the planning committee (though it is rare for applications to go to planning committee - fewer than 10% of ours do, the rest being dealt with under delegated powers).
Building Control, and the requirements under the building regulations, are a completely separate thing, set up under completely different (and originally earlier) acts of parliament, and having completely different aims.
A competent agent / architect would (should) not apply for planning permission of LBC for something that they knew would not also comply with the building regulations, bearing in mind that various relaxations are available in many historic building cases.

An interesting confusion of initials of which I should have remembered which site I was on.
In another place LBC is commonly used by some for Local Building Control.

 

[Keithj]

I suspect the detailed processes vary by Council. When we applied, there was one form to fill in - tick "Listed Building Consent", "Planning Permission", or both. It was all very simple (until Building Control got hold of it and told us the new roof regulations meant ...)