Planning Permission and LBC to change a set of gates !!

[masochists-r-us]

We have a set of 1950s swirly wrought iron gates to the rear of our 17th Century Listed farmhouse. We want to replace them with some nice oak, swan neck ones and were expecting to need LBC as with everything, but were surprised and dismayed to find out that we also need planning permission which means another £160 and yet more paperwork. Apparently this is because Listed buildings are exempt from permitted development i.e. if we weren't listed we could just go ahead and install them. Just checking on the off chance that the advice I've been given thus far is wrong and also vent my frustration about the unfairness of it all.

 

[livias]

Yaargh! We have exactly the same situation and it never occurred to me to apply for planning pemission. I am minded to just change them when the time comes. To add insult to injury the nasty twirly ones will have welded extensions added on when the driveway is widened, I doubt if anyone local will care if I change them

 

[bennoa1]

We installed as set of metal gates (approx. 1.8m high by 2m wide each leaf) with oak posts (300m square and 6 foot high out the ground) and only submitted a LBC. This was about 12 months ago.

 

[Flyfisher]

Who gave the advice that planning permission was required?

I can understand the LBC requirement but I'm surprised that planning consent is required if it's just a matter of exchanging an already existing gate for a different type. I would expect planning consent to be concerned with the existence of the gate in the first place, but given that it already exists where is the 'planning' aspect?

I'm no expert, but, like livias, it wouldn't have occurred to me to seek planning consent just to change the style of an existing gate. Perhaps we'll end up in the same prison one day? :lol:

 

[masochists-r-us]

I was wondering whether this is a way of our local authority charging for Listed Building Consent by stealth. Not that I'm cynical of course.

 

[skier-hughes]

We have a log store in front garden, it's got rotten wooden posts and a corrugated iron roof. Whilst speaking to planning on another matter, I was told to change it to brick pillars and tiled roof would need PP, as it is in the front of the house and this is not covered by permitted development.

 

[Keith Bowman]

We have a set of 1950s swirly wrought iron gates to the rear of our 17th Century Listed farmhouse. We want to replace them with some nice oak, swan neck ones and were expecting to need LBC as with everything, but were surprised and dismayed to find out that we also need planning permission which means another £160 and yet more paperwork. Apparently this is because Listed buildings are exempt from permitted development i.e. if we weren't listed we could just go ahead and install them. Just checking on the off chance that the advice I've been given thus far is wrong and also vent my frustration about the unfairness of it all.

Perhaps your mistake was to describe it as 'wrought iron'. If it is 1950s it is far more likely simply to be twisted up bits of mild steel strip. Real wrought iron, fashioned with fire and a big hammer from iron with no carbon content might be worth keeping anyway!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

A. Permitted development

The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure.

A.1 Development not permitted

Development is not permitted by Class A if—

(a)the height of any gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed adjacent to a highway used by vehicular traffic would, after the carrying out of the development, exceed one metre above ground level;
(b)the height of any other gate, fence, wall or means of enclosure erected or constructed would exceed two metres above ground level;
(c)the height of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure maintained, improved or altered would, as a result of the development, exceed its former height or the height referred to in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) as the height appropriate to it if erected or constructed, whichever is the greater; or
(d)it would involve development within the curtilage of, or to a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure surrounding, a listed building.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

however, if they are 1950s gates, and freestanding in relation to the listed building then it's debatable whether their replacement would require LBC since they aren't old enough to be covered by the listing as curtilage structures (predate 1 July 1948)

 

[Roger H]

Hi Gareth.

But is is not accurate to say that they'd need PP as being in the curtilage of a listed building there are no permitted development rights?

That said, I would take a pragmatic view and say that if LBC is secured then that would satisfy me that the proposal is acceptable. It doesn't seem very fair to ask for PP too, whatever the letter of the law might say (in such a marginal case - different perhaps if a new 6ft wall were going up in which case I'd say yes, pp required too).

 

[bennoa1]

Just remembered - I did have to confirm their distance from the roadway as the highways people were showing an interest, but no planning permission was requested or sought.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Hi Gareth.

But is is not accurate to say that they'd need PP as being in the curtilage of a listed building there are no permitted development rights?

That said, I would take a pragmatic view and say that if LBC is secured then that would satisfy me that the proposal is acceptable. It doesn't seem very fair to ask for PP too, whatever the letter of the law might say (in such a marginal case - different perhaps if a new 6ft wall were going up in which case I'd say yes, pp required too).

they need pp regardless, but possibly don't need lbc though it depends on the precise relation they have with the listed building

 

[masochists-r-us]

Thanks everyone and especially Gareth. Will try to see if we can go just for PP since the twirly steel gates are most certainly later than 1948. I would imagine Planning will consult with CO anyway as we're Listed.

 

[livias]

And thanks from me too. I will see if I can add gates to our current planning application which is gently progressing through the system.

Can anyone suggest anything else that I shold have added but didn't think of?

Anna

 

[Bayliss]

This is, for me, the big 'put off' to purchase a listed property. I understand the reasons behind all the red tape and agree that the buildings must be protected. However, the money side really is a wind-up. Its expensive enough to maintain these buildings, having previously owned a listed property, the Council now see everything as a revenue stream it seems. If these buildings are listed for reasons of Heritage and protection for future generations to enjoy then, to my mind, the Council's should assist in not only practical terms but financial as well.
Feel better now.

 

[livias]

But the idea is that it is Caveat Emptor. When you buy the house you have to factor in the cost of all the extras and then decide if it is worth it to you. Unfortunately there are far too many people who have seen Restoration and Escape to the Country and who buy the dream not the reality so the sale price of a listed wreck can often be unrealistic, but that is not the fault of the planners

 

[Roger H]

It is inequitable that you have to pay for pp if you live in a listed building for works that would otherwise be permitted development. If you have an unlisted house which is the subject of an Article 4 direction withdrawing certain pd rights, no fee is payable when a planning application is made.

 

[Flyfisher]

Roger makes a good point. I wonder what the council would do if only LBC for the gates was obtained? Could/would they really bother to pursue a technical contravention of planning rules? It might make for an interesting exchange in court:

Prosecution: Your Honour, the defendant is accused of replacing a gate without planning consent

Judge: Is planning consent really necessary for such a trivial thing?

Prosecution: Yes, your Honour, because the house is listed

Judge: Ah, so listed building consent is required?

Prosecution: Yes, your Honour

Judge: Has the council granted listed building consent to the defendant?

Prosecution: Yes, your Honour

Judge: So the council is perfectly happy for the gate to be replaced

Prosecution: Yes, your Honour

Judge: So what is the point of also requiring planning consent for something already approved by the council?

Prosecution: Er . . .

Judge: Does the council wish to rescind the listed building consent?

Prosecution: Certainly not, your Honour

Judge: So the council remains happy about the gate being replaced?

Prosecution: Yes, your Honour

Judge: So the council is happy for the gate to be replaced and has given the defendant listed building consent to this end?

Prosecution: Yes, your Honour

Judge: Yet now the council wishes to prosecute the defendant for carrying out the authorised replacement of an existing gate?

Prosecution: Yes, your Honour

Judge: Do you understand the seriousness of wasting the court's time with frivolous actions?

Prosecution: Er . . .

Judge: Case dismissed

 

[Bayliss]

For me the P.P. fee's should be returned once the work has been completed to satisfaction. It seems to me that Council's are chasing around busy increasing fee's for all sorts of services. Once the fee's get to an 'unacceptable number some peeps will be tempted to not bother with P.P. To the detriment of the building perhaps.'

 

[a twig]

Just replace them and take a photo afterwards with the metadata suitably backdated as proof they were "always like that"... :twisted: :twisted: