Renewables and Permitted Development

[Gareth Hughes]

I'm not sure if this has been covered already in one of the interminable solar panels / oil boilers / peat bogs threads.

DCLG (I beg its pardon, just CLG, "Department" is apparently too stuffy for Nu Lab) are consulting on proposed changed to the General Permitted Development Order in relation to what you do and do not need permission for when installing renewable energy thingies.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1508888

One glaring error already: Para 41

...existing requirement for Listed Building Consent approval for any work to, or near, a listed building...Government believe that the existing safeguards are wholly adequate...no need to make special provision

As has been discussed here before, work near a listed building does not need LBC and it is not clear whether the extent of restrictions on permitted development (and therefore the need for Planning Permission) within the curtilage of Listed Buildings would be sufficient to control these developments.

And AONBs and National Parks are to be sacrificed, (para 39) despite the recommendations of the firm contracted to make the report to government in the first place.

Just thought I'd bring it up so you can all send your contrary views in to whoever will be running the Department by 25 June.

 

[Penners]

...existing requirement for Listed Building Consent approval for any work to, or near, a listed building...Government believe that the existing safeguards are wholly adequate...no need to make special provision

What ridiculously woolly wording. Even if the error that you've pointed out didn't exist, who defines 'near'? Is it 10 metres, 500 metres, same county...?

 

[biffvernon]

Gareth, just to concentrate our minds, to which of the 21 questions would your answer be 'Yes' and to which would it be 'No'?

 

[Penners]

Oooooh - that sounds like a minefield, Gareth!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Gareth, just to concentrate our minds, to which of the 21 questions would your answer be 'Yes' and to which would it be 'No'?

1. No
2. No – should read “facing on to OR visible from a public highway,” not “facing AND visible” (though IMHO this should apply to PD rights in designated areas in general)
3. yes
4. yes
5. N/A
6. yes
7. yes
8. hmmmmm?
9. no
10. Oh Lordy I’ll have to think
11. No (as Q 2)
12. no
13. yes
14. oh, go on then
15. No (as Q 2)
16. yes
17. no (as Q2)
18. yes
19. No (as Q 2)
20. No (as Q 2)
21. No - I’m all for micro hydro as long as it doesn’t compromise the integrity of historic mills and machinery, therefore as much PD as possible