When is a conservation area not a conservation area..?

[PeterW]

Ok - after some opinions here, and want to see the views ...

 

Property A is an extended 1830’s house that has a large garden and in May 2014 applies for planning to build a new house in the garden, segregating the two properties. This is approved. 

 

Property A separated their garden to create a new property containing the building plot in August 2015, let’s call it Property B, and this is sold in August 2016.  Building of the house on Property B is commenced in January 2017. 

 

Property B is registered with the Land Registry at point of sale, and all plans show the correct split and two titles are correctly registered for the two properties. 

 

The council Planning database shows the correct plots for each property, and each has a Unique Property Reference Number (UPRN) and is correctly named. 

 

In February 2019, the local council decide to make part of the area a conservation area, and draw a jagged line around the area. They only include the older properties - those from pre 1930 and earlier - and the line excludes new builds from the past 10-15 years. 

 

The council deliver an outline map and schedule of the properties affected to each house, and both Property A and Property B receive copies. (As an aside, the letterbox for Property B is next to a very large sign saying “Property B”)

 

On closer inspection, the map issued has been drawn using the outline map from 2012, and as such they have drawn round the entire boundary of Property A and Property B and this is included in the defined conservation area. 

 

As required under the Planning Act 1990, the council issue a Schedule of the affected properties, and the schedule is then published to the Secretary of State, The Gazette and the local paper, enacting the Regulations by which the properties must adhere to. The schedule clearly states Property A on the list of affected, but not Property B...

 

The Schedule is makes no reference to the map (it is for information only) and is not published officially. The council GIS system updates mark both Property A and Property B as part of the conservation area... 

 

So the question is .....

 

Is Property B in the conservation area, and is it subject to the regulations ..??

 

[Moonshine]

logically i would say no, as it only included older properties from pre 1930 and earlier. Sounds like Property B has been included as the drawings are based on the old boundary lines, and not accounting for the new boundary of the property split.

[ProDave]

If I was the owner of property B I would continue on the basis that it was not, but have my case prepared for fighting it if any enforcement action was taken.

[Ed Davies]

52 minutes ago, PeterW said:

The schedule clearly states Property A on the list of affected, but not Property B

 

The schedule is presumably definitive so the map's wrong. Best bet would be to write to the council and tell them as that might avoid future unpleasantness.

[Mr Punter]

It sounds like the map and GIS need to be changed, as they are at odds with the schedule.

[epsilonGreedy]

35 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If I was the owner of property B I would continue on the basis that it was not, but have my case prepared for fighting it if any enforcement action was taken.

 

 

If the owner of property B I would be happy with this because I would be able to continue with a build based on the more relaxed conditions set prior to the new conservation area and long term I would benefit from the cachet of being located in a conservation area.

[Jeremy Harris]

I'm not sure there's any benefit from living in a conservation area.  I'd say that most buyers would view a house in a conservation area as being an additional liability, as PP is needed to do as much as prune a tree in the garden, let alone do anything as radical as replace a window.  The added maintenance costs of any property within a conservation area can be pretty high, not only from the cost of all the planning applications that need to be made, but also because of the restrictions imposed on the materials that may be used.

[AliG]

I think a conservation area is defined as an area and then houses in that area are deemed to be in the conservation area.

 

Thus I believe property b would be in the conservation area, leaving it off the list is simply an oversight. However, if you look on the local planning portal it will say if the house is in a conservation area or not and this may be based on this list. If it doesn't say it is then I doubt anyone would argue about it.

 

It would be highly unusual not to include newer properties in a conservation area, usually they are bounded by streets and if a newer property is in a street of older properties it would be included.

 

I used to live in a new development on an old hospital site, out of over 400 properties only 50 were in old buildings but the whole development was still in the conservation area.

Edited April 2, 2019 by AliG

[epsilonGreedy]

1 minute ago, JSHarris said:

I'm not sure there's any benefit from living in a conservation area.  I'd say that most buyers would view a house in a conservation area as being an additional liability, as PP is needed to do as much as prune a tree in the garden, let alone do anything as radical as replace a window.  The added maintenance costs of any property within a conservation area can be pretty high, not only from the cost of all the planning applications that need to be made, but also because of the restrictions imposed on the materials that may be used.

 

 

This is correct and particularly relevant to older properties, for example one of my neighbours in a 100 year old house has battled with the conservation officer for years to be allowed to fit expensive wooden double glazed windows but the CO insists single glazing is essential to maintain the appearance. This very frustrating for the neighbour since he did not buy a special period property.

 

However a newly built house should meet the occupants requirement for 20 years so no need for future planning battles.

[AliG]

In our last house they made everyone have white painted wooden windows due to the conservation area. It was just a pain. I built an extension and they gave me permission for UPVC. It was a mistake. They then refused my neighbours permission but by that point the precedent had been set. BTW the first half of the development had UPVC before they made it a conservation area, showing what a farce planning often is.

 

It is a tough one, a conservation area can help stop overdevelopment but it can be a pain making changes to specific houses.

 

Insisting on single glazing in a non listed house is an abuse of a conservation area if you ask me and should be taken to appeal.

Edited April 2, 2019 by AliG

[epsilonGreedy]

4 minutes ago, AliG said:

It would be highly unusual not to include newer properties in a conservation area, usually they are bounded by streets and if a newer property is in a street of older properties it would be included.

 

 

That how how it works in my village. Perhaps in the OP's case the older properties were used as a guide to define the outline area and Property B just ended up on that boundary.

[Jeremy Harris]

1 minute ago, epsilonGreedy said:

However a newly built house should meet the occupants requirement for 20 years so no need for future planning battles.

 

Not sure about this.  I planted ~10 trees this time last year, and if we end up inside the CA (which seems possible) then that means I need to apply for planning consent just to prune and manage them, every time I choose to do so.  It also means I can't erect anything without consent, too, as it effectively takes away PD rights.

[lizzie]

I built a new house in a conservation area.  The age of the property is not the decider it is the area boundary and what lies within that boundary is by definition in the conservation area irrespective of age of property.  Plenty of conservation areas with new builds.

[PeterW]

I’d agree on the age statement if they hadn’t specifically excluded them from around certain properties - we are talking a serious jagged line ..!

[Ferdinand]

34 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

Not sure about this.  I planted ~10 trees this time last year, and if we end up inside the CA (which seems possible) then that means I need to apply for planning consent just to prune and manage them, every time I choose to do so.  It also means I can't erect anything without consent, too, as it effectively takes away PD rights.

 

Not quite iirc.

 

In a conservation area you have to inform them then wait for a few weeks, rather than a PP. Silence implies consent.

 

Ferdinand

[lizzie]

I liked living in a conservation area, kept the place looking nice.  I didnt mind getting permission to trim trees I had planted etc.small price to pay for nicer surroundings.

[epsilonGreedy]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

In a conservation area you have to inform them then wait for a few weeks, rather than a PP. Silence implies consent.

 

 

That it how it works here, just a friendly chat with planning before significant tree surgery.

 

@JSHarrisis right about highly prescriptive limits on PD rights. I my case anything larger than a cloche to grow a couple of lettuce plants requires planning permission.

 

[epsilonGreedy]

5 hours ago, AliG said:

Insisting on single glazing in a non listed house is an abuse of a conservation area if you ask me and should be taken to appeal.

 

 

I agree when what chatting to the neighbour I coined the phrase "thermal poverty area" to describe the effect of this conservation officer.

 

Overzealous control by a conservation officer could be damaging in the long term for a conservation area if home owners are squandering an extra £500 a year on heating a single glazed home. That is £500 that could be spent maintaining the fabric of old properties.

[Temp]

 

I was involved with two groups fighting plans for large developments near two conservation areas. I discovered not all conservation areas are created equal. Planners will fight hard to protect some conservation areas and others they won't. Planners sometimes take an interest in the view into or out of a conservation area, in some cases this can affect plans to build some distance outside the conservation area. 

 

My council appears to use maps to define conservation areas.

 

 

 

[PeterW]

11 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

JSHarrisis right about highly prescriptive limits on PD rights. I my case anything larger than a cloche to grow a couple of lettuce plants requires planning permission.

 

I’m trying to find the rules on this as it’s unclear - it doesn’t say that PD has been removed and it’s only side development of outbuildings that is restricted. 

 

 

[PeterW]

33 minutes ago, Temp said:

My council appears to use maps to define conservation areas.

 

So apparently the plan is to indicate the area and the  Schedule is required to define the area. 

 

 This is the wording out of interest. 

 

[...]Council has determined that the areas described in the Schedule to this Notice are of special architectural or historic interest, and that it is desirable to preserve or enhance their character or appearance.[...]

 

That would indicate the schedule is key - having a look at a few others now ..!!

[Tennentslager]

Is there not a conservation area report prior to approval of status being granted?. In ours that seems to be the bible and goes into detail about what needs to be kept and why.

id hope planners then consult this.

 

[PeterW]

4 minutes ago, Tennentslager said:

Is there not a conservation area report prior to approval of status being granted?. In ours that seems to be the bible and goes into detail about what needs to be kept and why.

id hope planners then consult this.

 

 

Not a legal requirement before they designate apparently - the one I saw said that the council had decided not to consult beforehand so that residents didn’t do anything to change the character of the area ..!

They have to produce the plan within 6 months I think

[Temp]

 

16 hours ago, PeterW said:

So apparently the plan is to indicate the area and the  Schedule is required to define the area.

 

Seems odd to define the area using a schedule. How do they deal with land that's not got an address (eg like a paddock or field)? Does the schedule have grid references?

 

 

[PeterW]

29 minutes ago, Temp said:

 

 

Seems odd to define the area using a schedule. How do they deal with land that's not got an address (eg like a paddock or field)? Does the schedule have grid references?

 

 

 

I believe it is because of the need in law to clearly define something by a recognizable method. I’ve found another that also includes a statement saying “land to the south of Road xyz bounded by the river and road abc” which when you look on a map makes sense.