Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General permitted development rights consultation
#11
Yeah, they're not applied lightly http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/article4.htm
Reply
#12
Thanks Vulpes. Doesn't make the situation very easy. I hope this isn't the start of a series of 'get out of jail cards' in the planning system.
Reply
#13
Hi All
This is also a major dent in preservation in-situ paradigm many of my curatorial colleagues find themselves stuck in. There ain't no hiding archaeology under "open spaces" in housing development areas anymore. The whole application area will have to be thought of as under threat so I see a grand new golden age of excavations in front of us as part of the governments new housing drive.

Steven
Reply
#14
One of the planning departments I advise has recently been trying to 'article 4' a building to prevent demolition. The level of work to produce this has effectively shut down the conservation department for about a month.

Bring back Areas of Archaeological Importance. These had the effect of removing permitted development rights for this type of proposal. Ah back to the 70s.
Reply
#15
Another option is to remove the PD rights that would otherwise impact upon the archaeology through a condition on the original development's planning permission. Far easier than going through the effort of sorting out an article 4 condition (speaking from experience as a former DC planner and as a former conservation officer).
Reply
#16
I am investigating ways to prevent this sort of thing through legal agreements (S106) that seems to be the best option, according to the advice I have received.
Reply
#17
I think I'll ready a recommended condition for the LPAs just in case. Historic Building, could you let me know how your S106 route works out?
Reply
#18
I appreciate the stuff about S106's and conditions on original planning apps etc. But that kind of misses the point. The cases where Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP) are the greatest threat are where they are being retrofitted to older and existing properties, especially in Conservation Areas (often historic cores of settlements) and in residential gardens excluded from adjacent or encircling SAMs. In these cases there would be no requirement for a planning application for a GSHP and without applying article 4's to remove PD rights we would not even be aware that the work was being done. It is common to remove PD rights in Conservation Areas for essentially aesthetic reasons using article 4's - I would suggest that the careful application of this measure for archaeological reasons is now upon us. GSHPs are now permitted development, Article 4's allow the removal of PD rights in designated areas. Roll on April 6th.
Reply
#19
From what I've seen out there however, it appears that ground heat pumps are most effective when designed into a new build house and not much use when retrofitted to a house. It may well be that their use on existing properties is minimal.
Reply
#20
yup... thats what I guess... the costs to retro fit are hellish... I know!! I tried ..

if anyone has any good ideas of non oil based systems on a listed building... heeeeeeeelp!

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What would eh know about buying land for development? Marc Berger 15 15,808 15th July 2017, 01:37 PM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  How can adequate development planning occur when... GnomeKing 2 5,334 10th July 2017, 12:20 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  Should an archaeologist recommend a development in the planning application comments Marc Berger 48 25,218 1st July 2014, 04:45 PM
Last Post: Marc Berger
  Contninuing Professional Development Log Wax 19 11,304 10th January 2014, 02:03 PM
Last Post: Dinosaur
  BAJRs 2014/2015 consultation BAJR 9 5,568 5th December 2013, 02:22 PM
Last Post: GnomeKing
  Development next to the Prittlewell burial site redexile 10 7,900 1st November 2013, 01:05 PM
Last Post: Kajemby
  DCMS Listed Buildings consultation - 23rd Aug deadline Man from Porlock 17 9,258 17th August 2012, 08:32 PM
Last Post: Unitof1
  File on controversial Waringstown development goes missing BAJR 1 1,797 17th October 2011, 08:45 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  Submerged prehistory off Scotland: a development-led perspective BAJR 1 1,903 17th July 2011, 10:49 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  General Rant! tobytjek1 90 37,054 11th July 2011, 10:36 PM
Last Post: Odinn

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)