|
Old Spice
Guest
|
When repairing the front of the building I removed some of the modern attachments of plastic and sheet wood.Underneath as I thought I found the original structure in a reasonable repairable state. I'd found an old picture of the road and originally all the buildings were covered in the criss cross wood over plaster as can be seen between the scaffolding stages.
As this is a conservation area and grants have been awarded in the past to buildings around me I spoke to the council and asked about leaving this original structure (the top floor is the same,covered by more sheet wood). I don't want a gran,I've never had one since I've been here so am used to paying my way..
I was told I'd have to get planning permission and payfor it..So the original woodwork (after being treated to ensure it doesn't rot any further)has been covered up yet again.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Boatbuilder
John
Administrator
Lowestoft Online Addict
Gender: 
Posts: 4747
I've learnt to take everything life throws at me!!
|
OS, when you say "I'd have to get planning permission and payfor it" do you mean pay for the planning permission? If so did they tell you what it would cost? I don't know why you'd should have to have planning permission to return a building to it's original design.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 An Oyster 575 |
|
|
|
frankiesays
|
I was about to say the very same thing. Don't forget, you can dispute planning decisions which are very often one person's interpretation of the rules. The planning departments are under great pressure to hit targets and they will only oppose a dispute if they are guaranteed a win. I challenged their decision over an extension I was planning on my house and told them I would be disputing their decision and taking it up with my local councillor, the officer who had come to investigate my complaint dropped it on the spot and I got my way. you should stick to your guns as you are clearly in the right.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Old Spice
Guest
|
I would have to obtain planning permission which is around a couple of hundred quid. A few years back I was repainting the front door (in the same colour) and I was ordered to get planning permission to do so.I refused and nothing eventually happened,and that was the cost I was quoted then.
It seems ludicrous to pay to help preserve an older part of the building rather than simply cover up (again) whats there,it makes me wonder what on earth they're hoping to conserve.
Maybe the conservation rules apply more to some than others.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
I wonder what would have happened if you had said nothing
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
frankiesays
|
Why not do it anyway - let it get really public when you refuse to pay.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paulears
|
|
|
If you want to change the appearance of a property in a conservation area you need permission. The rule is there to prevent people making something look bad or inappropriate. In your case, it will probably make it look better. However, the rule isn't there only for making things better or stopping them looking worse - the rule is to make the person doing the change show in advance the changes, they get looked at by the council and the public and then if they are to the better, approved.
What you want is for the rule to not apply because it's for the best - but that's not your call, that's what planning permission is for.
If you want to change the appearance, you have to get permission. You can't really complain because you think you shouldn't have to go through planning because it will improve the look. It could be argued that if your changes make your building stand out, then that's not really an improvement - like painting doors weird colours? Rules that you like because they help you, and those that you don't because they stop you doing things are irrelevant - they're just rules?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Paul Johnson
|
|
|
|
JollyJapes
Guest
|
Personally I would have thought that planning permission wasn't needed. You wouldn't be making any changes to the building, merely displaying old original parts of the building. They should/would have had planning permission when they were first placed, and so new planning permission should not be needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
funkychick
|
but hes not changing it, the people who put the boarding up changed it he s returning it to how it should be
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JustStu
|
Surely it's not that difficult to grasp is it?
If the appearance is different after the work to what it was before the work, then it's a change.
It's not relevant whether the features are original or not, not for the decision of whether a change is proposed. Once it's established that a change is proposed and that you need to apply for permission, then the detail of that change is looked at. And if deemed a change for the better, then it's approved.
OS, if you own the property, were you not told at the time of purchase that it's in a conservation area?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I told my girlfriend I had a job in a bowling alley. She said 'Tenpin?' I said, 'No, permanent.'
|
|
|
|
