Author: Martin Stuart

News this week that Dudley Council had tried to take enforcement action against 70-year-old Mr Eddie Solly, for a mural painted on his garage door.

The interesting thing in Planning terms is that their justification for this was that they claimed the work breached Permitted Development rights because it was ‘an unauthorised advertisement larger than 0.3m²’.

It’s not the first time that this justification has been used in such enforcement action: Bridgend Council in Wales took action earlier this year against a mural commemorating the flooding of Tryweryn village to create a reservoir.

Meanwhile, of course, Belfast tolerates murals that promote extremist political ideologies (on both sides) that are downright offensive to many people, and several authorities have spent public money protecting work by the graffiti artist ‘Banksy’.  

It all raises the question of where art stops, and advertising begins, particularly since much art has a political or social point to make… and is the Planning system an appropriate means of censorship?

On a more prosaic note, are the advertising agencies missing a trick by not using ‘teaser’ campaigns of subtly branded unauthorised street art for commercial ends?

The Town and Country Planning Act defines an ‘advertisement’ as:

“any word, letter, model, sign, placard, board, notice, awning, blind, device or representation, whether illuminated or not, in the nature of, and employed wholly or partly for the purposes of, advertisement, announcement or direction…”

Related regulations clarify that the definition does not include ‘anything employed wholly as a memorial’ (which surely should have exempted the Tryweryn village mural?) and the English version of the Regulations permits ‘a placard or other object borne by an individual or animal’, which could bring a whole new meaning to the ‘branding’ of cattle…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-55275563

#advertisment planning rules #planning censorship #banksy #murals

Loft Condensation

It’s that time of year again, folks!

Cool, damp autumn air – possibly combined with the fact that many people will soon be making their annual trip up to the loft to dig out Christmas decorations – means that November and December are when most of us will spot loft condensation.

This is a growing problem with increased insulation levels, so be particularly careful if you live in a modern, new-build house, or if you’ve recently added extra insulation to your loft.

Here’s what you need to know….

What’s the problem?

If you have a ‘cold’ roof – what we call a traditional loft space with insulation at ceiling level and an unheated, uninsulated space above it – condensation can form that soaks into the insulation. In serious cases, it can be bad enough to stain ceilings, cause roof timbers to rot and mould to grow on anything stored in the loft.

Why does it happen?

 Warm air can hold more moisture than cold air – that’s why we get a dewfall at night as the air cools off after the sun has gone down.  The same thing can happen in your loft, usually causing moisture to collect on the underside of the roofing felt/roof membrane and to drip off onto the insulation below, or to condense within the insulation itself. If you have absorbent loft insulation – like the common glassfibre quilt – this moisture soaks in and over a period of days or weeks gradually saturates the insulation.

Where does the moisture come from?

Two places, mainly:

• Traditionally, the problem is warm, moist air from inside the house leaking into the loft space. As it cooled on its way out – or if it came into contact with cold pipework or water tanks – the water vapour we’ve added to the air in our homes from cooking, bathing, laundry and even breathing can condense out as liquid moisture.

• In recent years, we’ve unwittingly added another problem: the extra insulation in our lofts means that there’s not as much heat leaking from the house below as there used to be. The air cools off at night so that it’s barely any warmer than the air outside, and a dew falls inside our loft, just like it does on the lawn!

There can also be more subtle and complicated effects, where the breeze flowing over the roof causes an invisible low-pressure ‘bubble’ to form over the lee slope of the roof, a bit like a very crude aeroplane wing. This low pressure causes cooling, which can increase condensation. On an aeroplane, it’s one of the reasons we see ‘con-trails’ (condensation trails) forming behind high-flying jet airliners. In your loft, you’ll see drips of water forming on the underside of the roof slope.

How do I check it?

This time of year – October through to December – is the worst period for loft condensation, so now is the time to keep an eye on things.

Ideally, go up into your loft first thing on a cool morning, before the sun has had chance to warm things up, and look for visible condensation (beads of moisture)  on the underside of the roof slope, or on any exposed pipework or water tanks.

Prod your hand about in the loft insulation, to check if it feels damp.

How can I fix it?

This can be a bit trickier: first you’ve got to figure out what the source is (and bear in mind that sometimes there can be more than one!).

If it’s the ‘traditional’ source of warm air leaking out of the house, then the obvious solution is to stop those leaks – and the good news (kind of) is that you need to be doing this whatever the cause of your loft condensation, so it’s always a good place to start.

Make sure your loft hatch is well sealed and insulated, and that there are no unsealed penetrations through the ceiling around pipes, wiring or recessed downlights. The latter are a particular problem these days, especially since they’re often used over bathrooms or en suites, where internal moisture levels are particularly high. If you have recessed downlights, make sure they use a sealed box or hood as shown below (but it should be noted that standard ‘fire hoods’ are not likely to be suitable)

Next, make sure that all pipes and water tanks are properly lagged, so that moist air isn’t coming into contact with cold surfaces on plumbing.

Finally, make sure that your loft is properly ventilated.  Most lofts with traditional roofing felt should be ventilated at the eaves, and you need to make sure that the air paths form these vents are not obstructed by insulation. Some modern roofs use vapour permeable roof membranes instead of traditional roofing felt, and theoretically these don’t need eaves ventilation (though the membrane can’t always cope in practice). If you’re not sure what your roof is, speak to an expert.

Storing things in your loft is not really a good idea and can also restrict airflow, but if you must do it, keep it to a minimum, and keep the stored items in the middle with plenty of space for airflow around them.

Even when you’ve done all that, if your loft is heavily insulated you may find that you still have problems. If you reach this point, it’s time to call the experts in, because some solutions that fix one problem will cause or exacerbate another… for example in some circumstances, increasing the ventilation levels will only make that aerodynamic cooling effect we mentioned earlier worse, because you’re just feeding an endless supply of damp air onto a surface that’s been cooled by the low pressure bubble created by the airflow over it!

The ultimate issue is that we’re now pushing the very limits of what will work in terms of insulation levels, on traditional ‘cold’ roof design, and as we push for ever more energy-efficient buildings, the future is likely to see a change to ‘warm’ roof construction (where there is no unheated, uninsulated loft space)… but that requires entirely different detailing and is not cheap or easy to apply to an existing roof.

Important news for Barn Conversions

Permitted Development means that you can build stuff without Planning Permission, right?

WRONG when it’s Prior Approval, such as Class Q, larger domestic extensions, or the Government’s new Class AA for upward extensions (among others). For those unfamiliar, Class Q is the Permitted Development right to convert redundant agricultural buildings into dwellings, much beloved of self-builders who want to undertake barn conversions.

Our Planning Director, Kelly, has drawn my attention to a recent appeal decision that moves the goalposts quite a bit on this: Bradford City Council refused a ‘prior approval’ on a barn in the heart of Bronte country, up on the moors near Keighley, essentially because they felt that the location was ‘undesirable’ for a dwelling, and this decision has been upheld at appeal.

Details can be seen under application ref. 20/01389/PAR on Bradford Council’s website:

https://planning.bradford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q8TJDCDH0CY00

On these sorts of development you still need to make an application to your Local Authority before you start work. In theory, they should be measuring your proposal against fixed criteria, and if you meet those criteria, the go-ahead should be automatic. On Class Q, these criteria are mainly centred around size limits and the practical suitability of the building for conversion.

But among the Prior Approval criteria has always been the condition that the conversion should not be allowed where ‘the location and siting of the building makes it… impractical or undesirable…”.

It’s usually fairly easy to judge ‘impractical’ against technical criteria, but what about ‘undesirable’?

Class Q has always been somewhat at odds with broader Planning Policy, because by its very nature it tends to permit the creation of new dwellings in open countryside, outside settlement boundaries and in locations that the Planning system regards as ‘unsustainable’. For this reason, it’s always been tacitly accepted that Class Q conversions were acceptable even in locations that would be viewed as ‘undesirable’ under the normal scope of national Planning Policy.

In the Bradford City Council case, the appeals inspector has upheld the Authority’s refusal, essentially on the grounds that the light spill and paraphernalia associated with domestic use (parked cars, garden furniture and formal planting) would have an unwelcome ‘urbanising’ effect on the landscape.

This is a disquieting judgement for a number of reasons:

• There are already very strict criteria in place under Class Q to limit the size of the domestic curtilage associated with such buildings.
• In addition, Class Q does not afford normal domestic Permitted Development rights for extensions or outbuildings.
• The whole of Class Q is inapplicable to buildings situated on land protected by article 2(3) designation (ie. national parks, AONB’s, conservation areas, The Broads of a World Heritage site).

Taken together, these criteria in and of themselves should be considered to give adequate protection to constrain landscape impact to acceptable levels: that’s what these specific restrictions are there for.

Beyond that, the fells above Keighley are familiar to me from my youth and ironically one of the things that actually characterises the landscape is the presence of individual, very isolated dwellings. You might, indeed, say that it is precisely what these moors are most famous for: the Keighley applications site lies literally a couple of miles directly North of Haworth, home to both the Bronte Sisters and Top Withens, the farmhouse said to be the inspiration for Wuthering Heights in the novel of the same name.

When one is walking upon these fells – as I did so much when I was younger – it is often the counterpoint of such small and isolated habitations against the surrounding openness that acts to highlight the landscape’s scale and grandeur.

It begs the question how fit for purpose our Planning system is, when it prevents precisely the sort of development that creates the character of a landscape it is seeking to protect.

As if these issues weren’t enough, the actual landscape setting of the Keighley application building is such that the prominence of the development would be rather restricted.

Whilst certainly the building can be seen from the road, Tarn Lane, it is set at the head of a steep valley (known as a ‘Clough’ in this part of Yorkshire), with the proposed curtilage behind and below the building itself and screened from the south by a stand of trees.

Even if landscape impact is accepted as representing a measure by which Class Q can be refused – a dangerous precedent, where the technical criteria can be said to offer sufficient protection already – it is questionable whether this particular application should have been refused on such grounds.

Now that we’re aware of this decision, there are ways we can mitigate the risk of similar judgements in future, however, so if you’re looking at ta Class Q application, contact us to discuss how we can help.

It’s not often that Planning Applications make the local newspapers for positive reasons, but we managed it with one of our Norfolk clients this week:

https://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/plans-drawn-up-for-new-luxury-glamping-site-in-north-norfolk-9072525/

Caroline Fowler is hoping to open a new glamping business with the unusual distinction that it can cater for those people for whom their horse or pony is part of the family.

Alongside a selection of glamping pods, safari tents and a geodesic ‘stargazer’ dome with transparent roof (and we do get some lovely starlit and moonlit nights, here in deepest, darkest Norfolk) is the facility to cater for visitors equine companions – something quite unique in my experience! With Holkam Hall Bay (holiday destination for Her Majesty’s Household Cavalry each year) just a short hack out from the site, it really ought to offer something special.

We’re well used (sadly) to dealing with knee-jerk objections from NIMBY’s, so it would be nice in this instance to receive a few positive public comments instead. If you think it’s a good idea and would like to support Caroline by saying so, please spend a few moments to offer a supporting comment on the following link to the application:

https://online.west-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=PQL72NIVG7U00

An interesting article on the RIBA’s member’s update email this week: they’ve attempted to get hold of some statistics on Paragraph 55/79 applications across the UK.

Para 55/79 is a favourite ‘loophole’ beloved of self-builders who want to gain Planning Permission for single dwellings in open countryside, but for those who are unfamiliar with it, it basically says that an exception to the usual Planning rules can be made for dwellings of exceptional architectural quality or technical innovation, which enhance their setting.

We always used to advise people that Para 55/79 was not an easy option by any means – that it was likely to be a costly approach, and that success was far from guaranteed. The trouble was, nobody actually had any figures to substantiate this.

The figures the RIBA have now quoted are not reliable (many Authorities didn’t respond to their request for information, and even on those that did, I’ve already spotted at least two Para 55/79 applications that I know about personally that haven’t been recorded), but they are at least better than nothing. They’re saying that of the 2/3rds of LPA’s that responded, they have recorded 115 applications (over 6 years). Crudely extrapolated for the 1/3rd of LPA’s that didn’t respond, that might take the figures to ~173 applications over England as a whole (representing an average of about 29 per year).

Of the 109 recorded applications, 66 were approved, 43 refused, and 6 were withdrawn.

That represent a surprisingly high approval rate of 57%. For reference, this compares to a general approval rate for minor residential applications of around 73%.

So while it still certainly shouldn’t be viewed as an easy option, and the overall figures for such approvals are very low (about a quarter of a percent of even just the self-build market), the percentage success rates for planning approvals are actually quite encouraging.

TL:DR version: Paragraph 55/79 permission may not be as difficult to gain approval for as we thought it was…

Good news for homeowners is that the temporary allowance for larger ground floor extensions as ‘Permitted Development’, which was due to expire at the end of May 2019 has now been made permanent.

‘Normal’ permitted development allows single storey rear extensions of up to 4 metres for a detached house or 3 metres for any other house, subject to other rules.

The ‘neighbour consultation’ scheme allows these limits to be increased to 8 metres or 6 metres respectively, but does require an application for ‘prior approval’ to your Local Authority.

If the idea of having to seek permission for something that is ‘permitted development’ seems a bit strange, then perhaps we should explain the way it works: the Local Authority notifies your immediate neighbours of your intention, and if your neighbours don’t object, then you’re automatically allowed to go ahead. If they’re not happy with the proposal, then it’s up to the Local Authority to take a view on whether it is acceptable.

If you need assistance in making that ‘neighbour notification’ application (or advice on any other aspects of Permitted Development), then we’re here to help!