Home Headlines David Salisbury calls for change to listed building planning processes
Our website publishes news, press releases, opinion and advertorials on various financial organizations, products and services which are commissioned from various Companies, Organizations, PR agencies, Bloggers etc. These commissioned articles are commercial in nature. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. It does not reflect the views or opinion of our website and is not to be considered an endorsement or a recommendation. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third-party websites, affiliate sales networks, and to our advertising partners websites. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish advertised or sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a commercial article placement. We will not be responsible for any loss you may suffer as a result of any omission or inaccuracy on the website.

David Salisbury calls for change to listed building planning processes

by jcp
gawdo

The process of seeking planning permission for listed properties, whether that be for simply upgrading a single window through to adding an entirely new extension, is becoming increasingly lengthy and complicated, according to David Salisbury, a company specialising in bespoke timber orangery and conservatory projects. With decades of experience and numerous successful planning applications for both residential and commercial clients, the company is advocating a change in the planning application process to improve both the efficiency and consistency with which rules are applied.

Karen Bell, Sales Director at David Salisbury commented: “There are strict limitations on how owners can extend, adapt, or modernise their listed property and rightly so. However, because individual homeowners or owners of commercial properties don’t regularly apply for planning consent, they do not fully understand the extent to which advice is inconsistent, where guidelines are open to interpretation, and how timeframes are extended and used inappropriately. We are in a position to see how much needs to change and how the discrepancies in the system disproportionately affect the owners of listed properties.

“There are presently over 450,000 listed buildings in Britain, and therefore a better understanding of the impact of delays and more efficient cooperation is a must – not just for these listed building owners, and the companies that work with them, but for the construction industry in general, on which the overall economy is so dependent.”

David Salisbury is lobbying for change across five key areas:

  1. Advice must be more consistent

Arguably the biggest issue that underpins all other problems with the existing process, is that guidelines are too open to interpretation. For example, a property at one end of a road could request planning permission for an extension identical to one at the other end of the road, yet still be turned down. Similarly, a project that one planning officer or local council deems to meet guidelines, might be rejected in a neighbouring borough or another part of the country. A more concrete set of rules would ensure that fairer and consistent advice is issued.

  1. Better management of planning officer contracts

Planning officers are often on short term contracts with local councils, which means all too frequently, homeowners are dealing with one individual who may agree the changes, prompting them to submit detailed plans, however by the time a final decision is made, their replacement may take a less accommodating stance. Employing more planning officers on longer term contracts, or ensuring a more efficient handover process would ensure less wasted time for all parties.

  1. A more accurate view of planning application timelines is required

Currently, there is a statutory requirement for a decision to be reached within eight weeks of an application being submitted, and it is on these timeframes that councils are judged. Unfortunately, this often prompts local authorities to request an extension just prior to this date, which delays projects, disguises the problem, and paints a very different picture of the situation. A more transparent view of the average application waiting times would help to create more urgency.

  1. Planning application denials and extensions should not be used as a way to manage workload

Extensions to planning applications are not always used appropriately and for their intended purposes, but as a way to manage workload. Similarly, it appears that some applications are denied for the same reasons. This has been increasingly the case since the pandemic began, despite measures taken to ensure lockdowns did not impact on planning permission decisions. Clearer and stricter rules around reasons for denying planning applications, and the evidence required to prove this, would likely see a decrease in applications being rejected unfairly.

  1. A better understanding is needed of the impact of delays

Delays to planning projects don’t just affect the homeowner, they have a knock-on effect on other parties. The owner will likely have enlisted a designer or architect to carry out their work, who may then also have contracted an installer or builder/multiple trades, who may need to schedule time for the project weeks, if not months, in advance. Not only is the delay an inconvenience, but financially can make work that was initially affordable now unrealistic. Worse still, repeated delays or extensions can lead to beautiful historic buildings falling to ruin.

Karen Bell continued: “Planning permission for listed building consent is something that we feel very passionately about. The process was far from flawless before the pandemic but the inherent idiosyncrasies seem to have been exacerbated during the past 24 months and showing no signs of abating. Planning Officers are still refusing to carry out site visits and continue to work from home, contrary to government guidelines. One has to question whether this is also part of the problem?

“Better collaboration between Historic England, local councils, and listed buildings specialists, would ensure that all parties understand the impact of their actions, and how to better work together to create a more positive outcome.”

www.gawdo.com

You may also like