PRC Cornish unit repair - planning permission issue

[Marianne Carpenter]

I am selling my ex council Cornish unit. I had a PRC repair done by an approved contractor in 2011 and was told I didn't need planning (not in writing!!). The buyers solicitors are now asking for the planning.

Trawling through old threads, I found someone had given the following advice (but the thread was too old to reply):

"If it has been repaired on a like-for-like basis, even if the repairs are substantial, that would not need planning permission;

If the house has been repaired by re-cladding, then the new cladding should look not dissimilar to the original finish for it to be permitted development eg if it is a semi and you have re-clad in brick, then technically that would not be permitted development
and would need planning permission.

However, if at the same time it has had external wall insulation added below the cladding in addition to the structural repairs, that would be permitted development regardless of the appearance of the cladding finish"

The problem is I can't find the reference to the last bit in the PD guidelines... can anyone help??

 

[tony1851]

In Class A of the permitted development rules, there is nothing specifically prohibiting any cladding which is different to the original finish.
This is inferred by condition A2, which states:

"In the case of a dwellinghouse on Art.2(3) land, development is not permitted if:
(a) it would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior....with stone, artificial stone,pebble dash, render, timber, plastic or tiles."

So the inference is that brick cladding would be acceptable on a house not in Art.2(3) land, and would be PD, even if it differs from the orginal concrete finish.

It may be a grey area, so see if someone else pipes up.

 

[Nakajo]

Fur's not on the list either, and neither is pizza, so yes, I agree that this is a grey area.

But it was nearly 8 years ago, so what's the problem?

 

[tony1851]

But it was nearly 8 years ago, so what's the problem?

Yes, overlooked that, so no problem!!
(I've often thought it would be a good idea if someone could teach conveyancing solicitors just a tiny, tiny bit about planning law).

 

[^woody^]

So the inference is that brick cladding would be acceptable on a house not in Art.2(3) land, and would be PD, even if it differs from the orginal concrete finish.

Did you leave out the condition at A3 (a) on purpose or just forget?

Any development done under section A today, must be in materials of similar appearance to the existing house. You can't clad a concrete rendered house in brick, fur or pizza under PD.

The OP needs to bear in mind that the repairs and the cladding are two distinct operations under planning law, and the cladding needs to conform to the PD regulations at the time.

 

[Marianne Carpenter]

I have very little knowledge of planning, but as I understand it, if you re-clad, it needs to be a similar finish in order to fall under PD (changing concrete slab to brick is not similar, so would need planning). My query is more about the final quote in the original thread:
"However, if at the same time it has had external wall insulation added below the cladding in addition to the structural repairs, that would be permitted development regardless of the appearance of the cladding finish"

If anyone knows if this is correct, and if so where I can find any reference to this, I would be eternally grateful, as then I can go back to the solicitors and say- look it up. Otherwise I guess they are just going to say its a grey area therefore I should have got planning permission!

Also as someone mentions this was over 7 years ago; does that make a difference?

 

[^woody^]

However, if at the same time it has had external wall insulation added below the cladding in addition to the structural repairs, that would be permitted development regardless of the appearance of the cladding finish"

The OP needs to bear in mind that the repairs and the cladding are two distinct operations under planning law,

 

[tony1851]

Also as someone mentions this was over 7 years ago; does that make a difference?

After 4 years it becomes immune from any enforcement action by the council.