Demolition Consent
Posted: 14 December 2010 03:52 PM   [ Ignore ]
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2010-12-14

One of the issues that seems common in communities is the demolition of historic buildings before planning consent is even requested to ensure that neither the local community nor the local authority can request that the existing building be preserved. In some cases listed building status has been obtained to avoid this but too often listed building status isn’t awarded wasting the time of the local community and English Heritage.

As such, I would like to suggest that demolition consent be required for all buildings that are:

1. Over 80 years old (from date of original construction)
2. Lie within an existing Conservation Area
3. Are on the local authorities list of buildings of local interest (if under 80 years old)

As part of these changes, CAC would be abolished and replaced with the generalised demolition consent although this would only be required to be submitted separately if no planning is submitted at the same time for redevelopment. The generalised demolition consent would be free as CAC is at the moment and it would be up to the local authority to indicate what supplementary information (such a a heritage statement) is required for determination. Appeals to the planning inspectorate against refusal would be as per existing CAC.

If a demolition consent is granted it would be valid for 3 years and could only be extinguished through listed building status being awarded by English Heritage.

Comments from everyone welcome!

Posted: 21 December 2010 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Total Posts:  111
Joined  2010-04-27

Matthew makes a good argument to address what is clearly a loophole in the system.  We raised this concern with Government officials last year and the problem is recognised but awaiting new heritage legislation to address it.  We are not expecting the Localism Bill to address heritage issues despite the failure to progress the Heritage Bill after the General Election but Civic Voice will continue to raise the issue wherever we can.  What do you think of Matthew’s propsoed solution?