 |
 |
"PART 2" of (of schedule 2 of the order) is titled MINOR OPERATIONS "Class B" of that section state that permitted development includes "The formation, laying out and construction of a means of access to a highway which is not a trunk road or a classified road, where the access is required in connection with development permitted by any Class in this schedule (other than by Class A of this Part)" ----------------------------------------- For those confused about this essential the situation is this: When the planning legislation came into force (in 1947) the boffins drawing up the legislation had to decide what needed consent and what did not. It would be silly to have to obtain consent to digging a hole to plant a tree but an open cast quarry or planting a forest clearly would require consent but how were they to draw the line. Rather than list everything that might require an application the approach was to put into the legislation that anything that could be viewed as "Development" would require permission. The General Development Order was then drawn up to list items that were of a nature where consent would not be necessary i.e. these items are "permitted" hence the term permitted development. This includes items like a small porch, a garage, a hardstanding, painting the house (NB subject to meeting certain other criteria in the document) Forming an access onto a non classified road is an item included in those that does not require planning consent. The points to note are - It is included under the section "minor operations" (whether the works carried out could be argued as being more than this and therefore contrary to the spirit of the document is a matter for legal opinion) - Although forming the access may be permitted the associated "major engineering" works you refer to might not be (although it could be argued that they are an integral part of the scheme and therefore permitted) - The other criteria listed is that the access is required in connection with development permitted.. (I don't know what other development was carried out that necessitated this access - it may be that these other works were not "permitted" therefore consent was necessary for both them and the access) With regard to the AONB and the Archaeological importance these are also referred to in the order. Article 7 allows the mineral planning authority to make a direction that permission granted by the development order does not apply if the development is in an AONB and/or a site of archaeological importance. However they are given 21 days from receipt of notification of the works to make this direction. (NB - the term Site of Archaeological interest is defined as a scheduled ancient monument (SAM), a "designated area of archaeological importance" as defined in the act, or "within a site registered in any record adopted by resolution by a county council and known as the County Sites and Monuments Record") Worth noting that Sites on the SMR often have no statutory protection (unless listed or SAM) but the local authority can make a direction that works are not permitted development if they do so within 21 days of notification. I am sure very few councils are aware of this. Unfortunately much work carried out as Permitted Development is done without any notification to the council that it is to take place. (as in this case). Sadly if the council have taken legal advice and decided that this case is not worth fighting there is little that can be done. I assume that the council would be prepared to answer questions on why they don't intend to take action. You might ask what permitted development took place that necessitated the access. You could ask if the site is on the SMR and if it is when they were notified and why that didn't make a direction. You could even ask why they considered the engineering works to be exempt from needing consent as surely they aren't "minor operations". I doubt you will get a very constructive reply. Unfortunately if the Local Authority take the view that nothing improper has taken place regarding planning legislation, it will be very difficult to take any private action. A sob story in the press about how dreadful this is both from the point of view of the desecration carried out by the council and the lack of action by the council may get local support (it may only mean that the owner removes the rest of the remains out of spite!!) Hope the advice helps (at least in terms of understanding the situation even if not practically) Regards David Hardwick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trevor Dunkerley" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [MINING-HISTORY] Urgent Advise Required. Dear List, This time last year, the archaeological society to which I am a member made objection regarding a Devon non metalled sunken lane and footpath, (originally a 'silver/lead mining-trench' of unknown original date, but with substantial revetment walls of medieval date, these partially removed during documented mining exploration in the 19th century, and subsequently rebuilt to retain mine waste), which had up to 12m of revetment wall removed (6m in height) to make additional vehicular access to a property adjacent to the lane/footpath. This work was carried out without planning permission and eventually stopped by district planners. Retrospective planning permission was applied for which was refused. The district planners have subsequently taken legal advise regarding the requirement of planning permission and it has been concluded that no planning permission is required as the works constitute, despite major engineering works, a new domestic access through an existing curtlage. The lane/footpath is situated in an AOB, is a direct footpath onto and within half a mile to a National Park, and is in a conservation area. The 'permitted development' is designated under Class B of Part 2 of the 'Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and would not therefore require planning permission. I would be grateful to any member of this list who could quote me 'Class B of Part 2' of the above, and offer any advise on how to further object to this desecration of an important archaeological site. Kindest regards, Trevor Dunkerley