Royal Tunbridge Wells Civic Society

Environmental Protection Issues

This report reviews certain environmental topics of concern to the Society in the context of protecting the character of Royal Tunbridge Wells, describes the degree of protection for them in the present state of planning law and Local Plan policy, and indicates where the Society feels additional steps by the Borough Council are needed.

1. Statutory Controls

The environmental issues considered are listed below (s.2). The Regulations on Permitted Development (PD) have recently been revised, and in some cases these matters may not now require planning consent; they also may not be the subject of explicit planning policy. In certain cases where consent is now not required we believe planning control should be extended by the Council to ensure matters of public concern are dealt with consistently and according to published principles.

There has been little publicity about the changes to Permitted Development (PD); debate has focussed on the National Infrastructure Commission to decide major proposals, the other main current change, which requires primary legislation[1]. The general effect of the PD changes is to increase the need for enhanced protection in certain areas, and to ensure the standards and objectives are understood.

With the PD changes the Government sought to focus the control system on impact in minor cases, `does it affect anyone?`, in place of the older rules based on uses and dimensions[2]. However most of the new rules still involve measurements (eg. of house extensions) and definitions that may not be obvious. I have done a separate note on the main changes proposed, and the comments below take account of the new position as I understand it.

The overall effect is:

to remove about 25% of minor applications from the planning regime;

in some cases not applicable to conservation areas – thus the value of conservation area designation is increased;

most of the changes are relaxations but some are strengthening of control.

The `impact` principle is based on the interests of the general public, defined as those on the public highway, rather than those of neighbours. There are already cases where development control fails to protect the reasonable interests of neighbours, and relaxing control in general increases the number of these. But, listed buildings apart, the Society is mainly concerned with the wider environment.

2. Areas of Primary Concern to the Society

  • Front garden parking
  • Replacement of original windows, fences etc.
  • Satellite dishes
  • Renewable energy installations
  • Removal of trees and hedges
  • Use of strong colours and incompatible materials

Some extensions and loft conversions also concern us. Up to now significant cases have usually required formal consent. The current changes are very detailed but seem to preserve this position in most cases of concern to the Society. With ground level extensions some of the criteria, eg. for conservatories, are relaxed but changes of materials and the introduction of raised terraces, balconies etc. still require consent. In conservation areas all side extensions and all roof extensions continue to require permission. There is a new limit on the size of dormers applying to all areas.

3. Cases

a) Front garden parking

There is no control of the use of a front garden for parking private vehicles, unless the work necessary to convert it for this purpose itself requires planning consent. The steps involved are usually the creation of a paved surface and crossover, removal of a boundary wall or fence and of trees etc. The demolition of any gate, fence or wall of less than 1m height is PD. The new Order requires consent to be obtained for more than 5sqm of impermeable paving in a front garden where there is no soakaway; this seems unlikely to bring many such developments within planning control.

In practice the great majority of cases fall below 1m height for walls or fences, and involve shrubs or hedges rather than trees. There may be doubt in older areas as to what constitutes a front garden. Outside planning control by the borough council the highway authority is required to give consent for a new access to the highway, but is only concerned where the road is classified or issues of highway safety arise. It may also be unclear what constitutes a new access.

With shortage of parking space in many parts of TWthere is pressure for residents to create off-street space. The process is cumulative and contagious. One front garden converted to parking usually reduces the on-street parking available by at least one space. It affects the street environment by removing greenery and boundary fences, and often causing brick pavers to be replaced by tarmac for the crossover; it is hazardous for pedestrians, especially where there are many pavement crossings.

The criteria used by the highway authority are unsatisfactory: few of the roads affected in Tunbridge Wells are classified, and highway safety is usually taken to apply only to road traffic, not pedestrian safety. The distinctions between private and commercial vehicle parking, and between new and existing crossings, are largely unenforceable.

We do not oppose front garden parking in principle but believe it raises issues which require formal planning consent in all areas, particularly in the conservation areas.

b) Replacement of original windows, fences etc.

Replacement of windows is not referred to in the legislation, but the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse is only permitted where `the materials used in any exterior work.... shall be similar in appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse`. This is said to preclude the replacement of timber windows with PVCu[3], but disputes could arise about the meaning of `similar in appearance`. The parenthesis indicated refers to an exception for conservatories: these can be of alien materials, which is usually PVCu.

Replacement of fences, walls etc is PD subject to height limits of 1m adjoining a road and 2m elsewhere; there is no reference to materials in this context.

The Society is concerned about the replacement of timber windows, front doors etc in older property with metal or PVCu units. In the case of windows these nearly always have a different flatter but wider profile than the original and bring the glazing forward giving a characteristically blank appearance. Front doors often have an inappropriate `Georgian` style, with integrated fanlights. There are related issues, such as the matching of glazing bars. Some recent cases have been the subject of planning applications, and some have been refused under the previous Order.

We believe the Council’s position needs to be clarified with a policy which requires all replacement of original exterior joinery and boundary walls in the conservation areas to be subject to planning consent, with a presumption that alternatives to timber will only be accepted where the profile is a close match to the original. We find the position of conservatories anomalous.

c) Satellite Dishes (Microwave Antennae)

These are PD subject to various limits on size and position, eg. not above roof level, and not more than 60cm in width in the case of a dish on a house, and not more than 90cm in width for a dish elsewhere; and the general principles that dishes shall be sited so as to minimise the effect on the external appearance, and be removed when no longer in use. In conservation areas consent is required to install a dish on a chimney or front wall visible from a highway.

The general principles are commendable but we believe them to be unenforceable. We feel the limits that apply in conservation areas should apply everywhere. We are concerned at the prospect of antennae up to 90cm in width in gardens outside the conservation areas. We would like to see a Council policy on satellite dishes and other microwave equipment on or connected with commercial buildings.

d) Renewable Energy Installations

for micro-generation

Roof or wall-mounted solar panels are PD subject to a maximum perpendicular height above the roof or wall plane of 200mm. But in conservation areas they should not be mounted on the front or side of a building and be visible from a highway, and not on or in the curtilage of a listed building. Free-standing solar panels are permitted up to 9sqm with a maximum height of 4m and a minimum distance from the site boundary of 5m. The general principles again are that they shall be sited so as to minimise visual effect and be removed when no longer in use.

The Government consulted on permitting wind generators, with provision for them to be roof-mounted up to a maximum height above the ridge and maximum blade diameter. But these provisions are absent from the amended Orders. Thus all wind generators continue to require planning permission.

On solar panels, again we believe the general principles are unenforceable, and note that the Order relates to ancillary panels rather than the newer integral kind, but otherwise we feel the legal framework is appropriate. With a fast-evolving technology we believe the emphasis in consents should be on any structural changes being readily reversible.

With wind-generators being subject to planning control we would welcome a policy that roof-mounted generators will not be approved on listed buildings or in the conservation areas.

With the benefit of Renewable Obligation Certificates premium prices for renewable energy are available to commercial operators supplying the grid. We would like to see a definition of micro-generation, such that commercial installations are clearly excluded from permitted development, and a plan policy for these.

e) Removal of Trees and Hedges

There is no requirement for planning permission for this, although associated earth moving may fall into the category of engineering works requiring permission. But the Local Plan policy EN1 (4) requires development proposals not to result in the loss of trees, shrubs, hedges or other features `important to the character of the built up area or landscape`. Policy EN5 (6) repeats this in the context of conservation areas. Policy EN13 specifies that development will not be acceptable that causes the loss or damage of one or more trees in a conservation area.

We welcome the emphasis on the retention of trees and hedges in the context of development. s.211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that trees in conservation areas have effectively the same level of protection as those subject to Tree Preservation Orders, and local authorities have six weeks in which to respond to an application from an owner to fell or lop such a tree.

The general public, including the Society, have no right to object to an application, but the authority has a duty to maintain a public register of these notices. We find this anomalous, and it is our practice to respond in cases that concern us. We would also welcome a policy on the subject of housing being built so close to established trees that subsequent pressure to fell or lop on grounds of safety etc. becomes irresistible.

We believe it should be made clear how policies such as EN5(6) apply in circumstances where there is no other development.

f) Use of Strong Colours and Incompatible Materials

The painting etc of any building (including fences and walls) is PD unless done for the purposes of advertising. There is no exemption for conservation areas or listed buildings. In conservation areas the facing of any building with stone, pebbledash, timber or plastic requires planning permission (and see 3b above for the restriction on materials).

We believe paint finishes should be brought within planning control, certainly in the case of listed buildings, and preferably in conservation areas. If practical the requirement could be limited to cases where the use of colour is strikingly at odds with the surroundings. The question of what constitutes advertising could also be clarified.

4. Summary of Society’s Views

We believe the following should be made subject to planning consent and plan policy:

  • Conversion of front gardens for parking in all areas
  • Erection of satellite dishes (microwave antennae) in all areas
  • Replacement of exterior joinery and boundary walls in conservation areas
  • The adoption of `non-conformist` colour schemes in conservation areas

We believe policy should be clarified with regard to:

  • Replacement of windows and doors with different materials
  • Erection of solar panels of both kinds and wind generators
  • Public interest in the felling etc of trees and removal of hedges
  • Development of conservatories

A summary sheet is attached.

5. Legal Powers

These are steps within the power of the Borough Council. The recent PD changes have made this more, not less desirable.

Extension of the planning consent regime can be achieved by one or more Article 4 directions, which have the effect of removing PD rights in specified respects and areas.

At present an Article 4 direction requires an application with reasons to the Secretary of State, but the Government is consulting on whether this is still necessary. There is also provision for compensation to be paid, but this is limited to twelve months after the direction takes effect for the purpose of compensating those affected for abortive work or fees, and not for the loss of rights. The liability for compensation can thus be largely avoided by giving twelve months’ notice of a change.

The necessary clarification of policy could be achieved by a non-statutory policy document.

Environmental Protection Issues 051208

25.6.09 (rev4)

[1] The main rules for Permitted Development (development not requiring planning permission) are contained in an Order (the GPDO) dating from 1995. In 2008 these rules have been amplified by an Amendment Order in April, dealing with micro-generation, and partially replaced by an Amendment Order in October, dealing with house extensions etc. 30 classes of the 1995 rules remain in force for other applications. Overall this makes the question of what requires planning permission complex, and increases reliance on screening opinion from planning officers.

[2] The recent changes are restricted to `householders`, responsible for about 70% of applications.

[3] Planning 3 October 2008, Development Control Notes