2
|
|
2 |
|
|
LAW
|
& PRACTICE
|
|
Government Circular 1 6/85 on telecommunications development was a permissive one. Regard
was
to be given to the environment but it was not intended that planning controls should slow the cutting edge of new communications technology. As a consequence 75% of all appeal cases concerning telecommunications antennae have been allowed.
‘Where dishes have been installed and retrospective applications have been refused, there has been a common thread of references to the “alien” character of dishes which were difficult to integrate into a residential (and in some cases commercial) environment.
In Grimsby a dish on the front wall of a betting shop in a residential area of red brick houses was dismissed on appeal despite the appellant painting it red-brown. In other cases appeals were dismissed primarily because the advice on siting above roof lines had been ignored.
This is clearly becoming a fraught issue and must be watched closely. Although listed buildings appear to be safeguarded at the moment, reliance on A4Ds (which are often difficult to have confirmed at the best of times) will not be enough to protect conservation areas. A return to the
1986
position (at least) is long overdue.
Recent editions of
Context
have carried despatches in the ACO’s battle against Part V of the Local Government & Hous
|
ing Bill. The last issue announced (page 24) that successful lobbying in support of the Architectural Heritage Fund had resulted in the Bill being amended to exempt Building Preservation Trusts from its provisions provided they are on the AHF’s Register.
This exemption is likely to put the
AHF
under some pressure to admit to the Register organisations which include preservation amongst their aims but are not, in the Fund’s sense, building preservation trusts. To clarify the situation the following criteria will be used by the
AHF
in determining eligibilty for the Register. These are:
(1) The organisation must be a registered charity or have charitable status;
(2) The preservation of buildings of historical, architectural or constructional interest must be one of the organisation’s foremost “objects”.
(3) The organisation must be constituted as a “revolving fund”
—
in other words it must be specifically empowered to buy, preserve/renovate and sell historic buildings and to apply the proceeds from one project to the next.
Note that in respect of item 2 above, Town Development Trusts whose objects may include erection of buildings, improvements and the creation of landscapes, may not be eligible for the Register if preservation is not their primary purpose.
“Single building trusts”
—
organisations established in order to preserve a particular property
—
are not eligible for the
|
Register. Organisations with a wider heritage or environmental remit can be considered, but the AHF needs to be satisfied that they intend to embark on a revolving fund programme.
Thieves who stole leadwork from Revesby Abbey, Lincolnshire, were caught red- handed by a local builder who had arrived on site to measure up for repairs to a carved stone parapet which the same thieves had previously toppled over to steal the lead.
The Grade 1 building is currently the subject of English Heritage’s first Repairs Notice. Its Buildings at
Risk
Section advised the police on the criminal charges that could be faced for damaging the building.
At Lincoln Crown Court on 11th December, the three lead thieves were found guilty. Two were sentenced to eight and six months respectively, while the third was required to do 100 hours community service. The judge in making
his
decision referred to the fact that the building was listed and despite the fact that the value of the lead was only a few hundred pounds, he felt that the considerable damage caused by the toppling of the stonework should be reflected in the sentences.
|
|
|
2 |
|