Talk:Article 4 direction

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

It is "Article 4" of the Town & Country Planning General Development Order 1988, Statutory Instrument No. 1988:1813.

Is it still true that the provision is "very rarely used". A search in Google on <"Article 4 Direction" inurl:gov.uk> yields 51,100 hits!

{{helpme - I am not a UK planning expert. Is my comment about the current use of A4 Ds valid, please?}}

Vernon White 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert either. I do work in the field though, and in my experience this direction is very rarely used indeed. Naturenet | Talk 10:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think more resesearch is needed about these statements. The Derwent Valley in England is mostly conservation area, but certain parts are designated as article 4, which is treated by the council as being equivalent to Grade 2 Listing for permissions. Possibly it saves the council Grade 2 listing buildings individually. This predates the recent addition of World Heritage status. Chevin 08:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A council cannot list buildings, and an Article 4 Direction is not and cannot be equivalent to listed building status. It is perhaps one of the most common uses of this process for Article 4 Directions to be made on parts of or all of conservation areas, for example to prevent the erection of satellite dishes or removal of chimneys. However the Direction has to be very specific about the area and types of restrictions. Naturenet | Talk 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your amendments. I am not an expert on this which is why I pointed it up for somoeone else to do. What I have is an awareness as an occupier. Possibly the statement by the council that it should be taken as equivalent to grade 2 listing is offered as a rule of thumb. I note that a row of houses have had to display notices that they intend to replace their window frames, even though they will be timber, presumably of the same appearance. A useful aside for anyone affected is that current (2006) instructions from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is that there should be no charge for planning consent for work (e.g. installation of a staellite dish) if such consent would not be needed outside of the area. Chevin 08:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge to General Permitted Development Order

There has been a proposed merge for this page to General Permitted Development Order by User:Crookesmoor. No reason was given. I shall be deleting this tag if nobody has anything to add to this. Naturenet | Talk 11:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I do not support merging these topics. When searching for Article 4 restrictions, an item on Generally Permitted Development is of little interest since it puts the reader into a different category. Namely what IS possible as opposed to what is specifically NOT possible. This would be akin to researching the symptom of an illness only to be presented with the symptoms everyone else is researching. Article 4 restrictions are researched by those of us with specific restrictions placed on us and not the wider, general permissions.

A link should howver be maintained to Generally Permitted Development information as it may be useful if, after a full understanding of Article 4 restrcitions, the reader is making a case for development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.33.184 (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Totally agree with the comment above. Both articles are substantial and the overlap is minimal. Please delete the tag.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]