General discussion forum

Solar farm - Special circumstances in the Greenbelt

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:46:26 BST

Hello, does anyone have any experience of solar farms on greenbelt land ? - We have a speculative enquiry as to what would constitute special circumstances for the development of a solar farm for groundmounted solar panels in the greenbelt. Have any other LPAs had to deal with such a scheme before? Submitted by: Richard Seaward

Re: New GDPO - Part 4 Class D "Flexible uses"

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:07:09 BST

We are just catching up with the Flexible Uses changes, and wanted to get some views on what other will do when (if) they receive a notification (we haven t so far). Firstly, I do agree with the way this change has been interpreted in earlier posts. I.E. the use of Class D is for a 2 year period starting with the start date of the change. There is then a 2 year continuous period where the site ( ie buildings or part buildings and land within the curtilage) can benefit from the change of use. During this time, the use can be any use within the Use Class stated in the notification, and if they want to go to another (flexible) Use Class, then a fresh notification is needed, although this does not lead to a further 2 year period. At the end of the 2 years the use reverts to the lawful use as at the start, and if the developer wants the temporary use to continue, then they need to make a planning application in the usual way. If the developer does not comply with the conditions set out in D.2, then its not permitted development. Moving on to how we will deal with any notifications, our thinking is that we will record the notification in our DM system and check that the lawful use is one of those listed in D(b). (ie A1-5, B1, D1 and D2). We will let the developer know the outcome, and if it is pd, we will remind them of the conditions set out in D.2. We will also publish the notification online (using Public Access). We had not planned to check the floor area (we are not expecting any plans) or whether the site is in an explosives storage area or a safety hazard area or a listed building/scheduled monument. Our thinking is that the developer must know the floor area and they can check and satisfy themselves on the other criteria. We won t be directly publicising the notification, ie no neighbour letters/site notices, but any one can sign up on Public Access to receive an email alert. At the end of the 2 year period we will add such sites to our monitoring list. It would be useful to hear what others are doing. Submitted by: Bryan Cadman

Re: Metal sheeting on empty shops

Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:49:36 BST

Thanks all. I had suggested to my Senior Officer that you could argue the sheeting was not development but as it creates a material change he did not buy it. Leslie-did you find there was no breach because it was not development? It's plainly obvious that the developer is going to turn the upper B1 floors into resi but the councillors want a quick fix to make the front appear better so Ian's idea may well be something I suggest to the management company. I think as it is such a wealthy area with a very vibrant high street the Councillors are just very frustrated to see it empty and looking to planning enforcement as a way of being seen as 'doing something' Submitted by: Richard Temple

Re: Metal sheeting on empty shops

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:11:40 BST

We had a look at this in Chester some years ago when a pub was boarded up in this fashion, as so many now are. The opinion at that time was there was no breach of planning control. If it attracts graffiti there are powers to remove it but other than that I think that you just looking at a symbol of the decline of cities and some uses in particular. Get someone to apply to convert the building into something else by showing them the new p.d. rights. Submitted by: Leslie Smith

Re: Metal sheeting on empty shops

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:05:10 BST

Before asking whether it might be "permitted development" ask whether it is "development" in the first place ... i.e. is it a building, engineering, mining or other operation. If not, you wouldn't be in a position to enforce as there would be no breach of planning control. Submitted by: Michael Hyde

Re: Metal sheeting on empty shops

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:54:39 BST

Have you seen the BBC article on 'fake shops'? I visited Belfast a few weeks ago and was impressed with the new fake shops which I think made the area look 'tidy'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-22819331 (sorry this is not answering your query!) Submitted by: Ian McDonald

Metal sheeting on empty shops

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:12:56 BST

Hi All, I have an enforcement case at the moment where the Councillor is keen for us to enforce on the metal sheeting they use over windows to secure shops when they are empty. We have already agreed the site is not worthy of a s215 notice but does anyone know if there is any permitted development rights for this sheeting and if not has anyone enforced on these before? Many Thanks Submitted by: Richard Temple

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:54:07 BST

Mmmm! Be very careful here! i`m paraphrasing Martin Goodall here ( Renowned Planning Lawyer) `The change of use cannot take place until the completion of a prior notification procedure. The developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to - (a) transport and highways impacts of the development, (b) contamination risks on the site and (c) flooding risks on the site. There are detailed rules relating to this procedure, which are set out in paragraph N. The application must be accompanied by a written description of the proposed development, a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development [again, as with domestic extensions, this is a plan in the singular, so it does not include elevations], the developer s contact address or email address and, in this case, any fee required to be paid. Where the application relates to prior approval as to transport and highways impacts of the development, where in the opinion of the local planning authority the development is likely to result in a material increase or a material change in the character of traffic in the vicinity of the site, the council must consult the relevant statutory consultees (highway authority, rail operators, etc.), and the same applies where the application relates to prior approval as to the flooding risks on the site (in this case the Environment Agency). In addition, the LPA must display a site notice for at least 21 days, and must serve a notice on any adjoining owner or occupier. However, there is no requirement in this case for the developer to supply the LPA with the addresses of any adjoining premises. The LPA may require the developer to submit such information regarding the impacts and risks referred to above as they may reasonably require in order to determine the application, which may include assessments of impacts or risks and statements setting out how impacts or risks are to be mitigated. However, there is no power for the LPA to request additional information outside this fairly narrow subject matter, even if there are objections from neighbouring owners or occupiers; a request for additional information cannot extend beyond material relating to transport and highways impacts, contamination risks and flooding risks. When determining the application, the LPA must take into account any representations made to them as a result of any consultation; they must have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework as if the application were a planning application and (in relation to the contamination risks on the site) they must determine whether, as a result of the proposed change of use, taking into account any proposed mitigation, the site will be contaminated land (as described in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990), and in doing so they must have regard to the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance issued by DEFRA in April 2012 (and if they determine that the site will be contaminated land, they must refuse to give prior approval.) There is no specific requirement here to have regard to the development plan, so that on the face of it section 38(6) of the 2004 Act would not appear to be engaged, but the stipulation that the LPA must have regard to the NPPF as if the application were a planning application might be thought to bring this in by the back door. Paragraph 196 of the NPPF notes that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, but this paragraph does not in itself bring section 38(6) into play. The intention of this paragraph in the NPPF is simply to stress that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 also mentions that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. There is also some ambiguity in the requirement to take into account any representations made to them as a result of any consultation , bearing in mind that this consultation includes the notification of neighbours. If a neighbour objection is received that is based on some issue other than transport and highways impacts, contamination risks or flooding risks, should those representations be taken into account or not? One is certainly left with the impression that these prior notification applications for change of use from office to residential are likely to be dealt with as if they were planning applications, which could effectively frustrate the government s purported intentions in promulgating this change to the GPDO.` The second issue is how you interpret para 55 ! Although you don`t say it, I get the strong impression that you think that para 55 prohibits the re-use of isolated buildings for residential purposes. It does not! It specifically says that new residential dwellings in isolated locations should be avoided except in specific circumstances and re-use is identified as one of those specific circumstances subject to it enhancing the physical environment. Again read the Mendip appeela case and I have a string of others where Inspectors take the same line. Submitted by: Chris Weetman

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:28:44 BST

Thanks for your comment Chris, I agree first there is the principle to establish if abandonment has taken place and whilst the building sits within an established rural industrial site it is outside of the settlement where housing would not be supported- it was a former MOD site and obtained a certificate of Lawful use some time ago. Having done a bit more research on this matter it appeas that LPA's are to have regards to Class N when considering these types of applications. Class N 8(b) states that LPA's are to have regard to the NPPF as if the application was a planning application. I assume that para. 55 would be applicable in making sure housing is in sustainable locations. I would be interested in others views on this. Submitted by: Denise Knipe

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:17:33 BST

Denise At the risk of upsetting you (and others) I would suggest that the first issue is whether abandonment has taken place and the four tests therefore apply. If abandonment has taken place they cannot implement Class J. If not , then the only issues you can consider are those laid down by the GPDO amendment (transport, contamination and flooding) and issues you refer to such as unsustainable location, dilapidation, repairs and location in the business park are not relevant. They are material planning considerations, Class J is permited devleopment via a prior notification system that does not allow the LPA to consider the above material planning considerations......so as they say LPA`s need to `let it go` . Repairs and external appearance may well be something you can control after Class J is implemented if they apply for PP specifically for those matters. I am also scratching my head as to why the site is `unsustainable` if its in a business park? Surely locational `unsustainability ` applies to all types of use not just housing? There is a very succinct and logical recent appeal decision in Mendip where the Inspector addresses this very issue and should be a real eye opener to all LPA`s who still say (despite PPS7 being rescinded) that an isolated building cannot be converted to residential because it is unsustainable in locational terms but its re-use for economic purposes is sustainable in locational terms! Submitted by: Chris Weetman

Re: PD Extensions after PP

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:40:09 BST

Thank you John.....yes this LPA is not the most accommodating. i don`t think they have read the NPPF nor do they take better design into account......rules are rules! Submitted by: Chris Weetman

Re: PD Extensions after PP

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:34:47 BST

Ah, the nonsense of PD in the Green Belt. You are right in your interpretation; just make sure that no part of the PD extension would physically connect to any part of the extension permitted by the LPA. Also be aware that in granting planning permission for the side extension the LPA could remove PD rights if it considers it is reasonable and necessary to do so. But really the LPA should be taking this fallback argument into account in assessing whether to grant planning permission. Submitted by: John Jones

PD Extensions after PP

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:26:34 BST

LPA has a very strict policy in relation to size of extensions in the Green Belt. (50% of floor area) Client proposes 100% because existing cottages are tiny. LPA says no! I believe they can get 80 % if they apply for a reduced 2 storey side extension to the LPA and then after it is built build the rest as PD ( small single storey rear extension of 3m - and detached garages to the rear) I can find nothing that says you cannot do works under PD (deemed PP) after the property has had an extension under extant PP- subject to the other criteria regarding 50% of curtilage and not nearer road etc etc Anyone disagree? Submitted by: Chris Weetman

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:27:32 BST

Having read the posts above and looked at the original CLG consultation on this issue together with their recent response, I am not clear what happens after the LPA issues a non validation notice. Do we then issue a refusal on grounds of lack of information within the 8 week period (from the date the information was not received) or just sit on the application to see whether the applicant submits an appeal against non detemination after the expiry of the 8 week period? If not I presume the status remains as non validation notice issued and the application is essentially closed on that basis. Any comments would be appreciated. Submitted by: Jenny Seaman

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:33:35 BST

Link attached http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1238/made Submitted by: Evelyn Gilder

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:10:50 BST

Hello, can someone add a link to these Regs please as I can't track them down. Thanks Submitted by: Nick Rogers

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:33:01 BST

It appears that the 8 week and 13 week dates may lose some relevance as a result of this legislation- if there is some to-ing and fro-ing at validation stage and the application is them deemed 'non-invalid' it could be week five before an application is even registered. If it is simply impossible for the statutory timescales to be met in many cases they may lose their relevance as targets and statistics. It seems very odd that the applicant could have a right to appeal before the public consultation period has ended, the LPA would then have had no legal opportunity to determine the application. This would effectively provide the applicant an opportunity to bypass the LPA and have the Secretary of State determine the application. Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:13:14 BST

Hi Gerard, With regards to the quote in my post above from the DMPO 2010 (i.e. from Article 6 paragraph (1)), the subsequent paragraph of this legislation provides the following additional information: "(1) Any plans or drawings required to be provided by paragraph (1)(c)(i) or (ii) shall be drawn to an identified scale and, in the case of plans, shall show the direction of North." So, in my opinion, if there's no identified scale on the drawings, then you could invalidate the application on the basis that it doesn't meet the requirements of Article 6, and this couldn't be overriden by the new "validation dispute" procedure. However, if there's an identified scale on the drawings (e.g. an annotation stating "scale 1:50", etc), and you invalidate the application on the basis that it doesn't have a scale bar, then in my opinion this could be overriden by the new "validation dispute" procedure. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:54:35 BST

We have a local validation requirement that all drawings (other than the site plan) have a scale bar with a minimum distance of 0-5 or 0-10 metres. This is because we no longer use paper plans and it allows us (and members of the public) to measure stuff on electronic drawings, even if they are printed at the wrong scale. It also allows us to verify that drawings have been produced at the scale stated. Would people consider this to be a reasonable requirement? Submitted by: Gerard Livett

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:37:05 BST

To implement class J - what would be a reasonable time gap for the last use as B1(a)?. In my previous post I raised the issue of abandonment. the building in question has the appearance of a dwelling sitting within a former MOD site but has the benefit of a CLU in the 80's allowing all buildings on site to have a B1/B8 use. The building in questions is in an unsustainable location, delapitated, needs extensive repairs and sits within the confines of an existing business park. Any thoughts? Submitted by: Denise Knipe

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:37:11 BST

Hi Bryan, I appreciate where you are coming from. If it is clear from the information submitted that the proposed extension would not comply with a part or parts of Class A it makes sense to inform the applicant / agent of this fact. Unfortunately the system provides no opportunity for the LPA to confirm that a proposal would represent permitted development. The decision which is issued can only relate to prior approval. I would imagine most LPAs will apply an informative confirming this fact. The reality is the only way that an LPA can provide a formal confirmation that planning permission would not be required for a specific extension design is for an LDC application to be submitted after the prior approval application has been determined. I do not believe that this was the intention of Government; it appears likely that ministers were not aware of how the new application process would pan out. The system created has increased red tape and Bureaucracy; the only real benefit will be that some developers will be able to build extensions which the LPA may have refused on design or amenity grounds, and the economic activity which such projects may facilitate. Other than that, it is difficult to identify any impacts which are not negative. Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:13:23 BST

Whilst not saying that these new regulations are anything other than the proverbial dogs dinner, with increased red tape/bureaucracy for the public and councils, and increased costs for councils ( it would have been much simpler to just make the 6 and 8 m extensions pd) I do think there is an onus (someone called it a duty of care) for us ( the LPAs) to make it work, and what ever happens it will be our fault anyway. With this in mind, I am having difficulty rationalising the approach where we will go through the prior approval process, and tell developers/applicants that PA is not required or is given, but don t do the other checks under Part 1 Class A, and suggest they make an LDC request. This can t be what is intended, and both the Nick Boles and Eric Pickles letters (23/4 and 19/4) say that homeowners will no longer need to apply for an LDC as they will be provided with written confirmation that their application falls within permitted development . The Impact Assessment, confirms that other limitations in Part 1 would still apply, and although it does not explicitly say that LPAs should check the other limitations I do understand that if the absolute minimum information is supplied and with no scale or dimensions, you probably won t be able to conclude on some points, such as the % of the total amount of curtilage covered by buildings and distance from boundaries. But if we explain what a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development actually means and tell applicants/developers upfront, it has to be in their interest to supply it. Our first application (its on Planning Online) has done this. I also understand the concern about adding costs, especially as we stopped doing is it pd checks a few years back ( we now say submit an LDC), and I am not convinced by the argument that as Householder applications don t recover their costs ( true) LPAS will actually be saving money by having less Householder applications to determine. So, and it looks although we could be in a minority on this, our intention is that we will do the is it pd test when we receive a notification and bite the bullet of the increased costs. If the notice has enough information to be valid for the PA process, but has insufficient information for us to do the pd check, then we will have to say that in our decision letter. I would also expect that somewhere down the line we will get cases where PA is not required or given, where the development is not pd, so again we will include this in our decision letter . Also, and although we are not expecting many of these cases, planning to keep a record of how much time we spend on this process Submitted by: Bryan Cadman

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:30:26 BST

Hi Dean, I agree that it'll now be risky for an LPA to invalidate an application on the basis that it doesn't include information that falls within the LPA's list of requirements. After all, if an applicant receives an invalid letter on this basis, then they now have the choice of either 1) providing the additional information, in which case the 8/13 weeks will start from when the LPA receives the additional information, or 2) not providing the additional information, in which case the 8/13 weeks would have already started from when the LPA received the previous information. I'm guessing that many (if not most) applicants would choose the latter option, even though this might increase the likeliness of their application subsequently being refused planning permission on the basis of a "fails to demonstrate" type reason for refusal. In terms of other options, it's worth noting that the new procedure ("validation dispute") doesn t affect the other information required by the DMPO 2010 i.e. the information required by Articles 5 and 6, the D&A statement (if required), the ownership certificate, and the fee. For example, Article 6 of the DMPO 2010 requires that an application for planning permission shall be accompanied by: "(i) a plan which identifies the land to which the application relates; (ii) any other plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development which is the subject of the application". So, if an application is invalidated on the basis that it doesn't contain the "plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development", and the applicant tries to send a notice under the new procedure ("validation dispute"), then technically the application would remain "invalid", and wouldn't become "non-validated". However, in my opinion, it becomes an even woolier concept trying to argue that an application doesn't meet the above requirements of Article 6, rather than trying to argue that an application doesn't meet the requirements of the LPA's list of requirements. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:23:00 BST

Thank you Steve, very helpful. Katie Submitted by: Katie Hey

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:59:19 BST

Hi Katie, The following DRAFT Statutory Instrument, which would amend the Fees Regulations 2012, indicates that there will be a fee of 80 for an application for prior approval under Schedule 2 Part 3 of the GPDO (i.e. "changes of use"): - DRAFT: The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111539293/contents However, please note the following: 1) At present, the front page of the above amendment SI indicates that it will come into force on "1st October 2013", which means that any application for prior approval under Schedule 2 Part 3 of the GPDO made during the 4-month period from 30/05/2013 to 01/10/2013 would not be subject to a fee. 2) At present, the above amendment SI indicates that the above fee (i.e. 80) will NOT be payable where the same applicant on the same day makes an application for planning permission (for which a fee is payable) for a site that includes buildings or land that are the subject of the application for prior approval Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:49:27 BST

Thanks Steve, Invalidating anything for want of a local requirement item now seems like a risky strategy, especially with the coming of changes to the fee regs requiring refund of fees if application not determined in 26 weeks. Would it be better to abandon local VR lists and rely instead on directions under the Application Regs of 1988 (SI 1988/1812) or under Article 4(2) of the DMPO for matters reserved in outline applications? Dean Submitted by: Dean Baker

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:47:56 BST

Does anyone know what the fee is for Class J (office to Res) application as noted in the regs? In addition, if there has not been a fee produced yet, can a Class J (office to Res) application be valid or not and on what basis? Thanks Submitted by: Katie Hey

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:17:50 BST

Hi Dean, As far as I can tell, regardless of whether the LPA issues "a validation notice" or a "non-validation notice", the 8/13 week deadline would be calculated from the date when all of the information, except the disputed information, was received (unless the notice from the applicant is received during the final 7 working days of this period). Furthermore, in either of these cases, if the LPA fails to determine the application (e.g. to grant or refuse planning permission) by this 8/13 week deadline, then Article 33 provides that the applicant may proceed to appeal on the grounds of non-determination under section 78 of the TCPA 1990. As an example of the above, suppose that an applicant submits a householder application on 1 July. The LPA decides that the application is "invalid" on the basis that it doesn't include certain information that falls within the LPA's list of requirements (which has been published on its website within the last 2 years). The applicant considers that this information is not "reasonable", and sends a notice to the LPA under the new "validation dispute" procedure. If the LPA issues "a validation notice", then this would imply that the application was "valid" on 1 July, and therefore the 8-week deadline would be 26 August (as set out by Article 29(2)). If the LPA issues a "non-validation notice", then this would mean that the 8-week deadline would be 26 August (as set out by Article 29(2A)). In either case, if the LPA fails to determine the application (e.g. grant or refuse planning permission) by 26 August, then the applicant would be able to proceed to appeal on the grounds of non-determination. Firstly, with the above example (and assuming that the applicant sends notice to the LPA before the final 7 working days), the 8-week determination period and the right to appeal appear to be identical for the "valid" application and the "non-validated" application. In other words, the "non-validated" application is effectively treated as a "valid" application. As such, although the legislation sets out that an application needs to include the information that falls within the LPA's list of requirements (so long as the list has been published on its website within the last 2 years), it now contains a provision that effectively means that the application doesn't need to include this information if the applicant considers that this information isn't "reasonable". Regardless of whether or not people agree with the aims of this amendment, surely it would have been much better to have amended the legislation so that LPAs couldn't invalidate an application on the basis of information that falls within their list of requirements, rather than having a situation where LPAs can invalidate the application but where the applicant can then choose for the application to be effectively treated as a "valid" application? Secondly, the new provision is likely to cause significant problems for LPAs in terms of the determination period. With the above example, suppose that the applicant sends notice to the LPA on 14 August, which could be because the LPA has taken several weeks to send an invalid letter, or could be because the applicant has taken several weeks to act upon this invalid letter. Regardless of who is responsible for this delay, and regardless of whether the LPA issues "a validation notice" or a "non-validation notice", the 8-week deadline would be 26 August. The LPA would be unable to determine the application by this date (due to the consultation periods), whilst the applicant would be able to proceed to appeal on the grounds of non-determination immediately after this date. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:59:26 BST

If the LPA considers that the application cannot be determined, it may be that they could choose to take no further action in relation to the application? The applicant could then appeal non-determination after the 8 / 13 week period. Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

DMPO Changes - Non Validated Applications

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:56:32 BST

Well, here is the latest offering to keep us on our toes: Changes to the DMPO wef 25 June. Applications can be invalidated for want of items included in a reviewed Local Validation Requirements List, so long as the particulars or evidence requested is reasonable having regard to nature and scale of the proposal and the matter is likely to be a material consideration. So far, so good. Where an applicant considers that the request does not meet the requirements, s/he may send notice to the LPA accordingly, specifying which of the matters is in dispute, his/her reasoning for this view, and request the requirement be waived. LPA responds with a counter notice: either a 'Validation Notice' or a 'Non-Validation Notice'. Question is: What happens then? Date of receipt: Non Val App is taken to be received on the date when all the (other) details had been received, notwithstanding that we will not know its status until Dispute Notice is received (which can be months later) Art 29 (Time periods for decision) is amended to include 'non-validated applications' - which seems to imply that we need to determine them within the stat time period even though we may not know their status at that stage There does not seem to be any appeal process set out for non validated applications, so what exactly is the point and what on earth are the LPA supposed to do with them? Anybody got a view? Submitted by: Dean Baker

Listing post implementation of planning permission.

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:28:08 BST

My client has obtained planning permission for new external works to a building. The pre-commencement condition for this has been formally discharged and work has been implemented, which the LPA has inspected. There is however a current application with English Heritage for the possible listing of the building, although no decision from the SoS has been received to date. For information, EH were consulted on the planning application for new external works but no comment received. The legal advice we have received suggests that if the building is subsequently listed by the SoS, then any further works from the date of formal listing, including the completion of any works granted under the benefit of an implemented planning permission will also require the benefit of listed building consent. The advice further states that any works already undertaken to the building to that point in time (i.e. upto the point of listing) are not affected. Q - is there any case law on this issue?. It seems strange that work can be lawfully implemented under a PP (for example half of the external works) and then if listed, a listed building consent being required for the remainder?. Submitted by: Jonathon Green

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:29:45 BST

One other case to add where the legislation would not facilitate a conversion: 5. Where a condition was applied to the original planning permission restricting to B1(a) only and no other use. Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:10:35 BST

Have been advised by my legal dept that the developer can notify us of a use and make a planning application for the external alts. Obviously a matter of tying the application to the notification by condition(?) Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:06:52 BST

On receipt as the 21 day period could be very tight if you were to wait until prior approval required was determined. Although it does not say "On receipt" unlike Part 24 to all intents and purposes the handling of them seems to be the same as for a phone mast. My Authority has decided to notify parishes as well of the new notifications as we already do that for phone masts. Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:59:07 BST

Does the legislation facilitate conversions to residential where external alterations are required (e.g. alterations to windows, the formation of balconies etc?). As far as I can see such works could not be considered under the prior approval process as this relates to a change of use only. Therefore the drawings submitted would need to show a conversion which did not include any external works. The legislation then requires that the change of use be carried out in accordance with these details unless the local planning authority and the developer agree otherwise in writing: (10) The development shall be carried out (a) where prior approval is required, in accordance with the details approved by the local planning authority; (b) where prior approval is not required, or where paragraph (9)(c) applies, in accordance with the details provided in the application referred to in paragraph (1), unless the local planning authority and the developer agree otherwise in writing. If prior approval were determined as not required / approved, it is not clear how the developer would then seek approval for external works. Could the developer apply for planning permission for the external works as pure operational development and cite the prior approval in relation to the proposed residential layouts they show on the plans? If this application were approved could this approval then be considered a revision to the prior approval scheme which the LPA had agreed in writing for the purposes of section 10 above? It does seem at the moment that the legislation is quite restrictive in that is does not / may not facilitate a conversion in the following cases: 1. Where a new office building was constructed, has been vacant for a number of years and never occupied (hence no current or previous B1 use has been activated). 2. Where any part of the application site is in a non-office use (e.g. the building in question has a ground floor retail unit within it). 3. Where a conversion would require external alterations to the office building. 4. Where a conversion to flats is proposed (although this interpretation would render the legislation close to nonsensical). Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:53:05 BST

Question (double check) Re Class J - Does the requirement under para N part (6) to display site notice and serve notice on adjoining occupiers apply only if determined that prior approval is required or regardless ie before you so prior approval is not required. Confusing?? Submitted by: Kelvin Hinton

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:57:43 BST

OK - so the GPDO has its own definition, so for matters therein you follow that definition. The UCO has no such definition, so you look back to primary legislation, which again has no definition. However, there has been case law on the matter. The Gravesham case tried to identify the distinctive characteristics of a dwellinghouse, while in Van Dyck v SoSE and Southend BC the Court of Appeal looked at the matter of subdivision from the points of view of s.55(3) and (now) s.171B(2) and concluded that a flat was a dwellinghouse (at least for the purposes of s.171B). It is clear that this was not the intention of the legislators. One wonders whether they will ever learn from their mistakes. For my part, my first enquiry concerns a building that is let out in suites of offices, each with a degree of self containment. It is proposed to convert the first floor suite to a flat. PD or Not PD? I am coming round to the view that it would be, having regard to the part of a building definition and to the research I have done above. Dean Submitted by: Dean Baker

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:21:49 BST

Hi Michael, A typical flat would be Use Class C3 - for example paragraph 69 of Circular 03/2005 states the following: 'The term dwelling house is not defined in the Use Classes Order. Nor is its definition limited, as in the GPDO 1995, so as to exclude flats. The question of whether a particular building is a dwelling house is therefore one of fact'. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:54:04 BST

Not aware of any such definition in the Use Classes Order and significantly on appeal Inspectors have referred to flats as having a sui generis use. Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:29:20 BST

While government should have had the brains to address and clarify the issue my thinking is a follows The GPDO makes it clear that a flat is not a dwelinghouse and such cannot benefit from permitted development rights However the amendment to the GDO nukes it clear that the appropriate definition is that contained within the use classes order which states a flat is a dwelling house. If this is not case it would appear to be nonsense that you can only convert offices to houses. Submitted by: Martin Dale

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 15:23:18 BST

Assuming the condition stands up as such restricitve use class condtions are supposed to be used ionly n exceptional cirumstances, see circular 11/95, then it would overide Class J. However as you say routinely then the council could have a problem in that they are likley to recive appeals or applicaiton to remove the condtions which they will have to in many cases i assume approve/ Submitted by: Martin Dale

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:18:14 BST

It appears that there are lots of questions still outstanding with many LPA s now considering prior approval applications for changes of use from B1(a) to C3. The two key questions I would appreciate any new views on are as follows: Class J relates to: Development consisting of a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order from a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices) of that Schedule. A building and any land within its use falling within Class B1(a) (offices) : Does this mean that the entire building and its site would need to be in B1(a) use to be eligible for a Class J change? E.g. if a large office building had a retail unit at ground floor level and thus the building and site as a whole a mixed use (A1 and B1(a)), would this mean that Class J would not apply? a change to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) As has been raised above, as the definition of a dwellinghouse specifically rules out flats, does the wording of the legislation allow a change of a building to flats? Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 08:31:28 BST

For many years when the local planning authority that I work for grants planning permission for Use Class B1 offices, it routinely puts on the following condition, The building hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes falling within Use Class B1(a) as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended and for no other purpose whatsoever. Reason: In order to maintain the character of the area and to protect the amenities of the properties near to the site. Providing all other requirements are met, would such a condition override the change of use to offices permitted by Class J of the GPDO that came into force on 30th May? Submitted by: Gary Bartlett

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:05:04 BST

Hi all, It appears that the second of the three links that I provided in my post above is no longer working - indeed appeal decision "APP/G5750/C/12/2179136" currently seems to have disappeared from the Planning Portal website. However, this appeal decision shared its decision notice with appeal decision "APP/G5750/C/12/2179140", meaning that the decision notice for the former can also be viewed via the following alternative link: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2179140&coid=2113540 Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:02:36 BST

As private planner who used to deal with telecommunication application and the associated prior approval system if the requirement is that the applciaiton has to receive the decagons notice within the time scale then as the recipient of numerous time out applciaiton for telecom masts with high level of public objections with all the issue this can create for the local authority in terns of ombudsman cases and judicial reviews, then the authority will need to ensure it has a mechanism in place to ensure this happens faxing or emailing the decision as oppose to posting it is an acceptable way of dealing with this. In such cases if the authority where mindful to refuse the applciaiton and it was simply the case the authority failed to get the decision to the applicant in time there a number of high court cases for telecoms prior approval system, where the Council not the applicant was found to be in the wrong and open to compensation claims . If the applciaiton decision is received even a day late the applicant is entitled to start the works Submitted by: Martin Dale

Re: New GDPO permitted changes of use and material alterations to the building

Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:48:42 BST

Planning permission is normally required for both the change of use and any associated operation development. In the old days the planning applciaiton form required you to state if the applciaiton was change of use only or for building operations as well. While it is unclear what the government intent was on this question, I would assume once prior approval is granted a similar a situation will apply as presently happens when moving within a use class for example using a greengrocers as a butchers is a change of use for which planning permission it not required but if the butcher wishes to change the shop front then planning permission can be required. Unless I am missing something in the new legislation as you state this would appear to apply to the new changes of use as the prior approval relates solely to the change of use not to any works that may be required to actually operate the change. The only logical method I can see is if an applciaiton for prior approval to change the use is issued then any works required to the exterior of the building or in the ground such as excavation, say digging up tarmac to create a garden etc, will still require a separate applciaiton for planning permission, unless the change of use is implemented first and the works fall within the permitted development rights of the new use. Though it is my understanding for the purposes of permitted development rights such as exterior alterations, building in garden flats do not constitute dwelling houses and have no permitted development rights. In relation to you case while I would have thought it would be better to apply for the prior approval first there is nothing that says he can apply for both at the same time but I think you would have to issue the pries approval to establish the use and then the applciaiton for the alterations considered. I believe as a prior approval applciaiton is not one seeking planning permission there is no ability to place conditions on such applications. If the work to implement the change of use can still require permission then it is going to be further fun. As with much of the new legislation there is a lot of confusion and time will tell. Submitted by: Martin Dale

New GDPO permitted changes of use and material alterations to the building

Wed, 05 Jun 2013 09:59:45 BST

A situation has arisen of a proposed change of use which would be permitted under the new legislation. The farm building in question would however require some external alterations (new windows, door and relocated farm access door) to facilitate the use for which planning permission would be needed. The agent has put in a planning application for the alterations and a prior notification for the use. If that approach is permissible (?) and the alterations are only acceptable for the new use then the planning application presumably could only be approved once the prior notification has either not required prior approval, or prior approval has been granted as it would be necessary to link the two together by a condition of consent i.e. the alterations hereby approved shall only be undertaken in conjunction with use permitted under [application number]. Alternatively is it case that the change of use needs to be considered under the planning application and they cannot make a prior notification as the proposal goes beyond a mere change of use? Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:19:32 BST

A rational word. Service of decision letters are no differant from other notices. First Class post is an accepted method of service. My advice would be to print it, scan it and post it at least 48 hours before the deadline. Have a documented system for posting mail, I bet we all have one (if you don't, you should) Your proof of postage is then the time stamp on the scanned image on the website. Its simple risk assessment stuff. You have been reasonable and the Courts will support that. Obviously if you are in the outer hebridies you may want to consult the high tide charts.... Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 16:03:43 BST

Hand delivery would be the final solution to it, did occur to me if it comes to that and the developer has been pretty awkward it might be a two person job with one videoing the posting of the letter, just where do you draw the line? - apolgies for the typos in my previous posting - must get a keyboard that can spell! Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:36:58 BST

We've set an internal deadline of 39 days so to allow for 3 days recorded delivery, but you could have a point there Michael. Delivery by hand? Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:25:59 BST

Thread seems to have gone a bit off topic re Part 1 changes but as there is commonly the issue of getting the notice to the developer within time its worth noting that recorded is not neccessary next day delivery and you have to Special Delivery. Big problem especially with the householder extensions will be if ifs the householder themselves putting in the notice then theres a fair chance no one will be at home when the postman calls and the letter gets taken back to the sorting office to be colelcted somethime in the next couple of weeks by the householder by which time the time period will have elapsed. Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:14:08 BST

Couple of points on Part 1 Class A and Part 3 Classes J, K and M to be aware of so to avoid the Ombudsman or JR: I would expect most LPAs cannot determine prior notifications under delegated powers if the applicant is a member of staff or a Councillor. The latter is easy to check, but not so much the former without any such declaration on an application form. Also the new provisions require the developer to RECEIVE the notice by end of the period. So any applicant not providing an email or fax contact can simply claim it was not delivered in time and they can erect their extension. As a consequence any refusals we issue will now be going out Recorded Delivery - who knows what will happen if the deadline is 27 December and it snows in the run up to Christmas! Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:05:08 BST

Martin This is a tricky one, but my reading on the provisions is that the detail which the developer provides should include the mitigation. If the detail commits to implementation of that mitigation and sets out a timeframe for doing do; then in approving the details the LPA can be clear in its decision as to what is required. This will require a pro-active approach from the LPA and developer to ensure that details are framed in an enforceable document if a later breach occurs. As far as I can see there is nothing to prevent the submission of a Unilateral Undertaking as part of the "details", and the 56 days should allow for verification of ownership and agreement on the terms. This could cover off site works. Don't forget of course that EIA development trumps PD and thus the new provisions cannot be exercised if it is EIA. Off site works may well come hand in hand with such scales of development, but not always. Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 31 May 2013 15:15:55 BST

A point of interest for me is many of these prior approval will be subject to requirement for further information such as transport and flooding and be required to show how any impact will be mitigated I am unclear as you cannot place planning conditions on prior approval application as they are not applications seeking planning permission how it is indeed especially if this mitigation requires work not in the applicants ownership such as off site highway or in may case requires the mitigation to be in place for the life of the development Would this not mean in most case where mitigation is required the development would have to be refused Submitted by: Martin Dale

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Thu, 30 May 2013 13:53:48 BST

Latest from PINS via an email this lunchtime: --------------------- Following amendment to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as introduced in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Amendment) (England) Order 2013 (SI 2013 No, 1101), the Planning Inspectorate has received a number of calls from Local Planning Authorities seeking confirmation of associated appeals procedures in the event of refusal of approval. Applications which require action in accordance with paragraph A.4 of Part 1 of Schedule 2, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order (as amended), are considered to fall within the description (b) of 'householder application' as detailed at Article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2010 and Regulation 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Appeals)(Written Representations Procedure)(England) Regulations 2009. Appeals following refusal of approval will therefore be subject to the normal procedures for Householder Appeals as detailed within SI 2009 No. 452, with the time limit for submission being 12 weeks from the date of the notice of the decision or determination giving rise to the appeal, as detailed in Article 33 of the DMPO. It is understood that a 'neighbours' consultation scheme notification form' will be made available on the Planning Portal in due course. If you have any queries in this respect, please email the Procedure Support and Advice mailbox at PSA@pins.gsi.gov.uk ----------------------------- I understand it is intended to have a form available on the Portal as soon as Monday. Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Thu, 30 May 2013 13:52:45 BST

This is a point I have made previously - "amenity" is a very loose word to use and could include overlooking, overshadowing, tree loss, disturbance from parking/turning of vehicles, and ultimately poor design. In respect of the latter point, there could be some scope to say the impact on the setting of a listed building is affecting amenity - however I would welcome other opinion on this. Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Thu, 30 May 2013 13:35:37 BST

At (5) and (6) of A.4 we are referred to consider the amenity of any adjoining premises - presumably if that premises is a listed building that is a consideration. Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Thu, 30 May 2013 13:15:47 BST

Slightly bemused by the issue of flats raised above as the GPDO provides the following definition at 1. Citation, commencement and interpretation:- dwellinghouse does not include a building containing one or more flats, or a flat contained within such a building." Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Use Class Order 2012 / 2013 Difference between B1 and B2

Wed, 29 May 2013 11:48:07 BST

The B1c use for light industry appears to still be in place. What is the new OCO that you are referring to? Regarding appropriate use classes for waste operations, the planning dictum of each case on it own merits applies here too. Waste operations usually are either sui generis or B2/B1c (the difference between the two of course essentially being impact on residential amenity) or in very few instances B8. In a nutshell: a waste facilities may be B2 if the primary function falls within any of the industrial process activities listed in Article 2 (b) of the UCO (b) the altering, repairing, maintaining, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning, washing, packing, canning, adapting for sale, breaking up or demolition of any article; or The tricky ones are when the primarily activity consists only of sorting of waste (no processing) for treatment elsewhere they are usually sui generis. Also note that Article 3(6)(g) of the UCO states that No class specified in the Schedule includes use as a scrapyard, or a yard for the storage or distribution of minerals or the breaking of motor vehicles, . From your description above, Article 3(6)(j) would not be relevant. Submitted by: Eben van der Westhuizen

Re: Use Class Order 2012 / 2013 Difference between B1 and B2

Wed, 29 May 2013 10:11:42 BST

Hi Les - not sure where you're getting this from? Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: NPPF and Agricultural Dwellings

Tue, 28 May 2013 13:27:33 BST

Dear Richard, Thank you so much for your comments. As you say, we have a lot to do now to ensure that the businesses are successfully established by the end of our temporary permission. We are also setting up a programme of monitoring in conjunction with a number of university researchers with the intention of providing robust data on the productivity of small-scale low-input agriculture, livelihoods generated and changes in eco-system services. I agree with your reservation re: sticking to the temporary route. Although as our co-op has no track record I thought we may be refused if we had asked for a permanent permission from the outset. Thank you. Submitted by: Zoe Wangler

Use Class Order 2012 / 2013 Difference between B1 and B2

Tue, 28 May 2013 12:19:20 BST

The previous UCO contained a B1c use for light industry but this has now gone and the new OCO just refers to B1 Any industrial process. B2 now refers to General Industrial - the carrying out of an industrial process other than one falling within class B1. This is confusing for me. Does anyone have experience of implementing B1 and B2 for industrial processes? I particularly have in mind waste recycling / treatment facilities such as anaerobic digestion / high value recycling facilities / material reclamation facilities. Comments irrespective of the waste uses I mention are most welcome. Thank you. Submitted by: Les Andrews

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 28 May 2013 11:32:26 BST

Hi all, Just to let you know that I ve added updates to the above Guide and templates document. With regards to the issue of whether to assess the proposed development only against condition A.4, or against all of the limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A, these updates include 6 appeal decisions relating to Part 6 Class A of the GPDO, which provide an indication of what interpretation and approach would be appropriate for Part 1 Class A of the GPDO. For example, the most recent (and one of the most detailed) of these appeal decisions is the following: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2165862&coid=2164806 The most relevant two quotes from the above appeal decision are the following: "It may or may not be the case that the GPDO permission applies, but it is not a matter that falls within the ambit of this particular procedure. In effect, the Council has made a determination under s192 that the proposed development of an agricultural barn would not be lawful. However, no application under s192 had been made and they were not empowered to make such a decision. It might still be the case that the GPDO permission cannot be relied upon, but that is not a matter before me in the context of this appeal." "I am aware of the advice at Paragraph E.14 of Annex E of Planning Policy Statement 7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7), which was in place at the time of the appeal, that, as part of their handling of an application for a determination, local planning authorities should verify whether the intended development does benefit from permitted development rights. However, it must be recognised that PPS7 was not legislation and could not supplement or override the legislative provisions I have mentioned. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 28 May 2013 10:13:22 BST

Jonathan 1. This is something I have noted. Whilst the LPA can specify a period no less than 21 days to receive all comments, and thus are at liberty to determine the notification as soon as that period expires (a la DMPO 2010 for normal applications); an objection could legitimately be received on day 41, and if the notification has not been determined by then the LPA would have to consider it. The answer in my mind is that the LPA should get the notification determined as soon as the 21 day period expires IF there are no objections. 2. The items listed at A.4(2) are akin to national requirements. Without them the notification cannot be valid - the same as a notification to do works to trees within a conservation area is not complete without the requisite detail. As such I believe it is wholly correct/legitimate to respond to the applicant to say the notification is invalid as it has been identified that they have not complied with their obligations under A.4(2). Arguably this could extend to whether the list of adjoining premises is complete/correct. In terms of not meeting the limitations under A.1(ea) or being use class C4; the proposal cannot be PD without meeting those limitations. Hence the conditions under A.4 could not apply (or bite). As such there is no notification which the LPA can deal with and I would advise responding to the applicant to state this. On this point I am liaising with the Planning Portal on their creation of a form - I have asked for supporting text around asking for height/depth/eaves dimensions to make it clear what the maximum can be. In respect of it being within a Conservation Area I don't believe the limitations at A.2 make any difference to the notification procedure, in the same way that the remaining requirements of A.1 still need to be adhered to. Your flowchart at http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=3624231 highlights how, beyond prior notification, there is still a lot to consider. Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 28 May 2013 09:32:20 BST

Jon In respect of parts J, K and M - I am looking to get started on this part of it today (!) so will offer any thoughts in due course! As a side note, I do wonder how the HA will react to such notifications as if they consider the information to be insufficient, they issue a holding direction to state they consider the 21 days has no begun. However that will not suffice under this procedure. Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Larger householder extensions- next steps after it is confirmed that prior approval is not required / is approved?

Tue, 28 May 2013 09:29:35 BST

Yup - I'd pretty much agree that the flowchart depicts the brainache we're in for! Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Larger householder extensions- next steps after it is confirmed that prior approval is not required / is approved?

Sat, 25 May 2013 09:30:31 BST

Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Larger householder extensions- next steps after it is confirmed that prior approval is not required / is approved?

Sat, 25 May 2013 09:30:12 BST

I have had a look at the next steps for a householder after it is confirmed that prior approval is not required / is approved for a larger extension under the new legislation due to come in to force on May the 30th. Government guidance suggests at this point the proposed extension can 'go ahead', the reality does however appear to be more complicated. Please see the flowchart attached below which shows my understanding of the process, any feedback / corrections are welcome! Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Sat, 25 May 2013 09:21:45 BST

A couple of questions on the householder extensions notification procedure- I would very grateful to receive any views: 1. A.4. (3) (d) States that the LPA must send a consultation letter which: Specifies the date (being not less than 21 days from the date of the notice) by which representations are to be received by the local planning authority. After the 21 day period the LPA would then be able to issue a decision, e.g. if no objections received then issue a decision that prior approval is not required. My question relates to any letters received after the 21 day period. E.g. on day 40 of the application, which could be say 35 days after the notice has been sent to neighbours, the officer has received no objections and has drafted a report recommending that prior approval is not required, but a letter is then received from a neighbour objecting to the application. Notwithstanding the fact that the 21 day period has finished previously, my interpretation would be that the LPA would have to accept this letter and then consider amenity impacts, as A.4. (5) states: Where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. I.e. It is not stated that the objection must be received within the 21 day period. This will have implications as to how such applications are processed by LPAs who will need to check carefully on the day their decision is issued that no late objections have appeared. 2. I am unclear as to how LPAs should proceed if it is identified either upon receipt of the application or later in the application process that the details submitted do not fall within the remit of the new prior notification procedure. Example scenarios where this would apply: Some / all of the details required by A.4. 2 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) have not been submitted by the applicant. It is identified that the application property is in fact within a Conservation Area. It is identified that the application property is in C4 use (and would therefore not benefit from any permitted development rights for extensions and alterations). It is identified that the details submitted do not comply with the depth and/or height restrictions set out in A.1 (ea). It is my understanding that the LPA cannot make an application invalid , and cannot withdraw an application, as in both cases the 42 day period would continue to run. How should an LPA act in such cases? Can they return the documents to the applicant on the basis that what has been submitted does not in fact represent a prior approval application? Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 24 May 2013 16:51:01 BST

I know that time is running out, but I am looking to draft a procedure note on how we as a LA should deal with the commercial elements (covered by parts J, K and M) of these changes. For example when a developer applies for a PN for JK and M, the LA shall consult the relevant bodies (EA, HA, CC etc). However the regs do not appear to indicate that the developer has to submit any info to cover transport / noise / contamination/ flood impacts up front. Do Local Planning Authority s ask for the info at this point especially if impacts are unknown or consult then request following comments? (e.g.. How do mere planning officers know about land contamination when looking at a site on a map, as they are unlikely to have visited it before?) Surely lack of upfront info will delay any consultation process? Given the complexities of getting a noise / contaminated land survey, FRA or TA drawn up, if we can t invalidate, we will technically be having to determine the PN before the info is received, opening ourselves up to appeals. There does nt appear to be any formal timescales for a developer to get the technical info to a LA. I would welcome peoples views on this. The regs also don t set out any specifics regarding consultation for Noise and contamination risks and consequently LPAs don t appear to have to consider any noise related comments. Have I read this right? Is this an oversight in the writing of the regs? Submitted by: Jon Allinson

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Fri, 24 May 2013 13:52:35 BST

Hi Denise, With regards to your second question, the DRAFT 2013 amendment to the Fees Regulations 2012 indicates that the fee for any application under Part 3 of the GPDO will be 80: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111539293/regulation/6 However, the above SI is still a DRAFT SI, and strangely it currently states that it's due to come into force on "1st October 2013". Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Fri, 24 May 2013 13:43:32 BST

Can I just throw something else in.....does the building have to have been in use recently as B1(a) if not what would be considered as a resonsible length of time to not have been used....I ask as I have recieved such a notification on a building which I think would have a strong case of abandonment and recent planning approvals all sought to demolish the building to make way for new units. Does anyone know what the fee is for these types of applications ? Submitted by: Denise Knipe

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Wed, 22 May 2013 16:15:28 BST

Hi Chris, The guide and templates have already been produced, and have been received by approx 100 local authorities - for further info please view the following webpage: http://planningjungle.com/2013/05/16/guide-and-templates-for-the-new-notification-and-prior-approval-process-under-part-1-class-a-of-the-gpdo/ The question that you've referred to about whether this new process should be assessed against only condition A.4 or against all of the limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A is the main question highlighted by the document. The templates have been designed on the basis of the former interpretation, and I'm currently waiting to find out what more local authorities think about this particular issue. If a number of local authorities think that the latter interpretation is more appropriate, then I'll update the templates to show the two different options. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Confidential data in Planning Apps?

Wed, 22 May 2013 16:13:55 BST

In the case of R (English) v East Staffordshire Borough Council & Anor [2010] EWHC 27441 where some commercial information had been kept private, the High Court refused permission for judicial review. The court noted: The local authority has a duty to ensure sufficient information is made available to enable an intelligent response from the planning committee; but It was sufficient to disclose the gist of the information as the report had been independently verified. How would your LPA handle the following? 1. a request for a Business Plan to be kept totally private, except for the Conclusions section 2. a request for supporting data etc generated by a proprietary process to be kept totally private, except for the Conclusions section 3. a request for supporting data etc generated by a proprietary process to be blocked from the web but to made available in paper form SUBJECT TO A SIGNED NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) In other words, if an applicants or their agents/consultants have invested extensive time & effort in preparing technical & other supporting data, using hard-won skills & techniques and/or extensive research time and/or custom software why should they be expected to provide the results of their labours free of charge to future applicants or to commercial competitors? Submitted by: Richard Hathway

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Wed, 22 May 2013 15:48:48 BST

Firstly replying to Jonathan's questions: "...if the information submitted shows a 9 metre extension, does the LPA continue with the application or invalidate it? If they did continue and no objections were received what decision would they issue?..." If a 9m extension is shown, it does not meet the limitations set out in Part 1 A.1(ea)(i) and therefore is not permitted development. As such the prior notification procedure cannot be legimately pursued and as such there is no application before the LPA to make a decision on. This is similar to finding that a Part 6 prior notification is not "reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture" or does not meet size limitations. It is however good practice to provide a letter or decision to say it is not PD and thus there is no valid notification before the LPA to consider. "...it could be bought to light at the time of a site visit that the extension proposed was not within the depth limits, if for example an extension which appeared to be 8 metres deep based on the information submitted, was in fact proposed to be built off an existing extension and therefore would be 11 metres from the original rear wall..." The same thoughts as above apply here. It does not meet the limitations of Part 1 A.1(ea)(i) and thus cannot be PD. "...if the information put forward complies with the depth restrictions, but it is apparent either at validation stage or at the time of a site visit that such an extension would be directly contrary to one or more of the other restrictions set out in Class A. Again, if no objections are received, would the LPA be expected to issue a decision that prior approval is not required? Perhaps with an informative on the notice confirming that whilst is prior approval is not required, it appears that planning permission would be?..." This will be down to best practice by each LPA. In my view the decision notice will need to be very explicitly worded that it is a decision to state the proposal is permitted under Part 1 A.1(ea) but it will still need to comply with the remaining limitations set out in Part 1 A.1 to be capable of implementation without a planning permission. Informatives often go unnoticed, which is why (in the same type of context) it is beneficial to explicitly state under Part 6 that the developer has 5 years to commence (Part 6 A.2(2)(vi)) and must also give written notice to the LPA within 7 days of substantially completing their new, extended or altered agricultural building (Part 6 A.2(7)). Moira, I discussed your query above and Dean provided further thought: "...It does seem that there is a right of appeal. The twist however is "how long is the appeal window open for"? Section 78(3) states "Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice served within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order". As with LDCs, such a period has not been defined by an Order (as yet) and thus there is effectively no time limit in which to lodge an appeal." "...the lack of a specified period suggests it is open ended but, in reality, as any development granted by the revised Part 1 Class A has to be completed by 30 May 2016, the time period for lodging an appeal may not be as open ended as you might at first think!.." Steve: I'd be grateful for any templates and workflows for this as soon as you are able to provide them as it would save a lot of duplication of effort across the country! Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Wed, 22 May 2013 15:25:07 BST

David has just raised my question - does the Development Plan (DP) have a part to play in assessment here? I wonder how comfortably (or not) this fits with the primary legislation in the 2004 Act? Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 21 May 2013 17:04:57 BST

The legislation provides for an appeal to be lodged if prior notification for a household extension is refused. Can anyone confirm whether the time limit for making the appeal is 12 weeks as for a 'householder appeal' or 6 months as for other planning and determination appeals? Thanks, Moira Submitted by: Moira White

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Tue, 21 May 2013 16:26:45 BST

I don't think those who constructed the GDPO amendments intended that all the usual planning matters raised by the NPPF can also be addrressed in the application for prior approval. The latter procedure relates to just a few "important" matters selected for scrutiny in the amendment order. Indeed I am sure they would be horrified if anyone thought that was their intention. The reference in N in the amendement order to the NPPF must logically be in respect of the matters requiring prior approval only. It may well be that objections on other matters are ruled "out of court" because they relate to matters for which prior approval is not required. Interestingly N makes no reference to the development plan. Which leads me to ask which is the starting point for an assessment of the proposal ? Is it the NPPF (as referred to in the order) or the development plan ? After all for a planning application the starting point is the development plan (see section 70 of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act ). Whilst the NPPF refers in its wording to the development plan, this omission could indicate that those who constructed the amendment order see the NPPF as the important policy. And so it does appear that the development plan is no longer considered to be very important by those who drafted the order since otherwise they would have included a reference to it.. Submitted by: David Breeze

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 21 May 2013 10:45:43 BST

I totally agree with Jonathan above, in terms of the importance of an informative being placed on the decision letter advsing that the decison to grant or the confirmation that prior approval is not required (on the basis of the details submitted) does not confirm that the development is permitted development. The devil is always in the detail and unlike other types of pror approval, the need for precision could be particularly acute in the case of householder prior approval cases since objecting neighbours may scrutinse the applications closely, particularly if some extensions are refused because neighbours objected whilst others are built without objection. We can all do our best to get as much information as possible but with no fee and 42 days to make sure we decide them, who will have the resources to apply more than a "light touch" ? Submitted by: David Breeze

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 20 May 2013 14:38:32 BST

Some thoughts on validation here: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/larger-domestic-extensions-some-further.html I'm not sure whether LPA's have any remit to make an application invalid based on the quality / level of information shown in the submitted plan , the legislation requires: a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development Therefore any plan, to scale or otherwise, accurate or otherwise, and detailed or otherwise, would meet this requirement. The LPA has no remit to request additional information unless objections are received. I would suggest that the 42 days would commence from the day the minimum information required by the legislation is submitted. If an LPA does make an application invalid and requests additional information they must be mindful of the requirement to issue consultations, allow a minimum of 21 days for comments to be submitted, and to then issue a decision to be received before day 42 (this deadline is however only really of importance if a refusal is being issued). The information requirements are clearly farcical. It is very difficult to fully demonstrate the likely impacts of a specific proposed extension design without providing full plans and elevations. The information which is required would only give a very basic idea of what could be built. For example if maximum height is given as 4 metres and eaves height as 2.5 metres, an extension complying with these restrictions could if fact be much higher than either figure, dependent on the extension design and land levels, see Steve s document here for some examples (number 4 is particularly relevant): http://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/Part-1-of-the-GPDO-The-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf Neighbours will not be aware of the intricacies of Class A set out in the legislation and the 49 pages of technical guidance which Government issued in 2010. E.g. that height is measured from the highest ground alongside an extension, so an extension with a maximum height of 4 metres, could in fact be 4 metres high at one end, and 8 metres high at the other! One of many issues I am not clear on is whether LPAs have a duty to ascertain at validation stage or during the course of the application that the proposal actually falls within the new depth limits (i.e. 3-6 metres or 4-8 metres). For example, if the information submitted shows a 9 metre extension, does the LPA continue with the application or invalidate it? If they did continue and no objections were received what decision would they issue? Alternatively it could be bought to light at the time of a site visit that the extension proposed was not within the depth limits, if for example an extension which appeared to be 8 metres deep based on the information submitted, was in fact proposed to be built off an existing extension and therefore would be 11 metres from the original rear wall. I am also unclear as to the LPA s position if the information put forward complies with the depth restrictions, but it is apparent either at validation stage or at the time of a site visit that such an extension would be directly contrary to one or more of the other restrictions set out in Class A. Again, if no objections are received, would the LPA be expected to issue a decision that prior approval is not required? Perhaps with an informative on the notice confirming that whilst is prior approval is not required, it appears that planning permission would be? I would assume LPA s will be applying Informatives to every decision confirming that the decision relates to prior approval based on the basic information submitted and provides no confirmation as to whether a specific extension design would require planning permission or not.. Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Mon, 20 May 2013 14:09:27 BST

Martin Goodall makes some interesting points in his blog (http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/office-to-residential-new-right-to.html ) . He appears to support the view that all planning considerations in the NPPF should be considered as part of the process but only further info can be requested with regards to flood risk, contamination and highways. Also of interest is the point he makes regarding whether the reference to C3 allows for multiple dwellings or flats in an office building: 'The next question relates to an office building which, whilst it is a single planning unit as it stands, could reasonably be converted into a number of separate dwellings. Does the amendment order allow such a conversion? The order permits a change of use to a use falling within Class C3 . The reference is to a use in the singular, which suggests that the conversion of an office building to flats would not come within the scope of this provision. But this is no more than a tentative view on my part, and I would be interested to hear other views on this point.' It appears to ambiguity in this legislation just keeps being discovered! Submitted by: James Kirkham

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Mon, 20 May 2013 11:24:16 BST

Please remember that all applications and notifications must be screened under the EIA. Please also note that if it is screened in... it cannot be permitted development, even prior notifications fall into this catch-all. Please ensure you screen under the Hab Regs as on brown field sites you are likely to find invertebrates and other protected species. Derelict barns are a particular problem. We have been challenged on a number of occasions (being in the Cotswolds AONB) and find that the only way to prove you have screened is to provide a screening opinion. This need not be long, but it must exist and be robust. Adding a bit on your acknowledgement letter to say it's screened out is not sufficient, according to the High Court. Rule of unforeseen consequences. Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Condition monitoring

Mon, 20 May 2013 11:21:53 BST

It is not uncommon for development to commence prior to satisfaction with condition precedents. Some of our larger housebuilders will submit an applications to discharge conditions within a week or two prior to commencement. In my opinion this does not allow sufficient time for consideration due to the amount of information. We have threatened stop notices in some cases in order to satisfy operational conditions in particular in order to protect residential amenity. I would be interested to learn how proactive enforcement ensures dust suppression, road cleaning and other requirements are agreed prior to commencement of development. Submitted by: Kevin Logan

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Mon, 20 May 2013 10:53:03 BST

The direction of Government thinking is towards reducing the burden of information required with applications. I think they have realised that they cannot easily do this with full applications taking into account European legislation in relation to protected species, the political importance of flood risk information etc. The NOI procedure, if used in this way, allows the information burden to be dramatically reduced but allows a full assessment (if prior approval is requested) to be carried out. As I've said above, imagine a scenario where we ask for prior approval, site notice, consultatuions etc etc. Through consultation we here from 20 residents on an issue which is backed up in the NPPF. Given that the order specifically states we take account of the NPPF and consultation responses, would it then be reasonable to ignore this issue? Submitted by: Kevin Richards

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 20 May 2013 09:53:20 BST

Dear Chris: I feel we have a duty of care as well as an obligation under the Order. I will be asking my team to verify the addresses given against the site plan. If nothing else, we will be the ones dealing with the complaints if some one isn't consulted. In my guidance notes to owners i will be asking for scaled drawings or dimensioned sketches. The neighbours deserve to know what they are letting themselves in for. I will also be asking for details of fenistration. I (as a neighbour) may not object to a 5 metre extension, but would do if it had a window on the boundary. (i accept that windows at ground floor level are often considered non-development if installed post completion). I'm not sure what i will do with an appauling notification, possibly refuse it and deal with an appeal. It will be interesting to see how invalid notifications are handled. If i refuse to accept it, does the 42 day triger still apply. Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Mon, 20 May 2013 09:09:18 BST

Hi Kevin I totally agree that interpretation of paragraph N is essential to all this. It reads as though all issues should be considered having regard to the NPPF as if a planning application. However if this is the case then why have specific reference to transport, flooding and contamination within the legislation if all issues are assessed? Submitted by: James Kirkham

Re: New GDPO - Part 4 Class D "Flexible uses"

Mon, 20 May 2013 09:08:56 BST

I also agree that Ian appears to have summarised this correctly. As an Enforcement Officer my concern relates to the control of the 2 year flexible use. If a developer fails to comply with the conditions of the permitted change this may render the use unauthorised as it would breach the terms of permitted development. However in some cases the information may be agreed retrospectively allowing formal record of the 2 year period. Any further comments would be welcome. Submitted by: Kevin Logan

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Sat, 18 May 2013 09:44:10 BST

Thank you for your response Steve. It looks like we have 3 formal Inspector's decisions supporting the view that C4 properties do not have PD rights for extensions and alterations, and the only statement which counters this being CLG's 'informal guidance' from 2010. On this basis I would think that most Authorities, if aware of the available information, would be likely to give weight to the three appeal decisions and determine that C4 properties do not have PD rights for extensions and alterations. It would be interesting to know which approach LPA's are following, and whether they are seeking to confirm whether a particular property is in C3 or C4 use when making decisions in relation to Lawful Development Certificates and enforcement cases? This will also be relevant to the new prior approval process as any C4 properties considered to not have PD rights for extensions and alterations would also not be eligible for the prior approval process. Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 17 May 2013 15:16:51 BST

hi I am just looking at the notification process for householders, and information we can require. As far as I can tell the "plan" need to provide only limited information and does not need to be to a measured scale and the developer only has to indicate the site. So am I to assume that as the developer is asked for addresses of adjoining properties we just have to notify them (and not make any judgement as an authority as to the correct addresses to notify) or are we expected to in anyway "validate" the information being supplied (make checks etc.). I am coming to the opinion that unless someone objects we do as little as possible and issue a notice that states very clearly that this does not mean the extension is permitted. Submitted by: Chris Dowell

Re: Codes for these new applications starting May 1st

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:19 BST

File attached - R085 and R095 are our opening gambit. Thoughts ? Submitted by: martin hutchings

Codes for these new applications starting May 30th

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:25:35 BST

Because of the planning benchmark, we appear to have created a default naming system for applications - to continue a tradition started with the "Q" codes several decades ago. The benchmark codes (called 'R' codes) need updating to reflect the new notifications in the amendment to the GPDO. This will allow us, at some future date, to be able to ask "How many of those new 6m householder PD prior approval things did we receive ?" and even "How much did each one cost us ?" For those of you who are wondering how to classify these things, a first draft of an updated 'R' code list is attached below. Submitted by: martin hutchings

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Fri, 17 May 2013 13:58:43 BST

Interpretation of paragraph N is absolutely essential to all of this. My reading is that once prior approval has been asked for it is treated as a planning application and we consider all of the issues therein "have regard to the NPPF...as if the application were a planning application". Given that there is a requirement to consult and to post a site notice, it is not a reasonable interpretation to then say that we can only take into account the three "impacts and risks". The idea with this part is to reduce the information burden - not to restrict an assessment to these factors. Put a different way, if there are 20 letters of objection to a site notice highlighting a specific concern that is not related to transport / noise / contamination do we then ignore the consultation excercise? Submitted by: Kevin Richards

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 17 May 2013 13:38:52 BST

To answer my own query it seems that it would be a househodler appeal as the process fits the definition of hosueholder application given in The Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2009 Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 17 May 2013 13:20:22 BST

Anyone any idea what form an appeal will take - "householder" type with the officers report on the refusal of prior approval being the only thing a LPA can submit or a full written reps type appeal. Would suggest that the plan that has to be submitted should be required to identify the postion of doors and windows. Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Codes for these new applications starting May 1st

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:52:35 BST

LDC Validation

Fri, 17 May 2013 09:26:59 BST

Can anyone tell me why elevation and floor plans are required for a LDC that a building has been there for 4 years? The building is there and can be seen. Photographs can be taken so why are plans required. The Planning Portal only requires a location plan and evidence to support the application so why do applicants need to supply more to satisfy local authorities? Submitted by: Leslie Smith

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Thu, 16 May 2013 21:04:00 BST

Hi I would tend to believe that it is primarily a reference to "Class C3" of the UCO 1987, which does include a flat and so buildings could be converted to flats. On a seperate note has any tried to work out the procedure for the prior approval system for this (or is there guidance somewhere) because it is confusing me. As I see it: 1. The applicant has to apply to the LPA for prior approval. This should include a written description of the works, contact details and also indicating the site and the proposed development. Does this just mean a site plan or are floor plans going to need to be provided to show the layout of buildings (i.e. the proposed development)? (say this takes you to end of day 3) 2. Next the LPA considers whether prior approval is required consulting the neighbours, EA and highways if considered necessary. This has to give at least 21 days. (this takes you to end of day 24 - not allowing for postage times for neighbours). If no issues then the LPA can confirm no prior approval required and developer can undertake works. 3. If the local authority consider prior approval is required then they can ask for details relating to the impacts and risks posed by the development in regard to flood risk, contamination or highways issues and how they are going to be mitigated. (give the developer 7 days to provide this - takes you to day 31) 4. The LPA then has to determine the application. I assume if further information as above is provided then the LPA would need to give a further 21 days notice to consultees to provide comments (takes you to day 52). The legislation states that In determining the application the LPA must consider the representation received and: 'have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government in March 2012 as if the application were a planning application;' (N. 8 (b)) Does this then mean the application should be assessed against all criteria of sustainable development contained in the NPPF (e.g. economic, future occupants amenity, ecology etc) or would it just be limited to flood risk, contamination or highways issues? Finally it appears that it is going to be virtually impossible for a busy planning department to deal with these notifications in the prescribed period (allowing applicants some time to provide additional info). Surely this is just going lead to refusals of prior approval on the basis of inadequate information? Thanks for any help that can be provided. James Submitted by: James Kirkham

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Thu, 16 May 2013 13:00:22 BST

PINS will find themselves busy with appeals where LPAs have refused prior approval becaude the plans are too poor to interpret and the only safe route for the LPA is to refuse. LPAs may also refuse because there is not time after the 21 days is up and an objection has been received to seek and then consider more information. Panic springs too mind. I also wonder what kind of discussions may take place between applicant and their neighbours to seek to persuade the neighbours not to object. This does all seem like a partial privatisation of the planning sytem in that the LPA only becomes involved and considers the public interest if a neighbour objects. The real "planning" activity takes place between the applicant and the neighbour but to describe this all as "planning" is surely a misnomer. Submitted by: David Breeze

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Thu, 16 May 2013 12:15:08 BST

Thanks Michael - that's a really good suggestion. For info, with the form to notify the LPA, I'm intending to include notes that point out certain important aspects, particularly about the definition of "height". After all, many members of the public don't realise that "height" is measured externally with respect to natural ground level, so if they simply describe the extension as (say) "eaves height 3m", and don't provide elevations, then there's a risk that they'll be subject to enforcement action when it turns out that they were taking their measurement from the top of their new raised patio. That's a good point about sloping ground levels - it really illustrates the dangers in an approval system for extensions that's based on a description and floor plan, where there's no requirement to submit elevations. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Thu, 16 May 2013 12:07:12 BST

Hi Nick, Your first question is something that I'm also unsure about. For reference, the first paragraph of Part 3 Class J states the following: "Permitted development J. Development consisting of a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order from a use falling within Class B1(a) (offices) of that Schedule". As you say, one argument would be that the definition of a "dwellinghouse" in Article 1(2) of the GPDO specifically states that it "does not include a building containing one or more flats, or a flat contained within such a building". However, a counter-argument would be that the reference in Part 3 Class J is primarily a reference to "Class C3" of the UCO 1987, which does include a flat, and that the term "dwellinghouses" is simply used to show the heading of Use Class C3. The other issue is that the definition of a "building" in Article 1(2) of the GPDO includes "any part of a building". So, if you have a large office of (say) 1000m2, does this mean that you could take one small part (e.g. 50m2) and say that the small part constitutes a building [within] a use falling within Class B1(a) (i.e. as required by the first paragraph of Part 3 Class J), or would only be possible for this phrase to be applied to the whole office. It's also worth noting that you can subdivide a large office into multiple small offices without requiring planning permission. The answers to the above would significantly affect the scope of Part 3 Class J, from allowing a large office to be converted into a single house, to allowing it to be converted into multiple flats (albeit all subject to prior approval with respect to transport and highways, contamination, and flooding). Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Office to Residential PDR - anyone considering using Article 4 Direction?

Thu, 16 May 2013 11:59:09 BST

For those authorities who made a exemption request to DCLG which was not successful/ or those who did not apply but are still concerned about unmanaged loss of office accommodation are you considering making a non-immediate article 4 direction? Submitted by: Helen Gregory

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Thu, 16 May 2013 11:54:12 BST

Steve Just at thought re any form whether the requirment to specify the height could be extended to, in cases where the extension is to be built on a sloping site, specifying the heights above the highest and lowest parts of the site and where the lowest point is. Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: NPPF and Open Space issues

Thu, 16 May 2013 11:45:08 BST

David, I note a year has almost gone by and you have still not had a replay. This is unfortunately not a reply but I have similar queries and I am hoping this post will generate a response to both our posts. As part of a review of the Proposals Map for our outer London borough, some parties now wish to protect very small parcels of land (e.g. portions of soft landscaping that is effectively highway landscaping and in some instances are but others are not on adopted highway land) and this has unlocked a debate about the NPPF definition. The definition of open space in Annex 2 of the NPPF is: All open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water (such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs) which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can act as a visual amenity. This is similar to that which was in PPG17. Lets assume all the subject portions of land is of some public value . There are probably more interpretation permutations but the dominant two here are as follows: Interpretation 1 says that the land and the water needs to offer 1.1 important opportunities for sport and recreation, AND 1.2 can act as visual amenity Interpretation 2 says that due to the location of the second comma, only the water bodies need offer 2.1 important opportunities for sport and recreation, and 2.2 can act as visual amenity Interpretation 1 is clearly more stringent. Most small areas of open space have some visual amenity but do not provide important opportunities for sport and recreation. A landscaped pocket park near busy roads could however provide an important opportunity for recreation in that location. Interpretation 2 effectively only requires the open space to have public value. I suspect it is clear that I am leaning towards Interpretation 1 but I was wondering if anyone has dealt with this matter before, has an alternative view or can point to a relevant decision notice or judgement. Lets also leave Local Green Spaces (NPPF paras 76-78) out of this one. Submitted by: Eben van der Westhuizen

TCP GPDO Amendments Definition of dwellinghouse and interpretation of 'N' prior approval

Thu, 16 May 2013 11:30:31 BST

Hello Two queries please which I hope you can help me with: Class J relates to the change of use from B1(a) to class C3 (dwelling houses). Unless it's changed, a building containing 1 or more flats is not defined as a dwelling house for the purposes of the 1995 GPDO and thus would need permission. Can anyone point me please to a changed definition of dwelling house so that a B1(a) building could be used as flats; Part N explains the procedure for applications under prior approval. N1 states that a developer is required to make an application to a lpa for a determination as to whether prior approval of the authority will be required i.e this is the same as the current system regarding agricultural PD rights. N2 requires basic information to accompany the application. N3 confuses me. It talks about where the application relates to prior approval as to transport and highways etc we consult on receipt of the application. At that stage we will only have the basic information and wouldn't have determined whether prior approval would be required. Currenetly there is a 28 day period to decided whether prior approval is required and if so, 8 weeks to consider those details. The 28 day stage seems to be missing or is it me misreading the position ? Thanks Submitted by: Nick Rogers

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Thu, 16 May 2013 11:20:59 BST

Hi all, I m currently producing a guide and templates for the notification and prior approval process for 3m-6m and 4m-8m rear extensions under Part 1 Class A of the GPDO. This document will be finished by next Monday (20/05/2013), and is likely to include the following: - A flowchart showing the main stages of this new process. - A guide explaining all of the stages of this new process. - A template for a form that developers can use to notify the LPA that they propose to erect a 3m-6m rear extension (on an attached house) or a 4m-8m rear extension (on a detached house). - An template for a consultation letter that LPAs can use to notify adjoining premises. - A template for the three types of decision notices (i.e. prior approval not required, prior approval given, prior approval refused). - A consolidated version of Part 1 of the GPDO, showing the new limitation A.1(ea) and condition A.4 inserted by SI 2013 No. 1101. For further information, please see the following webpage: http://planningjungle.com/2013/05/16/coming-soon-guide-and-templates-for-the-notification-and-prior-approval-process-for-3m-6m-and-4m-8m-rear-extensions-under-part-1-class-a-of-the-gpdo/ Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Wed, 15 May 2013 20:55:54 BST

I m also trying to put together a simple guide of how these Notifications should be processed in our Uniform and Plantech systems, which seems a much more complex thing now then when I first started it. Though starting from then end of the process surely the only unequivocal way of the applicant proving that the development was completed on or before the 30 May 2016 would be a Completion Certificate from Building Control. Which of course has the wonderful irony of an authority sending a completion certificate to a developer, for them to send it back to the authority as evidence of completion (OK some will be done by Approved Inspectors, but still). So the steps I ve got down so far are along the lines of an authority receipting the notification, and validating it (in so much as checking its not a Listed Building, in an ANOB, Article 4 etc and the property hadn t previously had PD rights removed). I m guessing that if the Notification fails this validation it will be rejected and the developer advised to submit a planning application, but its not explicitly clear if authorities can do that....? What also needs to be clarified, as is mentioned above, is if the description and plan are too vague to make an assessment, can it be considered not fit for purpose and invalidated and sent back? Or is then just a race against the clock. Lets hope CLG are not relying on case law to sort that out. Once it is validated the Notification then appears on weekly lists and Public Access registers (though excluded from the PS1 and PS2 reports). Neighbour notifications are sent out (I read this as properties defined by the authority rather than just those identified by the developer) and await objections, or who knows letters of support, being sent in. These are then recorded, and an officer s report prepared based on whether there is any impact on any of the neighbours and the authority issues their decision , with refusals being possibly being appealed against. One concern I have is I don t see anything stopping a developer putting in the same, or slightly varying notifications on the same property repeatedly (on the basis that the authority will slip up or neighbours will give up objecting to the application) after all it won t cost them anything.... And the last question I have (for now) is how should this information be presented on a Local Land Charges search? Not a question for this forum I know, but how you need to get the information out should guide what you put in in the first place. Submitted by: James Sealey

Re: Permitted Development changes in relation to schools

Wed, 15 May 2013 16:25:16 BST

As for Part 3 Class K why is it not neccessary for flooding risks to be considered in contrast to a flexible use of an agricultural building and offices to dwellings. Also noted that in the prior approval procedure set out under N at 10(b) it refers back to para (1) whereas the details are requried in para (2). Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Permitted Development changes in relation to schools

Wed, 15 May 2013 16:20:38 BST

As its a permanent change of use it would benefit from Part 32. As far as I can see Part 2 applies to any use unless otherwise specifed as in Part 4 Class C Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Wed, 15 May 2013 14:17:29 BST

I have come across an interesting blog regarding the proposed changes: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/ Submitted by: Matthew Holdsworth

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Wed, 15 May 2013 12:16:40 BST

Thanks Chris, The "received by the developer before" requirement is the same as for prior notifications (agricultural, telecoms, demolitions and the range of new ones in Part 3) - although the numbers of days allowed varies from Class to Class. The time period set out in each Class trumps the provisions of Article 30 of the DMPO because it is a specific requirement of the specific grant of permission. As regards the time periods for lodging an appeal, thanks for pointing it out;- the lack of a specified period suggests it is open ended but, in reality, as any development granted by the revised Part 1 Class A has to be completed by 30 May 2016, the time period for lodging an appeal may not be as open ended as you might at first think! On the LDC front, for a proposed development to be certified as lawful, I agree that a developer will have to have gone through the hoops that Chris stated, although many of the conditions listed at A4(3)-(7) are outside the control of the developer, compliance would have been achieved prior to LDC application. The need to complete the development by a certain date might affect it. I do understand that the premise of "certified lawful on the date of submission of the application" but can foresee issues where an extension is commenced lawfully in accordance with the GPDO permission and following a CLOPUD, but what if the development is not completed by 30 May 2016? Does the whole development become unauthorised as it is a breach of a condition; or does the completion condition have the effect of merely ceasing to authorise anything after that date in a similar way to Completion Notices under s.94 of the Act - the effect of which just prevents further work to complete the development rather than un-authorising that which has already taken place? Would the applicant need to specify a completion date in order for an LDC to be granted? Regards Dean Submitted by: Dean Baker

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Wed, 15 May 2013 10:36:06 BST

Chris Thanks for your comment re part M. Seems pretty pointless at the moment it will have no effect until 2022. More importantly have just been advised by DCLG "In regards to your earlier query regarding the Householder Permitted Development Regime ,the Planning Portal have not been asked to develop/deliver a form for this or the other new regimes. If this changes I will of course keep you updated of any progress" Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Use Class? - self-contained student accommodation units, with no shared facilities?

Tue, 14 May 2013 16:03:07 BST

Gerard's just beat me to it - C3 is correct. Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 14 May 2013 16:01:06 BST

In responding to Dean's query: 1) I agree the 42 days starts the day after receipt, but it seems that under these new Part 1 provisions the developer must have RECEIVED the notification by close of play on day 42. I guess this means that postal service delivery time would need to be factored in - and in the case of LPAs now farming out post to non-Royal Mail services to acheive savings; this could cut a number of days off time available to determine the matter. Whilst there is a degree of conflict between this and Article 30, there is a similar degree of conflict between Part 6 and Article 30 in the period of time allowed to make a decision. In this respect, I would expect that the GDPO provisions take precedence (although this is ultimately a question to pose to a solicitor). 2) Thank you for answering one of my many questions posed here: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=3437980. It does seem that there is a right of appeal. The twist however is "how long is the appeal window open for"? Section 78(3) states "Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice served within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order". As with LDCs, such a period has not been defined by an Order (as yet) and thus there is effectively no time limit in which to lodge an appeal. Further to Jonathan and Steve's comments re: "As you say, if an applicant wants confirmation that their extension would be PD, then they will have to submit a separate application for an LDC. One issue with this will be timing. From a technical point of view, an application for an LDC (proposed) asks whether the development would have been lawful if undertaken "at the time of the application" (i.e. on the date that the valid application was received by the Council). This means that it would not be possible for a Council to issue an LDC unless it's submitted after the decision (or after the 42 days) for the above new procedure. This means that an applicant who wants to be certain that their extension would be PD would have to first follow the above new procedure (42 days) and then submit an application for an LDC (56 days), rather than being able to submit both applications at the same time." Someone shoot me please. Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Use Class? - self-contained student accommodation units, with no shared facilities?

Tue, 14 May 2013 15:22:35 BST

In my view these would be 16 C3 units. I would refer you to the tests in Burdle. Submitted by: Gerard Livett

Permitted Development changes in relation to schools

Tue, 14 May 2013 15:14:40 BST

The 2013 GPDO notes that a school includes a building permitted by Class C of Part 4 - the temporary use of a building as a school. The GPDO states that the PD rights conferred by Class A of Part 2 and Class A of Part 32 apply to temporary schools permitted by Class C of Part 4. Would these Part 2 and Part 32 PD rights also extend to schools created under Class K of Part 3? Submitted by: Gerard Livett

Re: validations and extensions to time

Tue, 14 May 2013 14:29:03 BST

In answer to Gordon, I think you can - now that the date for making such an application has been changed from 1st Oct 2009 to 1st Oct 2010. The wording in the Greater Flexibility guidance ( only one extension will be possible )was not a restriction but a statement of fact : it was impossible for someone to have an extension of time granted prior to 1st October 2009 when the SI was made (original SI is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2184/article/18/made ). Now that the deadline has shifted to 1st Oct 2010, if extensions granted between 1st October 2009 and 1st October 2010 are planning permissions in their own right they can therefore be extended. Submitted by: Nick Smith

Re: validations and extensions to time

Tue, 14 May 2013 14:14:26 BST

My view is that if the original permission was valid when the application was made, then it can be dealt with, even if the application is invalid. However, once the permission has been extended using the new regulations, it cannot then be extended again. Submitted by: Gerard Livett

Re: New GDPO - Part 4 Class D "Flexible uses"

Tue, 14 May 2013 14:10:18 BST

I think Ian has the correct interpretation. You can have flexible uses for up to two years, but then the use has to revert to the previous use, unless planning permission for a change of use is granted. Submitted by: Gerard Livett

Re: New GDPO - Part 4 Class D "Flexible uses"

Tue, 14 May 2013 13:16:49 BST

My thinking is that this is intended to prevent the continuous rolling application of the two year permitted development right. My interpretation was that you could only seek to apply the Class D permitted development to the buildings once, ever. What I mean by that is that a building could be used for any or all of these 'flexible uses' for a period of up to two years. However, once this has expired you could not then make use of the same permitted development rights again at a future date for another period. As such, it is a 'one hit' right, once you've used it for a specific site, you cannot use it again. I hope that makes sense to people! I do recognise that I might be completely wrong with my interpretation and am happy to be corrected! Submitted by: Ian Rowland

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO Time periods and Appeals

Tue, 14 May 2013 11:44:05 BST

Can someone please test my logic on these: 1. Time period for giving Prior Approval A4(5) & (6) Date of receipt = Day 0 (A4(8)(c)) - 42 days following the date of receipt By day 42 developer mhall have received written notice that Prior Approval not required; Prior Approval given; or Prior Approval refused. Otherwise, can commence. Such approvals under a condition generally follow the rules of Article 30 of the DMPO but in this case, A4(8)(c) expressly states to the contrary. 2. Appeals S.78(1)(c) of the TCPA 1990 refers to refusing an application for any consent, agreement or approval of the authority required under a development order, the applicant may, by notice, appeal to the Secretary of State. Thus the legislation for an appeal following the refusal of Prior Approval is already contained in primary legislation. Submitted by: Dean Baker

Re: New GDPO - Part 4 Class D "Flexible uses"

Tue, 14 May 2013 10:03:18 BST

Phil, in the Conditions at D.2 (c) you can change to a further use in the class with a further notification within the flexible use. Do you mean it can only be used for the uses in Class D and not for any other classes for the two years? Submitted by: Jeremy Godden

Re: New GDPO - Part 4 Class D "Flexible uses"

Tue, 14 May 2013 09:58:05 BST

My reading of this is that you can't keep flip-flopping, once you have used Class D, you stick with it for 2 years. The clue is in the sentence before D.1. "for a single continuous period of up to two years beginning on the date the building and any land within its curtilage begins to be used for one of the flexible uses." You can obviously still use the permitted change of A4->A3->A2->A1. Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

New GDPO - Part 4 Class D "Flexible uses"

Tue, 14 May 2013 09:48:04 BST

Hi, with regard to Class D, the flexible use of buildings for A1, A2, A3 and B1 use for two years, under the Development Not Permitted section it states at "D1 (b) development not permitted - the site has at any time in the past relied upon the permission granted by Class D". Has anyone any idea what this is trying to do as no one in our office can divine what it actually means! Thanks Jerry Godden Principla Planning Officer Submitted by: Jeremy Godden

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Tue, 14 May 2013 09:35:51 BST

Hi all, If an owner starts their 3m-6m (or 4m-8m) extension BEFORE following the new procedure and obtaining one of the following outcomes ... 1) Decision from the local authority confirming that prior approval is not required, or 2) Decision from the local authority giving prior approval, or 3) Decision from the local authority refusing prior approval followed by decision from the Planning Inspectorate allowing the appeal, or 4) End of the 42 day deadline without a decision being issued by the local authority, then, as far as I can tell, there s no way that the new legislation could be applied retrospectively to make the works lawful. In other words, it seems clear from the new legislation that you can ONLY comply with the new condition A.4 if you successfully complete the new procedure BEFORE starting works. Furthermore, if the owner then applies for retrospective planning permission (or submits an appeal against the enforcement notice on ground (a)), then it could be relatively difficult to assess the fall-back position. For reference, with the current version of permitted development, assessing the fall-back position normally involves an assessment the following two issues: 1) If the owner demolishes their unlawful extension, then what could they erect under permitted development? 2) How likely is it that they would actually erect such an extension? However, with the new version of permitted development, assessing the first of the above two issues would become more difficult, because it would involve an assessment of the following: 1) If the owner demolishes their unlawful extension, then for what length of extension would they be able to successfully complete the new procedure? In other words, would there be a length of extension - e.g. less than their unlawful extension but greater than 3m (or 4m) - for which the owner would either not require prior approval or would be given prior approval? Of course, if the enforcement complainant is an immediately adjoining neighbour who makes it clear that they would object to any extension longer than 3m (or 4m), and if the local authority s policies and guidance would refuse any extension longer than 3m (or 4m) on the grounds of amenity impact, then the fall-back position would be 3m (or 4m). However, in other scenarios, the fall-back position might not be so clear. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 13 May 2013 17:38:27 BST

Neil: This is a condition of the prior notification, as such it would be a breach of that condition (i put it simply). In reality the Council would be unlikely to take action if the harm arising from that omision was slight. More worrying is that the owner would find it difficult to sell as any solicitor worth thier salt would raise questions about the dates. I think that in the final months of the "experiment" Councils will be inundated with requests for certificates of lawfulness to prove they were built in time. Secondly, what happens if it is not built in strict accordance with the specification given to the council and neighbours. That would make it unlawful, it wasn't what they applied for in the prior notification... oh dear... i feel another certificate on the way... This will run and run and run... time to retire!!! Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 13 May 2013 16:43:35 BST

The explanatory notes say if the new agricultural building commences use after 3 July 2012 it has to be used for 10 years prior the change being considered PD (to stop new ones going up and then changing straight away) Submitted by: Chris Weetman

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 13 May 2013 16:32:07 BST

Can anyone explain Part 3 Class M M.1 (a) Development is not permitted if the building has not been solely in agricultural use i) since 3 July 2012 or (and this is where it seems to go wrong) ii) for buildings first brought into use after 3 July 2012, for ten years Submitted by: Michael Parkes

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 13 May 2013 16:28:30 BST

A development commences following LA confirmation that prior approval is not required, or prior approval has been granted. However completion is achieved just after 30/5/16. What would be the status of the development following failure to complete. I suspect that there will be many of these. Neil Hibberd Solus Design Submitted by: Neil Hibberd

Use Class? - self-contained student accommodation units, with no shared facilities?

Mon, 13 May 2013 14:25:47 BST

Client has an existing detached house in use as C4 small HMO, (students as it happens). Client considering making a planning application to return existing house to C3, and build to the rear a very long single-storey building consisting of, say, 16 completely self-contained, self-catering units, (it s a long garden) each having its own washing, lavatory & cooking facilities. There are no shared facilities at all, and all units have their own front door. My difficulty is, what is the Use Class? To me this is a terrace of very small houses, and therefore C3, and if they were arranged in a block instead of being strung out, they would be called studio flats . However, could they be said to be too small to be C3 dwellings, at say 16m2? Clearly, the intention is to let as mature student accommodation, but is that relevant, seeing as there are no shared facilities? Peter Submitted by: Peter Champion

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 13 May 2013 09:52:07 BST

Hi David, Philip, For reference, the "Explanatory Memorandum" for SI 2013 No. 1101 states the following: "There are no plans to consolidate the General Permitted Development Order in the immediate future, although this may be considered following the Red Tape Challenge." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1101/memorandum/contents Although the Planning Encyclopaedia and the Planning Jungle website (note: the latter is my website) both provide consolidated versions of the GPDO 1995, these are only available to paid subscribers. The Planning Jungle website also provides a free version of this document (see the following webpage), but it only incorporates amendment Statutory Instruments (SIs) up until January 2012 (this has been done to distinguish the free version from the paid version): http://planningjungle.com/consolidated-versions-of-legislation/gpdo-1995-consolidated-free-version/ The Planning Portal does attempt to provide a list of which amendment SIs apply to the GPDO 1995 on the following webpage: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/responsibilities/planningpermission/permitted However, the above list is particularly unhelpful, as it currently includes 2 SIs that do not amend the GPDO 1995, and omits 12 SIs that do amend the GPDO 1995. The fact that the government doesn't provide consolidated versions for secondary legislation is not only very unhelpful and inefficient from the point of view of people using the legislation, but it also significantly increases the risk of mistakes being made. For example, in the appeal decision reference "APP/X2220/X/11/2144338" (see the following webpage), the local authority s decision notice and the Inspector s decision notice both referred to a part of the legislation that had been superseded more than 2 years earlier as the sole reason for refusing the application: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2144338&coid=2050 Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 13 May 2013 09:35:16 BST

Most councils try to keep up with these changes. Our consilidated GDPO is about 200 pages long, but not sure its as comprehensive as it could be. Reluctant to share for legal reasons, In today's environment you get sued for sneezing without a BS9999 Hankie. Phill Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Mon, 13 May 2013 09:29:07 BST

This is rather more about democracy than planning. Steve wrote: "On a similar note, we now have another 16 pages of amendments to the GPDO 1995, which makes a total of 29 amendment SIs (!) to this piece of legislation, and yet again the government has not produced a consolidated version. This means that each of approx 330 local authorities either has to purchase or create their own consolidated version, or has to attempt to understand the legislation without a consolidated version." ========== That is true and is a problem I have also faced with council tax legislation, But the problem is much bigger than you suggest. It is not just 330 local authorities that are faced with this issue but 20 million plus householders and who knows how many businesses. It simply shouldn't be acceptable that the people of this country cannot find out what the law is . Submitted by: David Gibbens

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Sun, 12 May 2013 19:42:04 BST

Hi Jonathan, I totally agree with what you've written in your two posts above. For this new procedure, the Council would do one of the following: 1) Issue a decision to confirm that prior approval is not required (i.e. if no objections are received), or 2) Give prior approval (i.e. if objections are received and the Council considers that the amenity impact would be acceptable), or 3) Refuse prior approval (i.e. if objections are received and the Council considers that the amenity impact would be unacceptable), or 4) Fail to issue a decision (i.e. within the 42 days deadline). In case 3) it's clear that the extension wouldn't be PD (albeit subject to the results of any subsequent appeal against the Council's decision). However, in cases 1), 2), and 4), as far as I can tell from the legislation, the Council's decision (or lack of decision) would only confirm to the applicant that the extension complies with the new limitation A.1(ea) and with the new condition A.4 (albeit that compliance with the latter also assumes that the applicant will subsequently complete the extension by 30/05/2016 and then notify the Council). As you say, it would appear that the Council's decision for this new procedure would not be affected by whether or not the extension would comply with any of the other limitations and conditions of Class A. And, in my opinion, it would be more appropriate for the Council to add an informative pointing out that the decision doesn't confirm that the extension would be PD, rather than trying to add an informative stating that the extension would (or wouldn't) be PD. As you say, if an applicant wants confirmation that their extension would be PD, then they will have to submit a separate application for an LDC. One issue with this will be timing. From a technical point of view, an application for an LDC (proposed) asks whether the development would have been lawful if undertaken "at the time of the application" (i.e. on the date that the valid application was received by the Council). This means that it would not be possible for a Council to issue an LDC unless it's submitted after the decision (or after the 42 days) for the above new procedure. This means that an applicant who wants to be certain that their extension would be PD would have to first follow the above new procedure (42 days) and then submit an application for an LDC (56 days), rather than being able to submit both applications at the same time. Finally, in the above case, the Council will have to be very careful when assessing the application for the LDC to check the drawings that were previously submitted for the above new procedure, to make sure that nothing that's shown on the previously submitted drawings (which might be relatively basic) contradicts the drawings that are submitted for the LDC. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Sun, 12 May 2013 10:12:52 BST

Hi Andy, As far as I can tell, your interpretation is correct. Under the new Part 4 Class D a pub (A4) will be able to change to a flexible use (either A1, A2, A3, or B1) for a temporary period of up to 2 years, subject to certain criteria, including a floor space limit of 150m2. Furthermore, under the new Part 4 Class C a pub (A4) will be able to change to a state-funded school (which includes an Academy school) for a temporary period of a single academic year, subject to certain criteria, including approval by the Secretary of State for Education. Although the SI amends Part 42 (which is titled "Shops or catering, financial or professional services establishments"), these changes will NOT affect pubs. This is because although the overall Part 42 applies to A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 properties, the SI only amends Part 42 Class A which only applies to A1 and A2 properties. In case it helps, I've produced a summary of the amendments to Other Parts of the GPDO (i.e. other than Part 1), which is available on the following webpage: http://planningjungle.com/2013/05/10/important-amendments-to-other-parts-of-the-gpdo-coming-into-force-on-30052013/ Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Sun, 12 May 2013 09:15:58 BST

If my interpretation is correct, once an applicant had received confirmation that prior approval is not required or has been granted, they would still need to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate if they sought formal confirmation that planning permission for a specific extension design is not required. This is the only way that the LPA can consider a detailed specific extension proposal and confirm formally that the design represents permitted development. The new system does not appear to allow this. If this is correct, it appears that Government has not understood the impact of the legislation change, as Nick Boles in his letter to 23/04/2013 to Clive Betts stated The introduction of the neighbour consultation scheme will mean that homeowners are less likely to pay for a Certificate of Lawful Development, as they will be provided with written confirmation that their application falls within permitted development. This appears to be incorrect. The homeowner will be provided with confirmation that an extension which complies with the footprint and height details submitted does not need, or has been granted prior approval . The extension may well require planning permission and the only way to receive formal confirmation in this regard will be to go through a second application process for a Lawful Development Certificate. Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Sun, 12 May 2013 08:09:07 BST

Hi Jonathan, I've kept a record of the conclusions of all "LDC Appeal Decisions" since 2008 that relate to Part 1 of the GPDO. So far, I've seen the following 3 appeal decisions that support the assertion that a C4 house in multiple occupation (i.e. a "small HMO") does NOT benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO: APP/T5150/C/11/2160981 http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2160981&coid=33093 APP/G5750/C/12/2179136 http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2179136&coid=2113600 APP/X5210/X/12/2177760 http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2177760&coid=2166784 So far, I've not seen any appeal decisions that support the opposite assertion. In terms of other arguments (i.e. other than appeal decisions), I do appreciate the point raised above that the definition of Use Class C4 includes the term "dwellinghouse" - i.e. "Use of a dwellinghouse by not more than six residents as a house in multiple occupation ". However, the counter-argument to this is that it's definitely possible for something to be referred to as a "dwellinghouse" in another part of planning legislation and not benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. For example, for the purposes of section 171B of the TCPA 1990, and for the purposes of the version of Part 40 of the GPDO that was in force from 06/04/2008 to 30/11/2011, the term "dwellinghouse" includes a flat, which doesn't benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. Furthermore, even though the phrase "HMO" includes the word "house", it's still accepted that a sui generis house in multiple occupation (i.e. a "large HMO") doesn't benefit from Part 1 of the GPDO. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Sat, 11 May 2013 16:51:22 BST

I would be interested to know if I am interpreting the new legislation on householder development correctly: If it is determined through the application system set out in the legislation that prior approval is not required, or if prior approval is granted, this decision relates to prior approval only and does not confirm that planning permission is not required. E.g. Prior approval could be determined as not required, but if the applicant then goes on to build an extension which does not comply with the all of the requirements of Class A, this extension would require planning permission. In fact, the applicant could submit details at prior approval stage which conflict with the requirements of Class A, and this would have no impact on the prior approval application? The fact that the extension proposal did not comply with Class A might emerge at validation stage, or might not emerge until the time of a site visit. For example, the details submitted show an extension to a detached house which appears to be a maximum of 8 metres depth from all rear walls, and the maximum height and eaves height appear to be within Class A restrictions. The application is registered and neighbours consulted. Upon visiting the site however, it is apparent that the proposed addition extends beyond an side wall of the original dwellinghouse and the extension has an overall width greater than 50% of the width of the house. I.e. the proposed extension does not comply with the restrictions set out in Class A and therefore requires planning permission. Notwithstanding these issues, no objections are received and the LPA has no option but to issue a decision letter confirming that prior approval is not required. In such a case, whilst prior approval would not be required, planning permission most certainly would! This situation will be confusing for all parties involved and could result, in a worst case, with an extension being built and enforcement action subsequently being taken to secure its demolition. Please tell me if I am missing something!! Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: C4 shared houses / HMOs- permitted development rights removed?

Sat, 11 May 2013 14:23:20 BST

I would be interested to know whether the views of Local Authorities / individuals on this subject have firmed up or changed since 2010. With the increase in size of permitted development extensions due to come in to force on the 30th of May, this matter will be of key importance. I am aware that a number of Authorities have taken the view that C4 properties do not benefit from householder permitted development rights, and that recent appeal decisions have supported this stance. For example: 2 Appeals at 92 First Avenue, Manor Park, London E12 6AJ Appeal A: APP/G5750/C/12/2179136 Appeal B: APP/G5750/C/12/2179140 Key sections: '12. Discussion took place at the Inquiry as to whether permitted development rights for dwellinghouses also apply to class C4 HMOs. The Use Classes Order makes a distinction between class C3 dwellinghouses and class C4 HMOs. Class C3 covers single households of various types and class C4 is specifically for HMOs where there are between 3 and 6 unrelated individuals. The fact that the GPDO specifically allows for a change between the two classes without the need for obtaining prior planning permission indicates that they are considered to fall into different categories. Circular 8/2010 - Changes to Planning Regulations for Dwellinghouses and Houses in Multiple Occupation notes that Class C4 HMOs can include flats and the GPDO specifically excludes flats from the permitted development rights accorded to dwellinghouses. 13. The Council submitted that it would be unlikely that the terms of the GPDO were intended to grant permitted development rights to some class C4 buildings and not others. This is a view that has not yet, as far as I am aware, been tested through the courts. However, taking account of all the above points, it seems likely that permitted development rights for extensions to single dwellings do not extend to class C4 HMOs. Therefore, there are no permitted development rights that would have allowed the construction of the extension while the building was in use as any type of HMO.' Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:04 BST

Thanks very much Chris. With regards to the points you've made in the other thread, that's a very good point that the lack of elevations will make it very difficult for neighbours to be able to assess the impact upon their privacy. And if there's an objection and the applicant doesn't submit sufficient drawings (or there's not enough time left for them to do so), then I'm guessing that local authorities will often have to use reasons for refusal along the lines of "the applicant has failed to demonstrate", etc. I see your point about the issues with "adjoining premises". I think there's going to be some difficult decisions for local authorities. For example, suppose to the rear of the application site there's a shared alleyway followed by other properties. With a planning application, although it might not be clear whether these properties "adjoin" the application site, the local authority can simply consult them anyway to be on the safe side. However, with this new type of notification, the local authority has to get it EXACTLY right. After all, a local authority will fail to comply with the legislation 1) if it fails to consult an adjoining property, or 2) if it treats an objection from a non-adjoining property as the basis to assess the neighbour impact of the extension. As you say, the requirement to complete the extension within 3 years runs completely contrary to the way that the planning system (and permitted development) normally works. As an additional point, when the government introduces these types of changes, I really don't understand why DCLG can't issue a full set of templates (well in advance of the changes) that local authorities would have the option to use (if they wanted). At one of the busiest times of the year, approx 330 local authorities will now have to find the time not only to understand the new legislation and procedures, but also to write a full set of templates for this new type of notification - e.g. confirmation of receipt of application, neighbour consultation letter, decision notices, etc - whilst trying to ensure that such templates comply with all of the legal requirements of the legislation. Surely, it would be much better for DCLG to issue a full set of templates, so that local authorities would then have the option to either use these (i.e. knowing that they comply with the legislation) or to write their own (i.e. if they have very specific local circumstances). On a similar note, we now have another 16 pages of amendments to the GPDO 1995, which makes a total of 29 amendment SIs (!) to this piece of legislation, and yet again the government has not produced a consolidated version. This means that each of approx 330 local authorities either has to purchase or create their own consolidated version, or has to attempt to understand the legislation without a consolidated version. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 10 May 2013 16:06:45 BST

am just trawling through the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 that comes into force on 30th May 2013. Can someone please confirm that revised extension thresholds will only apply to residential, offices, and industrial and warehousing uses and that extensions to public houses will not change under the changes leaving the only changes made in respect of public houses (A4) is to allow the change of use from A4 to a flexible use falling within either use class A1, A2, A3 or B1 as long as this is for a single continuous period of up to 2 years and be no larger than 150 square metres floorspace?.... or have i missed something! Submitted by: andy d'arcy

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 10 May 2013 15:51:07 BST

Steve - I think you have raised a key weakness in the whole Part 1 amendment by way of your statement: "Furthermore, in my opinion, the minimum level of information that an applicant needs to submit for this new type of notification would be insufficient for a local authority to be able to confirm that the extension would be PD, particularly as no elevations or details of materials would be required." By the insertion of A.1(ea) as a distinct clause, the LPA has to assume that all the limits under A.1(a) through (i) are met. Given the limited level of information which is required upfront with a notification; I can forsee a lot of caveats being added to formal decisions to such prior notifications. This to me is far less efficient and proactive than an LDC. Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Fri, 10 May 2013 15:43:26 BST

Apologies for splitting this thread, but I've started the following new thread: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=3571977 Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 10 May 2013 15:37:39 BST

Hi all, Some of my comments about the new Statutory Instrument, the new DCLG draft guidance document, and the Summary of Responses to the public consultation: 1) The level of information that an applicant needs to submit for this new type of notification appears to be very basic. It seems to consist of a) a description stating the length, maximum height, and eaves height of the extension, and b) a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development . In my opinion, this information by itself isn t sufficient for a neighbour to know the height of the extension along the boundary. For example, if I state that want to build an extension with length 6m, maximum height 4m, and eaves height 3m, and I provide a proposed floor plan that shows the width and length of the extension, then it still won t be clear whether the height along the boundary will be 3m (i.e. hipped roof with eaves along the boundary), 3m-4m (i.e. mono-pitched roof with verge along the boundary) or 4m (i.e. mono-pitch roof with ridge-line along the boundary). 2) The legislation states that if an adjoining neighbour objects, then the local authority may require the developer to submit such further information regarding the proposed development as the local planning authority may reasonably require in order to consider the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises . However, by the time a neighbour objects, it may well be close to the end of the 6-week deadline, and the legislation doesn t appear to contain any provision to allow the applicant and the local authority to agree to extend this deadline to enable the applicant to submit amended drawings. Furthermore, due to this deadline, it s unlikely to be possible for neighbours to view and comment on these amended drawings. 3) During the debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the government told MPs and Lords that the new procedure would allow local councillors to determine such applications if they wished to do so. However, if a local councillor were to call-in such an application, it s likely to be very difficult, if not impossible, for such an application to be presented to the planning committee within the 6-week deadline. 4) In the letter from Nick Boles to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee on 23/04/2013, the former stated the following: "The introduction of the neighbour consultation scheme will mean that homeowners are less likely to pay for a Certificate of Lawful Development, as they will be provided with written confirmation that their application falls within permitted development." The above letter made it clear that where an applicant notifies the local authority and no objections are received, then the local authority would need to confirm that the extension would be PD, rather than simply confirming that no objections were received. However, the legislation states that where no objections are received, then the local authority would simply have to provide the applicant with a written notice that their prior approval is not required . Furthermore, in my opinion, the minimum level of information that an applicant needs to submit for this new type of notification would be insufficient for a local authority to be able to confirm that the extension would be PD, particularly as no elevations or details of materials would be required. 5) Where an applicant submits this new type of notification with a relatively poor standard of information, the local authority is likely to have to be very careful about invalidating the application. With a typical planning application, if the local authority incorrect invalidates the application, then it risks the applicant being able to submit an appeal against non-determination after 8-weeks. However, with this new type of notification, if the local authority incorrectly invalidates the application, then it risks the applicant being able to proceed with the extension after 6-weeks. 6) In my opinion, the Summary of Responses to the public consultation is farcical. I think it s now very clear why the government refused to allow the House of Commons and the House of Lords to know the results of this public consultation, even though several MPs and Lords specifically requested this information before each of the votes. In my opinion, the government s response to the responses received for each of the 10 questions in the public consultation appears to be along the lines of (my paraphrasing) the vast majority of respondents objected to this proposal, but we re going to proceed with it anyway . For example, for each of the 10 questions, out of those people who responded, here are the percentages of respondents who agreed with the proposals: Qu1 (15%), Qu2 (26%), Qu3 (33%), Qu4 (29%), Qu5 (34%), Qu6 (37%), Qu7 (22%), Qu8 (44%), Qu9 (86%), Qu10 (22%). 7) In my opinion, the standard of evidence in the above Summary of Responses document is extremely poor, which is ironic considering how the government requires local authorities to support their policies with proper evidence. For example, in response to question 3, which asks about increasing PD rights to allow shops to extend up to 100m2 or 50% (whichever is smaller), the government justifies its decision to disregard the majority of respondents who objected by stating the following: The changes proposed are of a scale that would normally be agreed by a local planning authority and have sufficient protection. In the interests of removing barriers to growth, the proposals will be brought forward as set out in the consultation. And yet, where is the evidence that local authorities would normally grant planning permission to allow shops to extend up to 100m2 or 50%? Certainly, the Impact Assessment that accompanied the public consultation didn t contain any such evidence. Has the government actually done any research to find out whether local authorities normally grant planning permission for such works, or has it simply used the above statement to justify the changes without any evidence? Indeed, seeing as only 33% of respondents to this question appeared to support this particular proposal, I m guessing that the majority of local authorities who responded to this question probably objected to it, which (to a degree) contradicts the assertion that local authorities would normally grant planning permission for such works. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Fri, 10 May 2013 15:36:31 BST

I am just trawling through the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013 that comes into force on 30th May 2013. Can someone please confirm that revised extension thresholds will only apply to residential, offices, and industrial and warehousing uses and that extensions to public houses will not change under the changes leaving the only changes made in respect of public houses (A4) is to allow the change of use from A4 to a flexible use falling within either use class A1, A2, A3 or B1 as long as this is for a single continuous period of up to 2 years and be no larger than 150 square metres floorspace?.... or have i missed something! Submitted by: andy d'arcy

Re: Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 10 May 2013 14:52:21 BST

I have some questions/thoughts on this which I'm sure is just the tip of the iceberg: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=3437980 Submitted by: Chris Nash

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Fri, 10 May 2013 14:45:50 BST

As ever changes to PD often throw up more questions than were floating around before. Anyone fancy chiming in on the following? - Is there actually a right of appeal? The guidance (http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/neighbour_consultation_scheme_guidance_may13.pdf) suggests there is, but I cannot find this invested in the actual legislation (as linked to above by Steve). - If there IS a right of appeal, how long is the timescale for lodging one? - The LPA seem not to be able to request details beyond those set out in A.4(2)(a) to (e). I would have thought a crucial piece of information at the outset is the elevations, so window positions, etc can be determined with respect to amenity impacts. This is most likely to lead to neighbours objecting "in fear" of what may be, thus pushing the vast majority to be considered by the LPA. - Anyone fancy defining "amenity"? To me I believe this could incorporate visual amenity by way of poor design or removal of trees. - What happens if the developer refuses to provide further details requested following triggers at A.4(5) and (6)? Does the LPA take a precautionary approach that the impacts are not acceptable and refuse the proposal? - The developer has to provide the addresses of any adjoining premises. No interpretation is given to Part 1, yet it is to the Part 3 amendments. Using the Part 3 amendments, this means that open land must also be traced back to the landowner/tenant; but what if the landowner is unknown? As this condition cannot be fulfilled, does this mean it is not PD? - The neighbour notification procedure requires the LPA to set out a number of specific dimensions of the proposal. Given most LPAs use software which generates standard correspondence depending on the application TYPE, not description; anyone care to offer advice on how this can be acheived? - A.4(10) requires the development to be "completed" before 30 May 2016. This a new approach under planning legislation, which has always previously required a material start to the development. Plus what is "complete", as we are more familiar with "substantially complete"? Furthermore as all the terms in A.4 are conditions, how expedient is it for the LPA to enforce non compliance with A.4(11) (and (12) for that matter)? And these are just the questions relating to residential PD changes - can't bring myself to read the rest yet! Submitted by: Chris Nash

Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 …

Fri, 10 May 2013 14:07:37 BST

Hi all, In case it helps, I've produced a summary of the following: - The amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013, as introduced by the new Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 1101. - The new DCLG draft guidance document that explains the procedures set out by the above SI. - The government s Summary of Responses to the public consultation that ran from 12/11/2012 to 24/12/2012. Ths summary is available on the following webpage: http://planningjungle.com/2013/05/10/important-part-1-of-the-gpdo-2013-amendments-updated-to-include-additional-information/ Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Fri, 10 May 2013 08:10:11 BST

Here is a link to the maps of the exemption areas which have been approved: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/areas-exempt-from-office-to-residential-change-of-use-permitted-development-right-2013 As a reminder, the requirements for an exemption area were as follows: exemptions will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, where local authorities demonstrate clearly that the introduction of these new permitted development rights in a particular area will lead to: A. the loss of a nationally significant area of economic activity or B. substantial adverse economic consequences at the local authority level which are not offset by the positive benefits the new rights would bring. http://ww3.wandsworth.gov.uk/committ/documents/s26646/13-139%20Office%20to%20Residential%20PD%20-%20Appendix%201%20Chief%20Planning%20Officers%20Letter.pdf Clearly there is something of national importance going on in the parishes of East Hampshire! Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Thu, 09 May 2013 16:39:12 BST

Hi all, Further to the above posts, the Statutory Instrument that will amend the GPDO has been published today (see link below), and will come into force on 30/05/2013. SI 2013 No. 1101: "The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1101/contents/made It's worth browsing the "Explanatory Note" at the end of the above amendment SI, as there are amendments to a number of different Parts of the GPDO. These include larger rear extensions for houses (Part 1), higher boundary treatments for schools (Part 2), various new changes of use (Part 3), new temporary uses (Part 4), larger extensions for industrial buildings (Part 8), a reduction in prior approval requirements for electronic communications code operators (Part 24), larger extensions for office buildings (Part 41), and larger extensions for A1 and A2 properties (Part 42). Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Condition monitoring

Thu, 09 May 2013 15:10:08 BST

My authority has adopted a very proactive approach to condition monitoring and as a result we now get details submitted for the majority of schemes without having to chase them. We send contact details out with all decision notices making it clear that conditions need to be discharge and that we routinely monitor this. We also monitor both our own Building Control commencements and initial notices we receive from Approved Inspectors. Our Enforcement team also regularly visit sites to ensure compliance with conditions and adherance to approved details. Submitted by: Mike Davies

Re: Condition monitoring

Thu, 09 May 2013 12:00:52 BST

We are looking at ways of implementing condition monitoring, If anyone has any examples of procedures already in place or that you know about I would be grateful to be pointed in the right direction. Submitted by: Dale Keeble

Re: Wind Turbines & Residential Development - Separation Distances

Wed, 08 May 2013 17:18:36 BST

None of the policies developed on this point are evidence based, they are purely political using a standard of evidence only someone like James Dellingpole would accept. Such policies collapse at the meerest breeze of objector wind. Submitted by: Andrew Lainton

Wind Turbines & Residential Development - Separation Distances

Wed, 08 May 2013 16:31:42 BST

Does anyone have any good examples of areas around the country who have developed policies on separation distances between wind turbines and residential development? It would also be helpful to understand what evidence has been used to underpin any policies. Submitted by: Iain Cunningham

Re: material planning consideration in respect of flawed previous planning decision

Fri, 03 May 2013 18:46:25 BST

Hi - the Council has approved scheme A with building heights it finds acceptable. If scheme A can't be built in accordance with the approved plans but that's the applicant's tuff luck. The existing permission for scheme A doesn't set a precedent for anything taller - whether they are called houses or anything else. All it does is establish a scale and height of development that the Council found acceptable on the basis of the evidence that was supplied at the time. Assuming that the necessary increase in height that's needed is more than a "non-material" amendment then the applicant will have to resubmit a revised scheme which can be determined afresh. You might have some difficulty explaining how officers failed to spot there was insufficient head-height but a "mistake" like that shouldn't have any weight in considering whether to permit a fresh application for taller buildings that might have the wider harmful impacts that you have pointed out. That would just turn an embarassing situation into a potentially litigious one. Where would we be if all Councils' planning "mistakes" were capable of amounting to material planning considerations? If the approved houses have pitched roofs then presumably there is some space within to provide sufficient head-height to make some useable floorspace (although rooflights and/or dormer windows might be necessary - so another complication)? Sounds to me like the applicant needs to point the finger at his/her building designer for designing houses that don't meet Building Regs rather than at the Council's planning dept. for approving them. Submitted by: andy plan

Re: validations and extensions to time

Fri, 03 May 2013 14:38:54 BST

There is another general point here... can you invoke this procedure more than once provided the permission is not out of time when you apply? (see para 6 of the DCLG out of date 'Greater Flexibilty for pp's' advice) Submitted by: Gordon Smith

Re: validations and extensions to time

Fri, 03 May 2013 14:26:12 BST

As you are advising that the orignal 2009 permission is no longer extant then how can there still be an orignal permission to extend. If the permission lapsed during the processing of the invlaid extension applciation then to my mind this is tough. As no valid applicaion to extned was submited in the extant tiem period of the orignal consent he would now have to apply for a new planning permission. Submitted by: Martin Dale

Re: material planning consideration in respect of flawed previous planning decision

Fri, 03 May 2013 12:07:51 BST

Whilst I agree with Chris that someone at the LPA should have known better, a scheme's ability to comply with the building regulations isn't a planning consideration. It's more relevant for whoever drew the plans and they might need to check their professional indemnity insurance. In view of the documented concerns about the height of buildings I don't think it can be assumed that the LPA would have approved taller ones. So I would say there is no precedent for houses with greater headroom - unless they can successfully be set even lower into the ground. It looks like the developer's only other options are to consider a fresh application for bungalows or one for houses with the correct headroom they are prepared to take to appeal. I trust the approved plans include proposed ground levels and finished ground floor levels that can be tied to a reliable survey point. If not, things could get interesting. (Please disregard the employer information to the right if it doesn't say Hambleton District Council.) Submitted by: Mark Harbottle

Re: material planning consideration in respect of flawed previous planning decision

Fri, 03 May 2013 09:41:56 BST

Joanne Without wishing to point the finger too much, it would appear that whoever signed off the decision notice along with the case officer dropped a `clanger`.(cough cough Ombudsman) There is case law that says if circumstances change and the permission can no longer be implemented as per the approved drawings then the permission is lost ( I just cant remember the case off the top of my head) if the LPA has any sense they would seek to get the permission quashed asap Submitted by: Chris Weetman

material planning consideration in respect of flawed previous planning decision

Thu, 02 May 2013 17:12:55 BST

Previous planning permission given to replace a bungalow with 4 houses. It now transpires that these houses could never have been built as approved, since they were artificially low and would not have provided sufficient headroom to pass building regs. Since height was a material consideration during the decision process , given the need to protect an adjacent heritage asset and avoid overshadowing and visual dominance in the street scene, is it nevertheless correct that the principle for 4 houses have been established ? Can such a legal principle be established on the basis of something that now turns out to have been presented in a quite questionnable manner ( measurements and site plan also incorrect ) Submitted by: Joanne Woodcock

extensions to time

Thu, 02 May 2013 11:56:41 BST

So ..to clarify a response to John's Question, it seems that a permission can be extended more than the one time suggested in the 'Greater Flexibilty..' advice note. Any dissenters out there? Submitted by: Gordon Smith

Councillor training using old cases

Thu, 02 May 2013 10:07:16 BST

I've heard good things from a few councils who use old cases as training materials for planning committees. They remove or change a few names and hold a dummy committee as a training event. This allows open discussion and debate about the role of the councillors. And, because it is a real application, the process can end with a photo of the actual development (or appeal decision). We (PAS) may take this idea and run with it nationally, as I can imagine it takes a bit of setting up at a local level. Anyone got any advice for us ? Submitted by: Richard Crawley

Re: MOVING EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SAME SITE

Wed, 01 May 2013 15:33:29 BST

thanks Mike - we now will debate to "portability" of these buildings. Your response much appreciated Regards Ken Submitted by: KEN MCARDLE

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Wed, 01 May 2013 12:48:15 BST

The prior approval process normally (telecoms masts for example) comprises two stages, the first being confirmation by the LPA as to whether or not prior approval is required. The second stage being permission or refusal (if prior approval is required). This would be too complicated for householder development and a bureaucratic nightmare. However, without that confimation process, prior approval may have to be refused on the basis of inadequate information to make a determination as to whether or not the development actually is PD and so on no doubt to an appeal . There is also clearly the potential for conflct with the CLE system in terms of other householder PD as pointed out above. Logically if this change does go through into the GDO for large extensions, it would have to be extended to all other householder PD (but without the neighbour notification element, and no doubt also without a fee). As a result it make take a long time to emerge as the bigger picture gradually dawns. The biggest hurdle of all will be the introduction of a planning "but only by neighbour" system. Under this sytem, it will be logically difficult for LPAs to refuse prior approval for one extension becasue neighbours object when a neighbouring property already has the same extension given prior approval because there was no such objection. Submitted by: David Breeze

Re: I assume SPDs sink or swim with the Local Plan

Wed, 01 May 2013 11:50:18 BST

I think that most SPDs will require re-writing as they hark back to PPSs and RSS policies. Not only will the policy have to be NPPF compliant but so will the SPD. Some local authorities are publishing lists of which policies and SPDs will be carried forward into the new Local Plan. Arguments will have to be made as to the amount of 'weight' to be given to a SPD but it is currently easier to argue little weight than more in the present hiatus. Some lpas still seem surprised that the NPPF has come into effect. Submitted by: Leslie Smith

Re: I assume SPDs sink or swim with the Local Plan

Wed, 01 May 2013 11:39:48 BST

The Act says that applications (and appeals) must be determined in accordance with the relevant policies of the development plan etc etc. The Act doesn't say that they must be determined in accordance with the advice in SPD's (although they might constitute "other material considerations"). If the policy is out-of-date then the SPD that hangs off it is likley to be out-of-date as well. However, the SPD might have something useful to say about the proposal which is relevant and if so, some weight should be given to it as a "material consideration". Has the SPD been the subject of full and proper public consultation and independent examination? If not, less weight will be given to it but I doubt if a decision-maker will ignore an SPD completely. Submitted by: andy plan

I assume SPDs sink or swim with the Local Plan

Wed, 01 May 2013 08:52:02 BST

A supplementary planning document (SPD) provides additional information on planning policies in a development plan. If less weight can now be given to a plan because is deemed out-of-date etc as per the NPPF I am assuming that less weight may also given to the related SPDs. Can anyone argue a case for the SPDs having more 'importance' or 'gravitas' than the LP itself? Submitted by: Richard Hathway

Can you erect a PD extension onto something that already has planning permission ?

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:14:28 BST

My view is that you cannot, but if i`m wrong please tell me. Plansmith has advised a client that if he reduces his existing 6 m deep rear extension (which was given pp years ago) back to 3m in depth he can then build above it with a first floor PD extension......i don`t think he can ......? Submitted by: Chris Weetman

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:52:52 BST

I understand why the planners hate this, nobody likes having power removed from them and the planners do wield significant power over people s lives. Over the years I ve seen a sea of change in attitude from one of corporation and open dialogue to a state where they aren t interested in any dialogue, This is my decision, live with it . One client was told the reason his application was delayed was because the planner wanted to reject it but her boss didn t think the reason was good enough so she had to come up with a better one... I know this it s in part due to cuts, additional work load and a generational change in attitudes, but I hope the council planner will see this as positive rather than negative change. This should free them up from application s they have no business being involved in so they can focus on the real problems. I ve yet to hear a compelling argument why, if two neighbours agree an extension within reasonable limits why the planner should be able to overrule their agreement on any other grounds that it looks out of place. It s not as if we live in a society where you are told what house you will buy/ live in.. From an industry point of view, the simple truth is, this is good for the building industry, particularly the smaller firms. In the previous year we had 6 jobs all + 60K which were cancelled after planning permission was refused. All these shared a common set of facts: 1: The immediate neighbours were very happy with the plans and in some cases wrote supporting letters. 2: No objections were received. 3: The designs improved the aspect tests results significantly Vs what could be built under permitted development although they still failed this test. In fact most being L-houses technically failed the test using the original outer wall corner. 4: No conservation issues or design issues were raised. These projects will now start to happen, which will generate local jobs and then secondary and tertiary job. The zero fee was wrong and opens the system up for abuse but had the council s been a little more open to dialog with the government rather than go into PR doomsday overdrive I think they wouldn t have been so badly punished. I Submitted by: Stephen Lewis

Re: Economic Impact assessment of developments

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:02:04 BST

Hi Jon, A few questions: - Was no third-party tool available? - Will an in-house tool have the quality and depth of a third-party tool? - Will an in-house tool have the 'stamp of independence' that a third-party tool will offer? - You state that the tool results will NOT be used as part of viability assessments... but will merely give an 'indication'. Surely the results WILL have an influence on decisions - otherwise why would you give the results to decision makers? - Will applicants be informed of the use of this tool? If so, how will you respond to queries/doubts relating to the tool's calibration / certification / knowledge base etc? - Will this tool be released for general LPA use? It would seem wasteful for each LPA to develop their own software. I can envisage grumpy applicants/agents having a field day following a refusal which they feel that they can blame on the LPA's use of a DIY software tool! Submitted by: Richard Hathway

Re: Economic Impact assessment of developments

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:42:34 BST

Estimates of construction jobs only are a very limited type of assessment. Zeta Economics (www.zetaeconomics.co.uk) provides mini-impact assessments for planning applications for residential developments, which cover more benefits than indicated above by Jon. Submitted by: Zifa Sadriyeva

Re: Free go after an appeal dismissal

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:44:25 BST

It runs from the date the appeal was dismissed - para 85 of circular 04/2008 refers Submitted by: Evelyn Gilder

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:25:12 BST

The revised proposal / system does appear to be very odd. The aim of the changes was to reduce red tape and costs for those seeking to carry out extensions between 3-6 metres / 4-8 metres (by removing the need to go through a planning application process). It is not clear that this will be achieved. Under the new system those seeking to carry out such extensions will need to go through a prior approval process. For the Local Planning Authority to process an application, they will need enough information to in the first place assess whether the proposed extension does indeed fall under the new permitted development rights for such extensions. Assuming the new rights will simply be an addition of depth to the existing rights, they will have restrictions on overall height, eaves height within 2 metres of the boundary, and construction materials. Furthermore rear extensions often include addition which extend beyond a side wall of the original dwelling house and are subject to side extension restrictions. Given these complexities one imagines it will be necessary for applicants to submit full floorplans and elevations (existing and proposed) to enable the LPA to make this determination. This is likely to be in addition to a location plan and application form of some sort. This is the very information which Government considered to represent an onerous requirement / expense for applicants. The information released to date suggests a plan will be required. A simple floorplan would not however be sufficient to ascertain whether the proposed extension falls within the new PD restrictions, and also would not provide neighbours enough information to assess the proposal. E.g. a pitched roof extension with low eaves alongside the boundary would have a very different impact to a flat roofed extension. Therefore, overall based on the information released to date, it appears that the only saving which the new system will provide applicants is the planning application fee of 172. For LPA s, they will be required to validate and register such applications, present them online, formally consult neighbouring occupiers, carry out a site visit / visits, draft a report and issue a decision notice / letter. This sounds very similar to a planning application process. No fee is however to be submitted, therefore these applications will be entirely subsidised by the council / tax payers. It appears that for those proposing works other than extensions of 3-6 metres / 4-8 metres, there is no right to engage in the free prior approval process. In such cases, should confirmation be sought from the LPA that planning permission is not required, a Lawful Development Certificate application would be required which attracts a fee of 86 / 172. These applications may in fact be less onerous for the LPA than the prior approval applications as no consultation is required and the sole consideration is assessing compliance with PD restrictions. The prior approval process will require the LPA to go through the same processes, plus consultations and potentially an assessment of the merits of the proposed extension, i.e. would harm to amenity result. As identified by others, the fact that the LPA will only be able to consider the impacts of the extension if a neighbour / neighbours object is a significant departure from the current planning system. Neighbours may have an objection to an extension but, for a variety of reasons (e.g. neighbour relations, intimidation etc.), may feel that they cannot formally register this objection. Furthermore neighbouring occupiers / owners may simply not receive / read the consultation notification letter / site notice. Under a planning application the LPA can make a decision which protects present and future occupiers of neighbouring properties whether objections are received or not. The removal of this assessment process has serious ramifications and is most definitely not a good thing. It is not clear how achievable carrying out close to a full application process within 4 weeks will be for LPAs (given current workload and resource levels). Furthermore if any such applications are to be determined by planning committee this will be extremely difficult / impossible to achieve within 28 days. Will councils have to re-draft their schemes of delegation to incorporate reference to this new application type? Pros of new system: Applicants will not pay an application fee. Applicants will potentially receive a decision within 4 weeks rather than 8. Applicants may be able to build extensions which would otherwise be refused planning permission as the LPA considers them unacceptable on amenity / design grounds. Cons of new system: Extensions will be built which cause significant harm to neighbouring amenity. This represents a long-term harm to present and future neighbouring occupiers. The LPA will process, consult upon, and determine an application with no fee income. This will place added work upon planning departments and the cost of the application will be entirely subsidised by tax payers. The planning system is further complicated with no significant reduction in red tape achieved. Overall, it appears that for Government to achieve their objectives of substantially reducing costs and red tape for applicants, the only sensible option would have been to simply amend the depth restrictions set out in permitted development legislation. Alternatively, were the priority to be to ensure that neighbouring occupiers receive consultation and the right to object, that LPA s have the chance to consider impact upon amenity, and to not incur significant additional work without additional fee income for LPA s, the only sensible solution would have been to scrap the proposed changes and leave the system as it was. The compromise now proposed does not appear to offer significant red tape or cost savings for applicants, will cause significant harm in some cases, will create a more complicated planning system, and it appears will create significant additional work for LPAs with no additional fee income. Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 10:18:36 BST

Thanks Jonathan for the link to the letter from Nick Boles to Clive Betts. It's interesting that this letter includes the following statement: "The introduction of the neighbour consultation scheme will mean that homeowners are less likely to pay for a Certificate of Lawful Development, as they will be provided with written confirmation that their application falls within permitted development." So, it appears that where an owner submits this type of prior approval application, and an objection isn t submitted, then the local authority's decision notice would need to confirm that the proposals would be permitted development, rather than just confirming that no objections have been submitted. This means that we'll have a system where someone who wants an LDC for a proposed extension with length up to 3.0m will have to pay a fee (i.e. 86) whereas someone who wants an LDC for a proposed extension with length from 3.0m to 6.0m will not have to pay a fee. Furthermore, although the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 states that applicants for this type of prior approval application will need to submit "a written description, and a plan, of the proposed development", if local authorities are required to confirm that the proposals would be PD then they'll presumably want more than this - e.g. OS map, existing and proposed plans and elevations, etc - to allow them to assess all of the limitations and conditions of Part 1, Class A. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:44:21 BST

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2013-0708/130423_Reply_to_Clive_Betts_re_GI_Bill.pdf Submitted by: Jonathan Puplett

Free go after an appeal dismissal

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:44:35 BST

Would the 12 month period for a free go following a dismissed appeal run from the LPA refusal date or the dismissed appeal date? Thanks, Michelle Submitted by: Michelle Smith

Re: MOVING EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SAME SITE

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:13:24 BST

Ken. I would have though that if the buildings could literally be 'picked up' and moved from one place to another (like a caravan) they might be able to be regarded as part of a wider a use of land, and thus you might be able to relocate them without the need for an application. If however you would need to undertake some form of building or other operations to facilitate the move, then it's more likely that you would need to apply first. Mike Submitted by: Michael Hyde

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:54:13 BST

I see the G&IB had its Royal Assent yesterday, lets all hope that any guidance that comes out will be clear and unequivocal........ yes, I am an optimist! Submitted by: John Cummins

MOVING EXISTING BUILDINGS ON SAME SITE

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:24:50 BST

Can anyone help. We have existing buildings on a sports field and seek to relocate them nearer to the pitch to provide easier access for changing etc. presuming these long established buildings are de facto permitted [planning] then is there any case law to support relocation without seeking planning permission. Submitted by: KEN MCARDLE

Re: Growth and Infrastructure Bill changes to town and village greens applications

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:05:14 BST

Message received very promptly from Julian Pitt at CLG. As you know, the interpretation of legislation is a matter for the courts. However I would point out that the relevant entry in Schedule 1A clearly refers to publication of a draft of a development plan document. I refer you to regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The Schedule does not refer to consultation on options prior to a draft DPD being published. So the plan trigger is clearly the formal publication stage which is logical. Submitted by: Andrew Chalmers

Growth and Infrastructure Bill changes to town and village greens applications

Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:09:48 BST

On enactment a series of triggers to avoid villlage green designations will come into effect including submission of a planning application or identification of a site in a draft plan. Defra has produced an interim note on these "Interim Guidance to Commons Registration Authorities on Section 15C of the Commons Act 2006." I raised a question yesterday with Defra which has been passed onto CLG to answer...because of ambiguity over at which stage in Local Plan production the trigger is triggered. The Defra report states 3. A draft of a development plan document which identifies the land for potential development is published for consultation in accordance with regulations under section 17(7) of the 2004 Act. I am not clear whether this is an early draft stage or the formal publication stage. Have I missed something? Is this perhaps just sloppy legislative wording? I'll post if I hear back from CLG... Submitted by: Andrew Chalmers

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:41:08 BST

Hi all, An update - yesterday the revised system was agreed (in principle) by the House of Commons. Here's a summary: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23/04/2013: House of Commons, consideration of the amendment by the House of Lords ( Ping Pong ) - On 23 April 2013, the House of Commons decided to agree with the latest amendment to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill by the House of Lords. This means that the proposals to allow Part 1 of the GPDO to include circumstances in which the owner would need to submit a prior approval application to the local authority have now been agreed by both Houses. During the debate, Michael Fallon (Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) confirmed the following about the proposals: - A home owner wishing to build an extension will write to the local planning authority providing plans and a written description of the proposal. The local authority will then notify the adjoining neighbours for example, the owners or occupiers of properties that share a boundary, including those at the rear. Those neighbours will have 21 days in which to make an objection, the same period as under existing planning rules. If no neighbours object, the home owner will be able to proceed. If any neighbour raises an objection, the local authority will then consider whether the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of neighbours is acceptable . - No planning fee will be levied on the home owner making the notification . - If approval is not given, the home owner will be able to appeal against a refusal, or may wish to submit a full planning application. As with normal planning consents, neighbours will not be able to appeal against a grant of permission . - I can confirm that this does not apply to conservation areas, and that the ability of a local authority to use an article 4 direction is not impaired by the changes we are making. - I can confirm that [existing permitted development rights are not in any way affected by this new procedure] . http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130423/debtext/130423-0001.htm#13042358000001 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two other quotes that I found interesting: Michael Fallon: "However, we have always said that it is important to balance the benefits against the potential impact that extensions can have on neighbours". My comments: This wasn't my impression at all. The consultation document simply said "To ensure that the amenity of neighbouring properties is protected, other limitations and conditions would remain the same", with no actual assessment of the impact upon neighbour amenity. The Communities and Local Government Committee (Commons Select Committee) concluded that "the Government has failed to address or evaluate the social and environmental arguments". And when the Lords first tried to introduce an amendment into the Growth and Infrastructure Bill that would affect the proposed changes to permitted development rights they were told that this issue "was never meant to be part of the Bill". Michael Fallon: "The object of the scheme is that we end up with fewer, not more, planning applications, and that should save local authorities some expense". My comments: Well, there you have it - and to think that local authorities were worried that this new procedure would cost them money! Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Economic Impact assessment of developments

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:31:15 BST

I also would be interested as (for an east Midlands Authority) i have been tustling with a s106 - how to influence future occupiers with a commitment to higher quality employment training. So much of the advice and practice relates to construction jobs (and modern commercial fast track construction does not have a place for slow moving Council training schemes or unreliable local HE colleges). Jon Sutciffe is dealing with projected jobs; I am looking to the implementation of the (sometimes loose) promises made in the theoretical tools. Submitted by: Gordon Smith

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:19:17 BST

A few thoughts following-on from some of the points made by Steve Speed above. First, it seems that when triggered by an objection, the duty placed on the LPA by 2B(b) is to consider impact on the amenity of ALL adjoining premises. The duty doesn't seem to be confined to considering impact on just those adjoining premises owned or occupied by those that have objected. Second, mischievous objections (even to small-scale extensions that would have crept under the radar as PD under the existing Regs) will now trigger the involvement of the LPA and officer resources to make a reasoned judgement call - whatever the merits of the objection. This is a step backwards - the existing Regs largely avoid the need for a judgement call. But lets follow this through (on the basis of the little info we have so far) - 1. If the LPA rule that the proposal is not PD because it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbours then the deemed permission granted by the GPDO cannot be relied upon and a planning application is required (unless there are to be appeal provisions added to the Revised Regs to allow a challenge to the LPA's PD ruling). 2. The terms of reference for the PD ruling mean that the applicant has already been warned that the extension has an "unacceptable impact" on the amenities of neighbours. 3. The Council is hardly likely to grant planning permission for something that it has already ruled to have an "unacceptable impact" and the applicant is heading straight for a refusal & appeal if he/she submits a planning application for the extension. Assuming there is an appeal provision built-in then the next step whould be to challenge the LPA's PD ruling. That means further delay, and costs for both the LPA and the applicant/appellant (and PINS if they have to deal with the appeal). 4. The alternative is to sit down with the LPA and agree what would be an acceptable impact on amenity for occupiers/owners of adjoining premises. END RESULT = LPA officers wasting time helping residents design acceptable house extensions! Written descriptions are going to be another source of conflict - who decides whether a short, but accurate description such as "Proposed single storey rear extension" is sufficiently descriptive or not? As an applicant I would get very annoyed if the Council made me change my description of development to something that I felt was more likley to raise objection from my neighbours. Andy Submitted by: andy plan

Is a privately owned care home a 'community facility'

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:12:33 BST

Permission has recently been refused for the change of use of a private care home to a dwelling as it would result in the loss of a community facility. The building was first constructed as a dwelling and was converted in the mid-1980s to a care home. It sits within a residential frontage, in a typical surban area. The question is, does a privately owned care home constitute a community facility? As it is privately owned, the owners can be selective over the clients/residents. It is restricted to those who can afford it and who are vetted by staff to ensure they are compatible with existing clients/residents. In my view, the term community facility implies a community asset that s available to all, or at least most, residents. When the cost of using the premises and restricting its access makes it unavailable to a large portion of the population can it still be described as a community facility serving the needs of a community? Submitted by: James Beany

Economic Impact assessment of developments

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:03:54 BST

Colleagues in our Authority have developed an economic impact assessment tool, which by entering information about a development proposal, comes up with estimates of the likely construction jobs the development will create, and also an estimate of jobs/economic impact of the development once operational. This will not be used in relation to the viability of projects, but merely to give an indication of the economic impacts of a development, in line with paras 18-20 of the NPPF. Has any other Authority used such a tool? If so, or if not, what benefits/drawbacks have been noted? We would intend to state the results in delegated and Committee reports on proposals, in order to inform the decision process. Has anyone any experiences of such that they d be prepared to share? I m comfortable that the results can be a material consideration, but again if anyone has any thoughts they would be gratefully received. Submitted by: Jon Sutcliffe

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:20:13 BST

PS: I wasn't particularly impressed by the above debate. Firstly, during the House of Lords debates on 26/03/2013 and 22/04/2013, and during the House of Commons debate on 16/04/2013, several Lords and MPs asked if they could be informed of the results of the public consultation that ended in December 2012. On all three occasions these results were not made available, meaning that the Lords and MPs then voted on these issues without this information. In the 4 months since the public consultation ended, DCLG must have created (at least) an internal summary of the results, so I can't see how it could be possibly be justified to deliberately withhold this information from the people making the decisions. Secondly, I was very unimpressed by some of the information given by Baroness Hanham (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government) to the House of Lords. For example, she made the following statements, each of which in my opinion is either confusing or contains significant errors: Baroness Hanham: "As I said, the person wishing to develop will have to notify the local authority but the objections can come only from an adjoining property. They must come from people who are on either side of the fence or at the bottom of the garden. There is no room within these proposals to take account of anyone else who is adjacent, diagonal, overlooking or whatever. This is confined to people who are adjoining. With that, it is clearly important that local councillors are involved and know what is going on. With regard to those who can object, it is from the adjoining properties, as I have said, but other people may put their comments in. They will not have the same impact but the local authority might need to take them into account." My comments: This seems very confusing - so objections can't come from people who don't adjoin the application site, but if they do submit an objection then the local authority "might" need to take them into account. Baroness Hanham: "On the question of whether this impacts upon conservation areas, I say at once that it does not. These are outside conservation areas. I said at previous stages that none of this excludes the ability of local authorities to do Article 4 directions in advance, or indeed emergency Article 4 directions if they are really concerned about the proposal; that is still there. This is confined, particularly in urban areas, to quite small areas." My comments: I don't see how the areas to which the new PD legislation would apply (i.e. areas other than Article 1(5) land) can be described as "quite small areas". Baroness Hanham: "The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who made a number of pertinent points, asked whether local authorities would be required to put up a notice outside properties. Those of us who are familiar with planning know that this is always done." My comments: This is factually incorrect, and very ironic. Baroness Hanham: "The extent of these extensions is 50% of the curtilage of the property. The restriction is that no more than 50% of the property's curtilage can be developed. For example, in the case of a terraced property in city areas, this would usually be broadly equivalent to 50% of the back garden but in larger houses it would clearly not be to that extent." My comments: It's only really "broadly equivalent" if the property has almost no front garden. Baroness Hanham: "If any neighbour raises an objection, the local authority will then consider the case on the single issue of whether the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of neighbours is acceptable." Baroness Hanham: "The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked me about the sort of information that will have to be given. I think that I have dealt with that. The householder will have to submit a plan of the development. The description of it will have to include the materials that are going to be used so that they can be taken into account, and the design." My comments: This seems very confusing - on the one hand she has stated that local authorities will only be able to consider the single issue of the impact on the amenity of neighbours, and on the other hand she has reassured Lords that the submitted information will need to include a description of materials so that they can be taken into account. Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:49:20 BST

Hi all, An update - yesterday the revised system was agreed (in principle) by the House of Lords: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130422-0001.htm#1304224000382 More specifically, the Lords agreed to replace their previous amendment (which would have allowed local authorities to opt-out of any changes to PD) with a new amendment that will allow PD legislation to include situations where the owner needs to submit a prior approval application. This will be done by inserting the following additional paragraphs into section 61 of the TCPA 1990: "(2B) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a development order may include provision for ensuring- (a) that, before a person in reliance on planning permission granted by the order carries out development of land in England that is a dwelling house or is within the curtilage of a dwelling house- (i) a written description, and a plan, of the proposed development are given to the local planning authority, (ii) notice of the proposed development, and of the period during which representations about it may be made to the local planning authority, is served by the local planning authority on the owner or occupier of any adjoining premises, and (iii) that period has ended, and (b) that, where within that period an owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, it may be carried out in reliance on the permission only if the local planning authority consider that it would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining premises. (2C) In subsection (2B) "adjoining premises" includes any land adjoining- (c) the dwelling house concerned, or (d) the boundary of its curtilage." (Note: The final lettering "(c)" and "(d)" should probably be "(a)" and "(b)") Thanks, Steve Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:04:42 BST

In a nutshell this is ridiculous proposal which only gets worse as the days go only. I am afraid that I have lost all faith in the DCLG on this one and think if it still goes ahead, which the Minister sems determined it will what ever, then it will once again be a recipe for disaster. I fear the DCLG will have no regard whatso ever to professional views. Sorry to be so negative but.... Submitted by: Kelvin Hinton

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:53:02 BST

Hi all, Some comments on the revised proposals (many of which are similar to points already made by others): 1) In the case where an owner submits this type of prior approval application, and an objection isn t made, then would the Council s decision notice only confirm that no objection has been made, or would it confirm that the proposals would be PD? I m guessing the former, because the latter would effectively provide a method of obtaining an LDC without paying a fee. 2) Furthermore, if the Council s decision notice confirms that no objection has been made, then in practice how long could the owner rely upon this decision notice before they start works? With an LDC, Circular 10/97 (Annex 8) states that the lawfulness of any operations for which a certificate is in force shall be conclusively presumed unless there is a material change, before the operations are begun, in any of the matters relevant to determining such lawfulness . This normally means that an owner can rely upon an LDC for quite some time, unless the designation of the area changes (e.g. CA, AONB, Article 4, etc) or unless PD rights change. However, with this type of prior approval application, will the owner be able to rely upon the decision notice for a set period of time, or would it become invalid if any of the adjoining properties subsequently change ownership (i.e. after the issuing of the decision notice but before works have started)? If it remains valid, then it would mean that when buying a house it would become particularly important to check whether any of the adjoining properties had obtained such a decision notice. 3) With planning applications there s probably a (small) percentage of people who receive a consultation letter and think either I don t need to reply as someone at the Council will assess the impact upon my property (positive) or there s no point in replying as it won t make any difference (negative). For such people, the consultation letter for this type of prior approval application would need to make it absolutely clear about the relationship between whether objections are received and how the decision is made, and that the process is very different to a planning application. 4) What s to stop someone submitting repeated applications say 6.0m, 5.75m, 5.5m, 5.25m, etc in the hope that their neighbour will stop objecting either because they re happy or because they miss one of the consultation letters. And is it fair that the cost of dealing with such applications will be paid for by the general taxpayer, rather than by the applicant? 5) Finally, with any system that s mostly reliant on whether a neighbour submits an objection, there will inevitably be some very significant potential problems. There will definitely be cases where neighbours claim that they did not receive the consultation letter maybe because it was lost in the post (BBC: About 280,000 letters a week were lost or substantially delayed in 2002/3 about 0.07% of the total , see link below), or because it wasn t passed on by tenants, or due to an error at the local authority, etc. The most extreme cases will be where a neighbour genuinely didn t receive the consultation letter, and is now told that a 6m extension will be built along their boundary because they didn t object within the consultation period. Although with a typical planning application it s equally possible that a neighbour doesn t receive the consultation letter, at least with the latter type of application the fact that it was granted was because (in theory) it accorded with the development plan, rather than because an objection wasn t submitted. And, as mentioned by a lot of other posters, such a system will have no safeguards for vulnerable people who either might be unable to understand what's being proposed (e.g. learning disabilities, etc), or might be unhappy with the proposals but feel unable to object (e.g. people who feel intimidated, etc). Thanks, Steve PS: Here's the link to the BBC article about lost letters: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3681547.stm Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:01:37 BST

This is a fudge which will create a completely unnecessary extra layer of red tape for applicants and for Councils. Where is the consultation on this measure? Whereas an LDC application is optional, this new process would be compulsory. The prior approval processes we already have are not fit for purpose, ridiculously convoluted, and inconsistently applied. Against what standard is 'amenity' to be judged? The normal tests (generally set out in policy rather than legislation) are completely undermined by a 6-8m extension being Permitted Development in the absence of an objection. This essentially becomes a fallback position and surely must be a material consideration where a planning application is required. A neighbour doesn t need to object to a planning application because the planning system balances competing interests regardless. But now if there is no objection an applicant will argue that they would be able to do something similar or worse under PD. This whole farce now propagates the myth that planning applications are determined according to whether someone objects, or the weight of objections, regardless of the planning merit of any points raised. So will LPAs then be judging against a general and consistent test of amenity, or one which takes the perceptions of the individual into account? It can t be the intention that the former takes precedence, or why would an objection make any difference? But then why should the test depend upon the perception of the neighbour who happens to be living there at the time? Either these extensions are potentially harmful to the point where there is unacceptable harm to amenity, or they are not. If they are potentially harmful to an unacceptable degree then they should require LPA approval. If on balance they are unlikely to be overly harmful then they should not require LPA approval. THAT is how Householder PD works, consistently and mostly to the good it says that there may be harm to amenity but at the permitted scale that harm is unlikely to outweigh the legitimate desire of a householder to extend his property. In this case the regulations will say: there may be unacceptable harm but if your neighbour doesn t complain then it s tough luck for him. How can the message be otherwise if in a row of identical houses some people can build 6-8m extensions and others cannot? This opens the door to neighbour intimidation and bribery. Where do the disenfranchised, vulnerable or illiterate fit into this equation? There are people who simply will not understand the potential consequences, cannot put together a letter or email of objection unaided, or simply don t want to cause any trouble. The ability of the LPA to take the impact on their property into account whether or not they object will be lost. I thought the prospect of 6-8m long extensions as PD was bad enough, but at least it would have been consistently bad for everyone. Now, if you ll excuse me I need to go and prepare a scheme to build a carbuncle on the back of my house; my uncooperative neighbours are off on holiday for 3 weeks soon, so my timing will need to be spot on... Submitted by: John Jones

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:16:04 BST

As Philip rightly says, thr devil will be in the detail, and clearly there are a number of questions we don't yet have answers to. The link below is to a letter sent to Mr Pickles by the Communities and Local Government Committee, and the answers to the questions in that letter will no doubt be of interest to all.if and when we see them. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/communities-and-local-government/130422%20Chair%20to%20Eric%20Pickles%20re%20Growth%20and%20Infrastructure%20bill%20v1.pdf Submitted by: Jon Sutcliffe

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:29:43 BST

As you will appreciate my comments will be quite factual and currently from limited knowledge; the devil will be in the detail. Firstly we deal with the finances. This appears to be a free application with no restriction on the number of retries, so there will be a financial hit on the Council Tax payer. I turn to resources. The council will still have to register the application, visit the site to put up a site notice and because the neighbours will want to discuss the proposals we will have to have a quick look around. Regardless of whether there are objections or not, we will need to write some form of report and under our schemes of delegation it will have to be reviewed, with neighbours, councillors and parishes informed. We will need to scan any documentation and redact personal data. So far we don t know if there will be drawings, block plans or elevations. We will need dimensions in order to check it doesn t need permission for being too big, eaves levels etc. If there aren t any details then we will have to deal with the failure demand of neighbours saying what does it look like . In determining detriment to amenities it s normal for us to use some form of calculation, the 45deg and 22.5deg rules for example. I m not sure if we can do this without floor plans and elevations. We will need to consider if there would be the ability to call the application to committee, I would hope not, but members may wish to retain the right to determine the application if their are objections. Many councils still have the requirement that if a councillor, parish or X neighbours object it goes to committee. Can parish councils object or just neighbours, and if so how close must a neighbour be. I am not sure if the proposals will still have the sunset clause, that is to say the building must be complete by a certain date. If it does what will we consider to be proof of completion; will it be a certificate of lawfulness, a building control completion certificate a letter from the owner say honest gov... I did finish and to what standard? As planning deals with the outward aesthetics, does it matter its not plastered or have electrics? I am looking forward to a time in the future where we will be able to read the age of an extension and say yes, that un-rendered flat roofed extension would be circa 2014, don t ask me why.... its just a feeling Has anyone thought of reducing/zero rating VAT on extensions. I m not sure planning is the problem, its cash. Submitted by: Philip Skill

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:54:20 BST

Richard And here`s a brief summery of what my colleagues in the private sector are saying is wrong with the idea (and I guess we don`t yet know what the LPA`s will think) How many times do we see neighbours too frightened to object or simply not wishing to be obstructive despite deep concerns? I suspect there will be many instances where this arrangement results in ill feeling between neighbours. Meanwhile the Councils have to find the resources to administer the scheme without any additional income. No right of appeal is mentioned. Assume the Council has the final say. Some would-be-extenders could be worse off with this process. Do the requirements of the new Neighbours Consultation Scheme extend to those proposals which are currently PD now and require no input from LPA's at the moment, but would do so in the future? Has anyone thought about that? So isn t this actually no more than a free Certificate of Lawful Development system? And again, isn t the process of drawing plans, submitting them to the council, waiting for them to decide whether they are acceptable, receiving permission, exactly what happens now? Where will the benefits occur notification will need submission of detailed drawings, consultation will I assume be 21 days, and officers will need to prepare some form of recommendation to inform Committee or local councilors at the end. I assume that if the development is unacceptable (because neighbour concerns are reasonable requires appraisal but does this involve against Local design and daylight Policies?) then an application would be required if it is like other Prior Notification procedures. What happens if the Council doesn`t deal with it within 21 days, automatic approval? Can Council`s opt out through Local Development Orders? So what can we expect in a Government response to this.......spin spin and more spin? Submitted by: Chris Weetman

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:59:25 BST

A tuppence from me: 1. Homeowners wishing to build extensions under the new powers would notify their local council with the details. [this notification would have to be complete enough to allow: - neighbours to understand the proposal and therefore whether they wanted to object - the LPA to understand the impact on amenity Would it also have to be complete enough for LPAs to take a view whether the development fell into this new, enhanced form of PD?] 2. The council would then inform the adjoining neighbours this already happens for planning applications. [and keep some kind of record of having done this] 3. If no objections are made to the council by the neighbours within a set period, the development can proceed. [] 4. If objections are raised by neighbours, the council will consider whether the development would have an unacceptable impact on neighbours amenity. [and only amenity ?] 5 This is a form of prior approval process which allows for consideration by ward councillors, and (if the council wishes) by a Planning Committee. [but only if there are complaints to trigger this consideration ?] 6. There will be no fee for householders to go through this process. [although there will be cost to councils, clearly] Submitted by: Richard Crawley

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:53:52 BST

Apologies - the first two links in my post above didn't come out properly because of the surrounding brackets - these links should be: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130326-0001.htm#13032658000813 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130416/debtext/130416-0002.htm Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:50:35 BST

Hi Jon, A summary of the various developments over the last month is as follows: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Although the Growth and Infrastructure Bill did not initially cover the proposed changes to Part 1 of the GPDO, on 26/03/2013 the House of Lords decided (by 217 votes to 211 votes) to amend the Bill by inserting a new clause that would amend the TCPA 1990 to allow local authorities to opt-out of any development order made after 01/01/2013 that grants planning permission for development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. If this amendment to the Bill remains, it would mean that any future changes to Part 1 of the GPDO would not apply within the jurisdiction of any local authority that has resolved that the changes shall not apply. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130326-0001.htm#13032658000813] - On 16/04/2013, the House of Commons decided (by 286 votes to 259 votes) to disagree with the amendment to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill by the House of Lords, following assurances made by Eric Pickles during the debate that the proposed changes to Part 1 of the GPDO would be revised . [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130416/debtext/130416-0002.htm] - On 19/04/2013, Eric Pickles wrote a letter to MPs setting out the revised version of the proposed changes to Part 1 of the GPDO. According to this letter: - Homeowners wishing to build extensions under the new powers would notify their local council with the details. - The council would then inform the adjoining neighbours this already happens for planning applications. - If no objections are made to the council by the neighbours within a set period, the development can proceed. - If objections are raised by neighbours, the council will consider whether the development would have an unacceptable impact on neighbours amenity. - This is a form of prior approval process which allows for consideration by ward councillors, and (if the council wishes) by a Planning Committee. - There will be no fee for householders to go through this process. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-it-easier-for-families-to-improve-their-home] - The above issues are currently due to return to the House of Lords today (22/04/2013) for further debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Steve PS: In case it helps, more details about all of the above can be found here: http://planningjungle.com/householder-permitted-development/part-1-of-the-gpdo-potential-future-amendments/ Submitted by: Steve Speed

Re: Permitted Development Changes

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:40:07 BST

Following Pickles announcement over the weekend, does anybody have any idea what is going on? Submitted by: Jon Allinson

Re: validations and extensions to time

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:32:29 BST

I asked DCLG a similar question last October and this was their reply; "The amended provisions would apply to extant planning permissions granted on or before 1 October 2010, which could potentially include replacement planning permissions subject to a new time limit for implementation granted on or before that date. As you may be aware, the Government announced on 16 October 2012 that Lord Matthew Taylor of Goss Moor would lead and chair an external group conducting a review of the existing 6,000 pages of planning practice guidance which supports the implementation of national planning policy, and which the Department for Communities and Local Government owns or has jointly badged with other Government Departments or agencies. Any amendments to 'greater flexibility for planning permissions' will be considered in the light of the review's recommendations on the overall shape of government planning practice guidance." Submitted by: Evelyn Gilder

Re: validations and extensions to time

Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:43:17 BST

I have just been asked a question by an applicant relating to the extension of time application forms and the ability to extend the life of an extant permission. Q5 of the form relating to eligibility says 'Was the existing planning permission extant on 1st october 2010? to which he has said yes. However the 2010 extant permission was itself an extension of time granted permission in 2005 (5 year permission) which itslef was an extension of time of a 2001 permission. Technically he has answered the question correctly, but section 6 of the Greater flexability for planning permissions says that only one extension to each permission is possible, but each sucessful permission to extend is a new permission. This seems to me to be ambiguous wording. So the question I have is inlight of this is - can the applicant seek to extend the life of the permsiion for a 3rd time? Submitted by: Jon Allinson

Re: Sustainable Dwellings

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:47:52 BST

Peter, I think that we will have to agree to disagree. Your plan-led centralised approach will continue to allow planning officers to simply recommend refusal for rural development by saying, for example, that 'developments away from settlements will be unsustainable due to increase motor vehicle use'. No argument allowed. Case closed. Business As Usual despite the arrival of the pesky NPPF. This blanket approach - on average - may indeed be effective ... but it does place above-average designs at an unfair disadvantage. A comparison: The police or the courts could say that someone caught on the street at 1AM carrying a crowbar was - on average - likely to be a house breaker. Convenient for the police - but a bit tough on someone trying to change a car tyre. It would lead to people with flat tyres NOT fixing them at night - a distortion of democracy caused by authorities not wishing to assess situations on a case-by-case basic. Luckily for the general population the police and courts do work on a case-by-case basis, whatever the cost. I would like to think that the planning system works in the same way - but prior to the NPPF I doubt that it did. Now let's take a look at the Ministerial Forward to the NPPF: * The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development. * Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don t mean worse lives for future generations. * Development means growth. * In order to fulfil its purpose of helping achieve sustainable development, planning must not simply be about scrutiny. * Planning must be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which we live our lives. * In part, people have been put off from getting involved because planning policy itself has become so elaborate and forbidding the preserve of specialists, rather than people in communities. * This National Planning Policy Framework changes that. By replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly, we are allowing people and communities back into planning. Perhaps I am simply naive, but surely the NPPF is suggesting that the current system is broken and that it's time for a change? The staid old centralised command ways have been found wanting so we need a new approach. In particular I don't feel that local plans which are intended to be simple for LPAs to administer and which try to preserve the 'old way of working' will provide the flexibility and optimism that the NPPF clearly wishes to encourage. Overall I am rather disappointed at the LPAs general reaction to the NPPF. Only a few seem to regard it as an opportunity. Many seem to regard it as undue interference by central government and are doing everything possible to resist it.. To be frank I don't expect much change in the short term : the LPAs are here for ever whilst those annoying democratically elected governments come and go. The LPAs now have a choice : either they work to help our population now & in the future, or they put our society at risk by sticking to the old ways. That said, someday we WILL need to address sustainability properly in order to feed our families and keep the lights on. __________________________________ As for Clause 55 not specifically encouraging sustainable houses in the countryside, it should be noted that the list of 'conditions' is not absolute. There is the statement 'Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as .... ' The 'such as' allows cases & situations not in that list to be approved. I can imagine developments which deliver a net improvement in 'sustainability' for the area/county/country could be considered for approval, even if not in the list. These cases of course would end up with an Appeal! Submitted by: Richard Hathway