New householder PD provisions – deficiencies
I trust I am not alone in despairing at the government’s recent effort at reforming the Permitted Development Order. Far from making the Order simpler and easier to administrate all that has really happened is that one set of fiddling rules of thumb has been substituted for another. As a development control officer, and after only two weeks of operating the amendments, I am already aware of a raft of ambiguities and interpretation difficulties. It would be interesting to hear from other contributors to this discussion forum as to whether they have come to the same conclusion. Gabriel King posted this on 15/10/2008
Fees - discrepancy using the Planning Portal calculator
When submitting an application last week I was very surprised to discover that the fee calculation which is automatically generated when completing the electronic forms is incorrectly based on ‘internal gross floor area’. In reality planning authorities use ‘external gross floor area’. My application would have been £335 short if I applied the Planning Portal figure. If this is multiplied by the number of planning applications submitted across the country I wonder how much cash strapped local authorities have missed out on? Alan Culshaw posted this on 31/8/2008
Planning applications – decline in numbers?
We are told that the number of housing starts has fallen dramatically in recent months due to the current financial situation and I suspect the same is true of commercial development. But how long will it be before this decline works its way through to the development control system and applications for new development begin to fall off? I see from reports in DCP News Bulletin that the volume of applications and appeals received experienced a slight rise in the 2007/2008 period but are there any more up-to-date statistics available that throw some light on the current situation? In my own local authority area there has been no apparent fall in planning activity, Peter Monk posted this on 11/9/2008
Heritage Bill –lack of departmental co-ordination?
I was taken aback, to put it mildly, to read the report in DCP News Bulletin on 18/8/2008 that the scrutiny committee looking at the draft Heritage Bill ‘saw little evidence that the DCLG had any involvement in the draft bill so far’. What is going on when a major piece of reforming legislation, which clearly straddles the vital concerns of two government departments, is seemingly produced entirely by one of those departments leaving the inevitable holes to be filled in at the last moment. Valerie Holmes posted this on 13/9/2008
New PD householder classes - timetable?
The new GDPO regulations for householder development have at last been published but with no accompanying guidance on interpretation in the form of Circular. All we seem to have is a letter sent by CLG to Chief Planning Officers on 10/9/2008 which does little more than explain what changes have taken place since the Government published its response to the 2007 consultation exercise. One aspect of this letter which perplexes me is the statement that the previous proposal to restrict the size of outbuildings has been dropped as “this restriction could have created a liability for compensation being payable by a local authority if they subsequently turned down, or granted subject to condition, an application for something that had previously been permitted development.” Following this reasoning would not refusal of a non-permeable hardstanding have to be compensated where a previous it would be permitted development? Stephen Hale posted this on 14 September 2008
Inaccuracies on the standard planning application form
Earlier in the year the standard planning application form won The Government Computing award for “Best Project Delivering Efficiency”. However, I have just carried out a straw poll with my immediate colleagues and they have identified the following deficiencies:
* No site address of the development on the front page of P1
* No telephone number for agent/applicant on front page of P1
* No area for planning reference number or receipt no. on front page of P1. As a result of the above there is a constant need to go back and forth through the application for information, especially for admin staff inputting information onto computer system.
* The form is too long and most questions are irrelevant to most applicant's. Our previous P1 form was 4 pages long it is now 10 pages long!
* Applicants sign the correct ownership certificate but then do not complete the Agricultural Holdings Certificate which is separate and seems irrelevant to them. This is a major source of invalid applications.
In addition my authority used to have approx 10 application forms such as P1's. Householders, Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area Consent, Advertisements, etc. We now have 32 different forms.
I have also spoken to agents who have complained about the application form but I do not know exactly what their concerns are. One agent said it was a "nightmare" filling in the forms on line, but I am unsure at to whether this related to the form or the Planning Portal system.
I wonder if other authorities or agents are experiencing difficulty with this acclaimed form? This was posted on 19 September 2008 by Jean Williams Senior Planner, Hyndburn BC.
Garden grabbing
I have been following past attempts get some political leverage out of so-called ‘garden grabbing’, including if I remember, two unsuccessful Private Members Bills on the subject, and have read the Observer article referred to in DCP News Bulletin last month. It’s not often that I applaud this Government’s unusual inclination not to bow to self-interested middle class pressure, but in this case it is right. One would think there was no planning system to protect the amenity of existing residents, and that their very neighbours were not willing sellers when yielding parts of their gardens to developers. Marion Willis posted this on 5/9/2008.
Affordable shops – the practical problems
Boris Johnson seems to be suggesting that local authorities should be seeking to require affordable shops to be provided by developers as a condition of planning permission. I am not saying that this is not a worthy aim, but how on earth will it be possible to ensure that they will be secured? At least with affordable housing there are Registered Social Landlords to which provision can be entrusted. Another practical problem is the setting of a fair trigger threshold. Guy Dyball posted this on 15/9/2008
Polytunnels:
The item in Bulletin relating to polytunnels raised the interesting point that many of these plastic horrors that disfigure the countryside would not be necessary were it not for a market demand for out of season crops. Of course, were stricter planning controls in place, as might seem possible if these structures are deemed to be building operations, what would happen? More such produce would be flown in from far flung places, thus adding to an another form of environmental harm with far worse consequences. Is this a material consideration to be taken into account when considering future planning applications for mass polytunnels? Posted on 18/3/2007 by Loki
Minor Amendments to Permissions:
A number of authorities have recently refused to accept minor amendments to permissions. They argue that since there is no statutory basis for any informal method of altering a permission, if a minor change is authorised by a simple exchange of correspondence the modified development would be unlawful. So any conditions of the original permission would no longer have effect. While officers refer to a “new court case”, I have been unable to identify this.
Wind Farm Fees:
My authority is expecting an application for a wind farm shortly. Should the accompanying fee be calculated on the basis of the floor area of the proposed turbines, including the compound, or the change of use of the land?
Demolition Preconditions:
The interpretation to Class A3, Part 31 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 explains that for the purposes of this class “excluded demolition” includes demolition on land subject to a planning permission for its redevelopment. However, an authority claims that I cannot exercise this right and demolish two dwellings on a site with a permission for its redevelopment for flats until certain pre-conditions of the permission have been discharged, even though none restricts demolition works. As there is no qualification in Class A3 that the discharge of pre-conditions of an express permission is a prerequisite of exercising the demolition rights in the order, the authority’s advice appears wrong. Do you agree?
Definition of 'Nursing Home':
I am acting for a client who wants to purchase a former nursing home and turn it into a home for children with behavioural difficulties. There is considerable local opposition to the change. While I am confident that both uses are within the same Use Class, a rather elderly condition attached to the original planning approval states that “The use shall be for a nursing home only”. I cannot help feeling that this condition is a little imprecise. Can anyone out there suggest a way round it?
Wi-Fi systems – PD rights:
My council has just allowed the installation of a city wide Wi-Fi system. The transmitters have been mounted on existing roadside signage poles on the public highway. All supposedly with the benefit of permitted development under Part 25. Can this be correct? Many of the installations are also in conservation areas and are obviously visible from the highway but as they are on structures other than roof slopes do the conditions in Annex B still apply? Posted on 2/5/2007 by Tony Newman – City of London Department of Planning & Transportation.