RE: New NPPG paras on Planning Obligations query - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
RE: New NPPG paras on Planning Obligations query
Is anyone else having difficulty intepreting the new NPPG Planning Obligation paras 021 -023
The paragraphs on the Vacant Building Credit are very unclear.
Does the credit only apply to financial contributions and not provision of affordable units – if it also applies to affordable units then how can a financial credit and number of affordable units to be provided be calculated?.
What constitutes a building – our experience of CIL is that greenhouses and corrugated iron held up on scaffolding poles are claimed as “buildings”
What constitutes being “vacant” and “abandoned” for the purpose of this paragraph – how long does a building have to be vacant before it potentially benefits from the credit? , how long does it have to remain vacant before it is abandoned?.
Any help in understanding the guidance would be appreciated - so far 4 colleagues have 4 different interpretations. I have emailed the contact e mail on the NPPG - but dont expect a quick response.
Alison
.. We also consulted on restricting the application of affordable housing contributions to vacant buildings being brought back into use (other than for any increase in floor space). This latter proposal was to boost development on brownfield land and provide consistency with exemptions from the community infrastructure levy…
A financial credit, equivalent to the existing gross floor space of any vacant buildings brought back into any lawful use or demolished for re-development, should be deducted from the calculation of any affordable housing contributions sought from relevant development schemes. This will not however apply to vacant buildings which have been abandoned.
The trickiness with this is that you will need to make sure on your planning applications submission requirements that you have a breakdown of exisiting floorspace and that you can calculate the affordable housing requirement into floorspace.
Oh and to get a definition of abandonment - get a planning encyclopedia and put aside a few days to read through the case law!- you really need to ask a lawyer it is not straight forward. It is not just vacant. there is a lot of case law - even cases where building have not been used for 20 years+ but the owner intended to use it thereore it wasn't abandoned
Charlene Jones, modifié il y a 9 années.
RE: New NPPG paras on Planning Obligations query
New Member Publications: 22 Date d'inscription: 30/08/13 Publications RécentesSpent ages writing something and then the computer crashed! I had a similar question to Alison - as although the Ministerial Statement obliquely references the vacancy test used on brownfield land for CIL - the PPG doesn't explicitly say that it will apply the rules that are in the CIL legislation. The CIL Regs are quite clear, and refer to the three years up to grant of planning permission.
Where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer should be offered a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of relevant vacant buildings when the local planning authority calculates any affordable housing contribution which will be sought. Affordable housing contributions would be required for any increase in floorspace.
If the PPG reference to 'brought back into lawful use' refers to Section 191(2) of the 1990 Act as amended, then this could mean that a building could be vacant for a much longer period of time and still quality for the 'financial credit'.
Any other thoughts?
Charlene Jones, modifié il y a 9 années.
RE: New NPPG paras on Planning Obligations query
New Member Publications: 22 Date d'inscription: 30/08/13 Publications RécentesI found an article in Planning Resource from 2011 which said the following:
I have been bothered by two apparently conflicting definitions on "abandonment". Definition 1 holds that an established use right cannot be abandoned by mere non-use. For such a use right to be abandoned there must be some intention to abandon. Definition 2 holds that where a use ceases and the land/buildings remain unused for a considerable amount of time, it may be taken that the former use has been abandoned. Both cannot be right?
As with most court led concepts related to planning law "abandonment" continues to create confusion. The most recent judgment on the matter came from the Court of Appeal in Hughes v Secretary of State for the Environment [2000]. Here the test of intention was rejected in favour of an objective assessment related to the physical condition of the building. The appeal judges noted that in this case there had been prolonged and gross neglect which was not overcome by the appellant's stated intention to resume residential use.
In spite of this clarification, any judgment on this matter remains a matter of fact and degree and cases have shown that the time which has to elapse after cessation of use for "abandonment" to have occurred is extremely variable and to a large extent relies on the level of physical deterioration. The maximum period of non-use held not to constitute abandonment, that I am aware of, is over 40 years!
The use of the word "abandoned" is not at all helpful. The concept of abandonment in planning terms relates to uses of land (which includes buildings of course) but not to buildings as such. Abandonment is very difficult for LPAs to demonstrate as, as has already been said, it depends not only on the passing of time but also on te intentions of the land owners.
Referring to the abandonment of a building as oposed to the abandonment of the use of land may be intended to open up a whole new area of planning law! Who knows! It would obviously have been much better to refer to the non use or vacancy of a building for a specified period which could have been the same as in the CIL Regs, but that would been too easy for us.
On a related, but slightly different point:
No contribution is required for developments of less than 10 units and less than 1000 sqm. If the development is less than 10 units but more than 1000sqm, can the vacant building credit be used to reduce the floorspace below the threshold (so no contribution of any sort is required), or, as implied by paras 21 and 22, is the VBC simply a financial offset aganst the calculated affordable housing contribution? If the latter interpretation is correct does it mean that a contribution can still be sought for "other tariff based contributions"?
Hi I'm still unsure about a point raised in Alison's original post as to when the vacant building credit applies...
"Does the credit only apply to financial contributions and not provision of affordable units – if it also applies to affordable units then how can a financial credit and number of affordable units to be provided be calculated?"
The whole crux of the ministerial statement and new guidance was about 'supporting small builders' and removing affordable housing requirements from developments of less than 10 dwellings or more. For a scheme of 100 dwellings where there is a requirement for 30% on-site affordable housing that will involve demolition of some existing buildings, I don't see that the vacant building credit should apply - the guidance talks about affordable housing contributions - but in this examle there won't be any affordable housing contributions, rather a planning obligation to provide affordable housing on-site.