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

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

2013-09-24T10:20:28Z

A new query relating to these new provisions:

The scenario

PD rights for extensions removed from a semi-detached dwelling; and
Proposed application for extension which is 4.5 metres deep.

Normally a fee would be payable as whilst PD has been removed, it would be beyond the scope of PD allowances anyway. Not anymore thanks to the changes in May. It COULD be PD, but at the point of validating any planning application for the extension we simply don't know it if it would be or not as they have not gone through prior notification.

So - fee payable or not? I am minded to say 'yes'.

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

2013-06-11T15:37:11Z

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.

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

2013-06-11T15:13:23Z

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

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

2013-06-10T15:06:52Z

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.

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

2013-06-10T11:53:05Z

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??

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

2013-06-07T15:23:18Z

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/

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

2013-06-07T08:31:28Z

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?

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

2013-06-06T11:02:36Z

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

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

2013-06-04T16:19:32Z

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....

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

2013-06-04T16:03:43Z

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!

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

2013-06-04T15:36:58Z

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?

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

2013-06-04T13:25:59Z

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.

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

2013-06-04T11:14:08Z

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!

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

2013-06-04T11:05:08Z

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.

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

2013-05-31T15:15:55Z

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

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

2013-05-30T13:53:48Z

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.

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

2013-05-30T13:52:45Z

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.

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

2013-05-30T13:35:37Z

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.

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

2013-05-28T11:32:26Z

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

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

2013-05-28T10:13:22Z

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.