Thoughts on the permitted change B1(a) offices to C3 residential? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Change of use from B2, B8 and B1(b)-(c) to B1(a) is already a permitted change of use under the UCO?. If so, anything other than sui generis could switch to an interim office use before invoking the new rights to go to residential. Similarly the new rights on barns (although unspecified here) in the consultation paper include the right to convert to office use, which would then have permitted change of use for residential. Similarly the proposed changes to change of use rights for town centre buildings include permitted change of use to offices. The upshot of all of this seems to be that, with the exception of sui generis uses, almost any non-residential building will be able to go to residential without planning permission. Do you think they’ve thought this through - or maybe they have and are being exceptionally devious?

And here's the CPO letter that went out yesterday https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/68937/Letter_about_permitted_development_rights_for_change_of_use_from_commercial_to_residential__24_January_2013_.pdf

Who pays for the infrastructure required to deal with these new residential uses, I wonder?

Not wishing to defend the measure but as the useful planning blog by Michael Donnelly points out (quoting Andy Black - see above) we have had a ministerial announcement not a piece of legislation - fine detail remains to be established. So some of these details around sequential changes of use might get dealt with there. It seems strange thought no implementation process has been laid out in detail. What I am confused about, as a non-planner, is the relationship between the process of seeking an exemption and the continuing opportunity specified in the CPO letter to use Article 4 directions to suspend permitted development rights. Could some kind person explain the practical difference to someone with limited understanding. Thanks in anticipation.

I'm guessing the difference is something to do with compensation. This seems a fair starting point (courtesy of google and Blake Lapthorn): http://www.bllaw.co.uk/services_for_businesses/planning/news_and_updates/planning_law_news_special_june.aspx

The issue of sequential changes of use is a very interesting one. The proposed changes as a whole do suggest a fundamental dismantling of the planning system and Use Class Order. It appears that in addition to the permitted changes which Government have identified as proposed, by staging multiple changes of use the changes could permit: • The change of use of any agricultural building to a residential dwelling / multiple residential dwellings (by carrying out a permitted change to B1(a) office followed by a permitted change to C3 residential). • The change of use of any A1, A2, or A3 premises to a residential dwelling / multiple residential dwellings (by carrying out a permitted change to B1(a) office followed by a permitted change to C3 residential). Such permitted development will be directly contrary to many of the objectives of the NPPF and local plan policies, and throws in to doubt the validity of the numerous local plans which are currently progressing towards adoption. If LPAs are to lose control of such a significant proportion of residential and commercial development they would surely be required to reconsider their local plan policies which would need to focus on any remaining development which they can control, and acknowledge the permitted development which may (or may not come forward). It is difficult to envisage legislation coming forward which sets out detailed restrictions to address these issues. The language which has come forward to date in respect of the permitted change from B1(a) to C3 appears to suggest that the legislation will set out a very simple permitted change with no restrictions other than the exemption areas and a prior approval process which covers a very restricted range of issues. It is shocking to read that Government considers that these changes, which could result in the loss of huge amounts of employment floorspace on a nationwide basis, will create jobs. In the short term they may, in the long term however a shortage of employment floorspace will achieve the opposite when the economic situation improves and the employment floorspace which would then be needed, has been lost on a permanent basis.

Good article running through the key issues and concerns: http://chrisbrown.regen.net/2013/01/28/pickles-referred-to-advertising-standards-authority/

In response to Nick Smith, the only way you claim contributions is through having CIL in place. As development commenced under general consent is liable to pay CIL and 'General consent' includes permitted development rights granted under the General Permitted Development Order 1995. This is set out on the Planning Portals CIL page: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil#DevelopmentunderGeneralConsentandtheCommunityInfrastructureLevy

You are correct I think Kirsty but CIL can still only be gathered on any net new floorspace and any change of use from a building (any part of which) has been in use for 6 of the 12 months will not pay CIL.

Having a CIL Charging Schedule in place won't help as no CIL would be payable provided that the building was in lawful use prior to the change of use to residential as the net chargeable area would be zero. Have a look at the formula Reg 40 (as amended).

It appears that legislation for the permitted change B1(a) offices to C3 residential and any approved exemptions are targeted to be published by the 30th of May: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/9947318/Planning-ministers-war-on-the-countryside.html This in addition to: 1. Changes to the status of some local plan policies on the 27th of March. 2. Potential increase in householder permitted development rights (date to come into force yet to be announced) 3. Potential permitted change between A-Class uses and permitted change from A-Class uses to office and residential (consultation yet to commence?) 4. Potential permitted change from agricultural buildings to other business uses and residential (consultation yet to commence?) Cumulatively these changes (some of which may not actually come forward) are creating huge uncertainty at present.

Rather than get lost in the detail of CIL etc has anyone stepped back and wondered why the Govt has sought to introduce these radical and somewhat OTT proposals? Maybe just maybe they are a little bit hacked off at what they perceive is a system that is slow to change, behind schedule with plan creation and isn`t delivering the Govt`s housing supply. Yes there are a whole multitude of other reasons (politicians, resources, cumbersome local plan system etc) BUT Govt`s need quick fixes. Planners don`t help themselves either. 12 months on from the NPPF a LOT ( and I mean a lot) of LPA`s still will not concede the principle that the re-use of redundant buildings in the countryside/Green Belt can now be converted to residential (subject to...) and still are hanging on to a preference for re-use for economic purposes. as in PPS 7...! its no wonder the Govt has decided to just do away with the need for pp! How many LPA`s still want 6-12 months marketing first? How many LPA`s have 5 years + deliverable housing supply? If LPA`s don`t get this Govt`s agenda and react then you can expect OTT responses from them, i`m not supporting those changes, just trying to get people to realise why they are happening

Its been a while since this change kicked in, and whilst,courtesy of the Planning Jungle, I know about a number of appeal decisons under Part 1, I have seen none from the B1(a) to C3 PA process. Has anyone got any?