Permitted Development Changes - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

DCLG have previously indicated that the new permitted development rules for domestic extensions would come into force in April 2013. But note the current activity on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, with the Lords attempting to introduce a measure to allow local authorities to opt out of the new permitted development rules.

Government consulted on details end of last year https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/extending-permitted-development-rights-for-homeowners-and-businesses-technical-consultation and arguments in favour and against are being fought out in the House of Lords currently as part of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. Looks like the government will impose it will and drive this "madness" through. So keep an eye on progress. It is now at the ping pong match stage between Lords and Commons till amendments agreed.

Hi Colin, It's very difficult to know. As Helen has stated, there were previously some indications that the amendments might be introduced in April 2013. For example, the following DCLG document (which was published in December 2012) indicated that both the changes to householder PD legislation and the new commercial-to-residential PD rights would be introduced in April 2013: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/36878/Fifth_Statement_of_New_Regulation.pdf However, a couple of weeks ago, Nick Boles (the Planning Minister) indicated that the new commercial-to-residential PD rights would come into force on 30 May 2013, and didn't appear to give a timescale for the changes to householder PD legislation: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/1175696/ It's worth noting that the new clause inserted into the "Growth and Infrastructure Bill" by the House of Lords on 26/03/2013 doesn't prevent the government from amending the GPDO 1995. Instead (if this new clause remains) it would mean that any future amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO would not apply within the jurisdiction of any local authority that has "resolved" that the amendments shall not apply. In theory, therefore, the government could still proceed to amend the GPDO 1995 even before it's been decided whether this new clause will remain, although they may well decide that it's better to wait until after such a decision. The following website indicates that the next stage of "Ping Pong" for the above Bill will be on 22/04/2013: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/growthandinfrastructure/stages.html More information about all of the above is available on the following webpage: http://planningjungle.com/householder-permitted-development/part-1-of-the-gpdo-potential-future-amendments/ Thanks, Steve

Following Pickles announcement over the weekend, does anybody have any idea what is going on?

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/

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

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]

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?

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.

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

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...

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

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....

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

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

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

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

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!

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2013-0708/130423_Reply_to_Clive_Betts_re_GI_Bill.pdf

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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!

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!

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