Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 … - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

I have some questions/thoughts on this which I'm sure is just the tip of the iceberg: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=3437980

Hi all, Some of my comments about the new Statutory Instrument, the new DCLG draft guidance document, and the “Summary of Responses” to the public consultation: 1) The level of information that an applicant needs to submit for this new type of notification appears to be very basic. It seems to consist of a) a description stating the length, maximum height, and eaves height of the extension, and b) “a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development”. In my opinion, this information by itself isn’t sufficient for a neighbour to know the height of the extension along the boundary. For example, if I state that want to build an extension with length 6m, maximum height 4m, and eaves height 3m, and I provide a proposed floor plan that shows the width and length of the extension, then it still won’t be clear whether the height along the boundary will be 3m (i.e. hipped roof with eaves along the boundary), 3m-4m (i.e. mono-pitched roof with verge along the boundary) or 4m (i.e. mono-pitch roof with ridge-line along the boundary). 2) The legislation states that if an adjoining neighbour objects, then the local authority “may require the developer to submit such further information regarding the proposed development as the local planning authority may reasonably require in order to consider the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises”. However, by the time a neighbour objects, it may well be close to the end of the 6-week deadline, and the legislation doesn’t appear to contain any provision to allow the applicant and the local authority to agree to extend this deadline to enable the applicant to submit amended drawings. Furthermore, due to this deadline, it’s unlikely to be possible for neighbours to view and comment on these amended drawings. 3) During the debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the government told MPs and Lords that the new procedure would allow local councillors to determine such applications if they wished to do so. However, if a local councillor were to “call-in” such an application, it’s likely to be very difficult, if not impossible, for such an application to be presented to the planning committee within the 6-week deadline. 4) In the letter from Nick Boles to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee on 23/04/2013, the former stated the following: "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." The above letter made it clear that where an applicant notifies the local authority and no objections are received, then the local authority would need to confirm that the extension would be PD, rather than simply confirming that no objections were received. However, the legislation states that where no objections are received, then the local authority would simply have to provide the applicant with a “written notice that their prior approval is not required”. Furthermore, in my opinion, the minimum level of information that an applicant needs to submit for this new type of notification would be insufficient for a local authority to be able to confirm that the extension would be PD, particularly as no elevations or details of materials would be required. 5) Where an applicant submits this new type of notification with a relatively poor standard of information, the local authority is likely to have to be very careful about “invalidating” the application. With a typical planning application, if the local authority incorrect invalidates the application, then it risks the applicant being able to submit an appeal against non-determination after 8-weeks. However, with this new type of notification, if the local authority incorrectly invalidates the application, then it risks the applicant being able to proceed with the extension after 6-weeks. 6) In my opinion, the “Summary of Responses” to the public consultation is farcical. I think it’s now very clear why the government refused to allow the House of Commons and the House of Lords to know the results of this public consultation, even though several MPs and Lords specifically requested this information before each of the votes. In my opinion, the government’s response to the responses received for each of the 10 questions in the public consultation appears to be along the lines of (my paraphrasing) “the vast majority of respondents objected to this proposal, but we’re going to proceed with it anyway”. For example, for each of the 10 questions, out of those people who responded, here are the percentages of respondents who “agreed” with the proposals: Qu1 (15%), Qu2 (26%), Qu3 (33%), Qu4 (29%), Qu5 (34%), Qu6 (37%), Qu7 (22%), Qu8 (44%), Qu9 (86%), Qu10 (22%). 7) In my opinion, the standard of evidence in the above “Summary of Responses” document is extremely poor, which is ironic considering how the government requires local authorities to support their policies with proper evidence. For example, in response to question 3, which asks about increasing PD rights to allow shops to extend up to 100m2 or 50% (whichever is smaller), the government justifies its decision to disregard the majority of respondents who objected by stating the following: “The changes proposed are of a scale that would normally be agreed by a local planning authority and have sufficient protection. In the interests of removing barriers to growth, the proposals will be brought forward as set out in the consultation.” And yet, where is the evidence that local authorities would normally grant planning permission to allow shops to extend up to 100m2 or 50%? Certainly, the “Impact Assessment” that accompanied the public consultation didn’t contain any such evidence. Has the government actually done any research to find out whether local authorities normally grant planning permission for such works, or has it simply used the above statement to justify the changes without any evidence? Indeed, seeing as only 33% of respondents to this question appeared to support this particular proposal, I’m guessing that the majority of local authorities who responded to this question probably objected to it, which (to a degree) contradicts the assertion that local authorities would normally grant planning permission for such works. Thanks, Steve

Steve - I think you have raised a key weakness in the whole Part 1 amendment by way of your statement: "Furthermore, in my opinion, the minimum level of information that an applicant needs to submit for this new type of notification would be insufficient for a local authority to be able to confirm that the extension would be PD, particularly as no elevations or details of materials would be required." By the insertion of A.1(ea) as a distinct clause, the LPA has to assume that all the limits under A.1(a) through (i) are met. Given the limited level of information which is required upfront with a notification; I can forsee a lot of caveats being added to formal decisions to such prior notifications. This to me is far less efficient and proactive than an LDC.

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!

Thanks very much Chris. With regards to the points you've made in the other thread, that's a very good point that the lack of elevations will make it very difficult for neighbours to be able to assess the impact upon their privacy. And if there's an objection and the applicant doesn't submit sufficient drawings (or there's not enough time left for them to do so), then I'm guessing that local authorities will often have to use reasons for refusal along the lines of "the applicant has failed to demonstrate", etc. I see your point about the issues with "adjoining premises". I think there's going to be some difficult decisions for local authorities. For example, suppose to the rear of the application site there's a shared alleyway followed by other properties. With a planning application, although it might not be clear whether these properties "adjoin" the application site, the local authority can simply consult them anyway to be on the safe side. However, with this new type of notification, the local authority has to get it EXACTLY right. After all, a local authority will fail to comply with the legislation 1) if it fails to consult an adjoining property, or 2) if it treats an objection from a non-adjoining property as the basis to assess the neighbour impact of the extension. As you say, the requirement to complete the extension within 3 years runs completely contrary to the way that the planning system (and permitted development) normally works. As an additional point, when the government introduces these types of changes, I really don't understand why DCLG can't issue a full set of templates (well in advance of the changes) that local authorities would have the option to use (if they wanted). At one of the busiest times of the year, approx 330 local authorities will now have to find the time not only to understand the new legislation and procedures, but also to write a full set of templates for this new type of notification - e.g. confirmation of receipt of application, neighbour consultation letter, decision notices, etc - whilst trying to ensure that such templates comply with all of the legal requirements of the legislation. Surely, it would be much better for DCLG to issue a full set of templates, so that local authorities would then have the option to either use these (i.e. knowing that they comply with the legislation) or to write their own (i.e. if they have very specific local circumstances). On a similar note, we now have another 16 pages of amendments to the GPDO 1995, which makes a total of 29 amendment SIs (!) to this piece of legislation, and yet again the government has not produced a consolidated version. This means that each of approx 330 local authorities either has to purchase or create their own consolidated version, or has to attempt to understand the legislation without a consolidated version. Thanks, Steve

I would be interested to know if I am interpreting the new legislation on householder development correctly: If it is determined through the application system set out in the legislation that prior approval is not required, or if prior approval is granted, this decision relates to prior approval only and does not confirm that planning permission is not required. E.g. Prior approval could be determined as not required, but if the applicant then goes on to build an extension which does not comply with the all of the requirements of Class A, this extension would require planning permission. In fact, the applicant could submit details at prior approval stage which conflict with the requirements of Class A, and this would have no impact on the prior approval application? The fact that the extension proposal did not comply with Class A might emerge at validation stage, or might not emerge until the time of a site visit. For example, the details submitted show an extension to a detached house which appears to be a maximum of 8 metres depth from all rear walls, and the maximum height and eaves height appear to be within Class A restrictions. The application is registered and neighbours consulted. Upon visiting the site however, it is apparent that the proposed addition extends beyond an side wall of the original dwellinghouse and the extension has an overall width greater than 50% of the width of the house. I.e. the proposed extension does not comply with the restrictions set out in Class A and therefore requires planning permission. Notwithstanding these issues, no objections are received and the LPA has no option but to issue a decision letter confirming that prior approval is not required. In such a case, whilst prior approval would not be required, planning permission most certainly would! This situation will be confusing for all parties involved and could result, in a worst case, with an extension being built and enforcement action subsequently being taken to secure its demolition. Please tell me if I am missing something!!

If my interpretation is correct, once an applicant had received confirmation that prior approval is not required or has been granted, they would still need to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate if they sought formal confirmation that planning permission for a specific extension design is not required. This is the only way that the LPA can consider a detailed specific extension proposal and confirm formally that the design represents permitted development. The new system does not appear to allow this. If this is correct, it appears that Government has not understood the impact of the legislation change, as Nick Boles in his letter to 23/04/2013 to Clive Betts stated ‘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.’ This appears to be incorrect. The homeowner will be provided with confirmation that an extension which complies with the footprint and height details submitted does not need, or has been granted ‘prior approval’. The extension may well require planning permission and the only way to receive formal confirmation in this regard will be to go through a second application process for a Lawful Development Certificate.

Hi Andy, As far as I can tell, your interpretation is correct. Under the new Part 4 Class D a pub (A4) will be able to change to a “flexible use” (either A1, A2, A3, or B1) for a temporary period of up to 2 years, subject to certain criteria, including a floor space limit of 150m2. Furthermore, under the new Part 4 Class C a pub (A4) will be able to change to a “state-funded school” (which includes an Academy school) for a temporary period of a single academic year, subject to certain criteria, including approval by the Secretary of State for Education. Although the SI amends Part 42 (which is titled "Shops or catering, financial or professional services establishments"), these changes will NOT affect pubs. This is because although the overall Part 42 applies to A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 properties, the SI only amends Part 42 Class A which only applies to A1 and A2 properties. In case it helps, I've produced a summary of the amendments to Other Parts of the GPDO (i.e. other than Part 1), which is available on the following webpage: http://planningjungle.com/2013/05/10/important-amendments-to-other-parts-of-the-gpdo-coming-into-force-on-30052013/ Thanks, Steve

Hi Jonathan, I totally agree with what you've written in your two posts above. For this new procedure, the Council would do one of the following: 1) Issue a decision to confirm that prior approval is not required (i.e. if no objections are received), or 2) Give prior approval (i.e. if objections are received and the Council considers that the amenity impact would be acceptable), or 3) Refuse prior approval (i.e. if objections are received and the Council considers that the amenity impact would be unacceptable), or 4) Fail to issue a decision (i.e. within the 42 days deadline). In case 3) it's clear that the extension wouldn't be PD (albeit subject to the results of any subsequent appeal against the Council's decision). However, in cases 1), 2), and 4), as far as I can tell from the legislation, the Council's decision (or lack of decision) would only confirm to the applicant that the extension complies with the new limitation A.1(ea) and with the new condition A.4 (albeit that compliance with the latter also assumes that the applicant will subsequently complete the extension by 30/05/2016 and then notify the Council). As you say, it would appear that the Council's decision for this new procedure would not be affected by whether or not the extension would comply with any of the other limitations and conditions of Class A. And, in my opinion, it would be more appropriate for the Council to add an informative pointing out that the decision doesn't confirm that the extension would be PD, rather than trying to add an informative stating that the extension would (or wouldn't) be PD. As you say, if an applicant wants confirmation that their extension would be PD, then they will have to submit a separate application for an LDC. One issue with this will be timing. From a technical point of view, an application for an LDC (proposed) asks whether the development would have been lawful if undertaken "at the time of the application" (i.e. on the date that the valid application was received by the Council). This means that it would not be possible for a Council to issue an LDC unless it's submitted after the decision (or after the 42 days) for the above new procedure. This means that an applicant who wants to be certain that their extension would be PD would have to first follow the above new procedure (42 days) and then submit an application for an LDC (56 days), rather than being able to submit both applications at the same time. Finally, in the above case, the Council will have to be very careful when assessing the application for the LDC to check the drawings that were previously submitted for the above new procedure, to make sure that nothing that's shown on the previously submitted drawings (which might be relatively basic) contradicts the drawings that are submitted for the LDC. Thanks, Steve

This is rather more about democracy than planning. Steve wrote: "On a similar note, we now have another 16 pages of amendments to the GPDO 1995, which makes a total of 29 amendment SIs (!) to this piece of legislation, and yet again the government has not produced a consolidated version. This means that each of approx 330 local authorities either has to purchase or create their own consolidated version, or has to attempt to understand the legislation without a consolidated version." ========== That is true and is a problem I have also faced with council tax legislation, But the problem is much bigger than you suggest. It is not just 330 local authorities that are faced with this issue but 20 million plus householders and who knows how many businesses. It simply shouldn't be acceptable that the people of this country cannot find out what the law is .

Most councils try to keep up with these changes. Our consilidated GDPO is about 200 pages long, but not sure its as comprehensive as it could be. Reluctant to share for legal reasons, In today's environment you get sued for sneezing without a BS9999 Hankie. Phill

Hi David, Philip, For reference, the "Explanatory Memorandum" for SI 2013 No. 1101 states the following: "There are no plans to consolidate the General Permitted Development Order in the immediate future, although this may be considered following the Red Tape Challenge." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1101/memorandum/contents Although the Planning Encyclopaedia and the Planning Jungle website (note: the latter is my website) both provide consolidated versions of the GPDO 1995, these are only available to paid subscribers. The Planning Jungle website also provides a free version of this document (see the following webpage), but it only incorporates amendment Statutory Instruments (SIs) up until January 2012 (this has been done to distinguish the free version from the paid version): http://planningjungle.com/consolidated-versions-of-legislation/gpdo-1995-consolidated-free-version/ The Planning Portal does attempt to provide a list of which amendment SIs apply to the GPDO 1995 on the following webpage: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/responsibilities/planningpermission/permitted However, the above list is particularly unhelpful, as it currently includes 2 SIs that do not amend the GPDO 1995, and omits 12 SIs that do amend the GPDO 1995. The fact that the government doesn't provide consolidated versions for secondary legislation is not only very unhelpful and inefficient from the point of view of people using the legislation, but it also significantly increases the risk of mistakes being made. For example, in the appeal decision reference "APP/X2220/X/11/2144338" (see the following webpage), the local authority’s decision notice and the Inspector’s decision notice both referred to a part of the legislation that had been superseded more than 2 years earlier as the sole reason for refusing the application: http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2144338&coid=2050 Thanks, Steve

A development commences following LA confirmation that prior approval is not required, or prior approval has been granted. However completion is achieved just after 30/5/16. What would be the status of the development following failure to complete. I suspect that there will be many of these. Neil Hibberd Solus Design

Can anyone explain Part 3 Class M M.1 (a) Development is not permitted if the building has not been solely in agricultural use i) since 3 July 2012 or (and this is where it seems to go wrong) ii) for buildings first brought into use after 3 July 2012, for ten years

The explanatory notes say if the new agricultural building commences use after 3 July 2012 it has to be used for 10 years prior the change being considered PD (to stop new ones going up and then changing straight away)

Neil: This is a condition of the prior notification, as such it would be a breach of that condition (i put it simply). In reality the Council would be unlikely to take action if the harm arising from that omision was slight. More worrying is that the owner would find it difficult to sell as any solicitor worth thier salt would raise questions about the dates. I think that in the final months of the "experiment" Councils will be inundated with requests for certificates of lawfulness to prove they were built in time. Secondly, what happens if it is not built in strict accordance with the specification given to the council and neighbours. That would make it unlawful, it wasn't what they applied for in the prior notification... oh dear... i feel another certificate on the way... This will run and run and run... time to retire!!!

Hi all, If an owner starts their 3m-6m (or 4m-8m) extension BEFORE following the new procedure and obtaining one of the following outcomes ... 1) Decision from the local authority confirming that prior approval is not required, or 2) Decision from the local authority giving prior approval, or 3) Decision from the local authority refusing prior approval followed by decision from the Planning Inspectorate allowing the appeal, or 4) End of the 42 day deadline without a decision being issued by the local authority, … then, as far as I can tell, there’s no way that the new legislation could be applied retrospectively to make the works lawful. In other words, it seems clear from the new legislation that you can ONLY comply with the new condition A.4 if you successfully complete the new procedure BEFORE starting works. Furthermore, if the owner then applies for retrospective planning permission (or submits an appeal against the enforcement notice on ground (a)), then it could be relatively difficult to assess the “fall-back” position. For reference, with the current version of permitted development, assessing the fall-back position normally involves an assessment the following two issues: 1) If the owner demolishes their unlawful extension, then what could they erect under permitted development? 2) How likely is it that they would actually erect such an extension? However, with the new version of permitted development, assessing the first of the above two issues would become more difficult, because it would involve an assessment of the following: 1) If the owner demolishes their unlawful extension, then for what length of extension would they be able to successfully complete the new procedure? In other words, would there be a length of extension - e.g. less than their unlawful extension but greater than 3m (or 4m) - for which the owner would either not require prior approval or would be given prior approval? Of course, if the enforcement complainant is an immediately adjoining neighbour who makes it clear that they would object to any extension longer than 3m (or 4m), and if the local authority’s policies and guidance would refuse any extension longer than 3m (or 4m) on the grounds of amenity impact, then the “fall-back” position would be 3m (or 4m). However, in other scenarios, the “fall-back” position might not be so clear. Thanks, Steve

Can someone please test my logic on these: 1. Time period for giving Prior Approval A4(5) & (6) Date of receipt = Day 0 (A4(8)(c)) - 42 days following the date of receipt By day 42 developer mhall have received written notice that Prior Approval not required; Prior Approval given; or Prior Approval refused. Otherwise, can commence. Such approvals under a condition generally follow the rules of Article 30 of the DMPO but in this case, A4(8)(c) expressly states to the contrary. 2. Appeals S.78(1)(c) of the TCPA 1990 refers to refusing an application for any consent, agreement or approval of the authority required under a development order, the applicant may, by notice, appeal to the Secretary of State. Thus the legislation for an appeal following the refusal of Prior Approval is already contained in primary legislation.

In responding to Dean's query: 1) I agree the 42 days starts the day after receipt, but it seems that under these new Part 1 provisions the developer must have RECEIVED the notification by close of play on day 42. I guess this means that postal service delivery time would need to be factored in - and in the case of LPAs now farming out post to non-Royal Mail services to acheive savings; this could cut a number of days off time available to determine the matter. Whilst there is a degree of conflict between this and Article 30, there is a similar degree of conflict between Part 6 and Article 30 in the period of time allowed to make a decision. In this respect, I would expect that the GDPO provisions take precedence (although this is ultimately a question to pose to a solicitor). 2) Thank you for answering one of my many questions posed here: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=3437980. It does seem that there is a right of appeal. The twist however is "how long is the appeal window open for"? Section 78(3) states "Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice served within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order". As with LDCs, such a period has not been defined by an Order (as yet) and thus there is effectively no time limit in which to lodge an appeal. Further to Jonathan and Steve's comments re: "As you say, if an applicant wants confirmation that their extension would be PD, then they will have to submit a separate application for an LDC. One issue with this will be timing. From a technical point of view, an application for an LDC (proposed) asks whether the development would have been lawful if undertaken "at the time of the application" (i.e. on the date that the valid application was received by the Council). This means that it would not be possible for a Council to issue an LDC unless it's submitted after the decision (or after the 42 days) for the above new procedure. This means that an applicant who wants to be certain that their extension would be PD would have to first follow the above new procedure (42 days) and then submit an application for an LDC (56 days), rather than being able to submit both applications at the same time." Someone shoot me please.

Chris Thanks for your comment re part M. Seems pretty pointless at the moment it will have no effect until 2022. More importantly have just been advised by DCLG "In regards to your earlier query regarding the Householder Permitted Development Regime ,the Planning Portal have not been asked to develop/deliver a form for this or the other new regimes. If this changes I will of course keep you updated of any progress"

Thanks Chris, The "received by the developer before" requirement is the same as for prior notifications (agricultural, telecoms, demolitions and the range of new ones in Part 3) - although the numbers of days allowed varies from Class to Class. The time period set out in each Class trumps the provisions of Article 30 of the DMPO because it is a specific requirement of the specific grant of permission. As regards the time periods for lodging an appeal, thanks for pointing it out;- the lack of a specified period suggests it is open ended but, in reality, as any development granted by the revised Part 1 Class A has to be completed by 30 May 2016, the time period for lodging an appeal may not be as open ended as you might at first think! On the LDC front, for a proposed development to be certified as lawful, I agree that a developer will have to have gone through the hoops that Chris stated, although many of the conditions listed at A4(3)-(7) are outside the control of the developer, compliance would have been achieved prior to LDC application. The need to complete the development by a certain date might affect it. I do understand that the premise of "certified lawful on the date of submission of the application" but can foresee issues where an extension is commenced lawfully in accordance with the GPDO permission and following a CLOPUD, but what if the development is not completed by 30 May 2016? Does the whole development become unauthorised as it is a breach of a condition; or does the completion condition have the effect of merely ceasing to authorise anything after that date in a similar way to Completion Notices under s.94 of the Act - the effect of which just prevents further work to complete the development rather than un-authorising that which has already taken place? Would the applicant need to specify a completion date in order for an LDC to be granted? Regards Dean

I have come across an interesting blog regarding the proposed changes: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/

I’m also trying to put together a simple guide of how these Notifications should be processed in our Uniform and Plantech systems, which seems a much more complex thing now then when I first started it. Though starting from then end of the process surely the only unequivocal way of the applicant proving that the development was completed on or before the 30 May 2016 would be a Completion Certificate from Building Control. Which of course has the wonderful irony of an authority sending a completion certificate to a developer, for them to send it back to the authority as evidence of completion (OK some will be done by Approved Inspectors, but still). So the steps I’ve got down so far are along the lines of an authority receipting the notification, and validating it (in so much as checking its not a Listed Building, in an ANOB, Article 4 etc and the property hadn’t previously had PD rights removed). I’m guessing that if the Notification fails this validation it will be rejected and the developer advised to submit a planning application, but its not explicitly clear if authorities can do that....? What also needs to be clarified, as is mentioned above, is if the description and plan are too vague to make an assessment, can it be considered not fit for purpose and invalidated and sent back? Or is then just a race against the clock. Lets hope CLG are not relying on case law to sort that out. Once it is validated the Notification then appears on weekly lists and Public Access registers (though excluded from the PS1 and PS2 reports). Neighbour notifications are sent out (I read this as properties defined by the authority rather than just those identified by the developer) and await objections, or who knows letters of support, being sent in. These are then recorded, and an officer’s report prepared based on whether there is any impact on any of the neighbours and the authority issues their “decision”, with refusals being possibly being appealed against. One concern I have is I don’t see anything stopping a developer putting in the same, or slightly varying notifications on the same property repeatedly (on the basis that the authority will slip up or neighbours will give up objecting to the application) after all it won’t cost them anything.... And the last question I have (for now) is how should this information be presented on a Local Land Charges search? Not a question for this forum I know, but how you need to get the information out should guide what you put in in the first place.

Hi all, I’m currently producing a guide and templates for the notification and prior approval process for 3m-6m and 4m-8m rear extensions under Part 1 Class A of the GPDO. This document will be finished by next Monday (20/05/2013), and is likely to include the following: - A flowchart showing the main stages of this new process. - A guide explaining all of the stages of this new process. - A template for a form that developers can use to notify the LPA that they propose to erect a 3m-6m rear extension (on an attached house) or a 4m-8m rear extension (on a detached house). - An template for a consultation letter that LPAs can use to notify adjoining premises. - A template for the three types of decision notices (i.e. prior approval not required, prior approval given, prior approval refused). - A consolidated version of Part 1 of the GPDO, showing the new limitation A.1(ea) and condition A.4 inserted by SI 2013 No. 1101. For further information, please see the following webpage: http://planningjungle.com/2013/05/16/coming-soon-guide-and-templates-for-the-notification-and-prior-approval-process-for-3m-6m-and-4m-8m-rear-extensions-under-part-1-class-a-of-the-gpdo/ Thanks, Steve

Steve Just at thought re any form whether the requirment to specify the height could be extended to, in cases where the extension is to be built on a sloping site, specifying the heights above the highest and lowest parts of the site and where the lowest point is.

Thanks Michael - that's a really good suggestion. For info, with the form to notify the LPA, I'm intending to include notes that point out certain important aspects, particularly about the definition of "height". After all, many members of the public don't realise that "height" is measured externally with respect to natural ground level, so if they simply describe the extension as (say) "eaves height 3m", and don't provide elevations, then there's a risk that they'll be subject to enforcement action when it turns out that they were taking their measurement from the top of their new raised patio. That's a good point about sloping ground levels - it really illustrates the dangers in an approval system for extensions that's based on a description and floor plan, where there's no requirement to submit elevations. Thanks, Steve

PINS will find themselves busy with appeals where LPAs have refused prior approval becaude the plans are too poor to interpret and the only safe route for the LPA is to refuse. LPAs may also refuse because there is not time after the 21 days is up and an objection has been received to seek and then consider more information. Panic springs too mind. I also wonder what kind of discussions may take place between applicant and their neighbours to seek to persuade the neighbours not to object. This does all seem like a partial privatisation of the planning sytem in that the LPA only becomes involved and considers the public interest if a neighbour objects. The real "planning" activity takes place between the applicant and the neighbour but to describe this all as "planning" is surely a misnomer.

Anyone any idea what form an appeal will take - "householder" type with the officers report on the refusal of prior approval being the only thing a LPA can submit or a full written reps type appeal. Would suggest that the plan that has to be submitted should be required to identify the postion of doors and windows.

To answer my own query it seems that it would be a househodler appeal as the process fits the definition of hosueholder application given in The Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2009

hi I am just looking at the notification process for householders, and information we can require. As far as I can tell the "plan" need to provide only limited information and does not need to be to a measured scale and the developer only has to indicate the site. So am I to assume that as the developer is asked for addresses of adjoining properties we just have to notify them (and not make any judgement as an authority as to the correct addresses to notify) or are we expected to in anyway "validate" the information being supplied (make checks etc.). I am coming to the opinion that unless someone objects we do as little as possible and issue a notice that states very clearly that this does not mean the extension is permitted.

Dear Chris: I feel we have a duty of care as well as an obligation under the Order. I will be asking my team to verify the addresses given against the site plan. If nothing else, we will be the ones dealing with the complaints if some one isn't consulted. In my guidance notes to owners i will be asking for scaled drawings or dimensioned sketches. The neighbours deserve to know what they are letting themselves in for. I will also be asking for details of fenistration. I (as a neighbour) may not object to a 5 metre extension, but would do if it had a window on the boundary. (i accept that windows at ground floor level are often considered non-development if installed post completion). I'm not sure what i will do with an appauling notification, possibly refuse it and deal with an appeal. It will be interesting to see how invalid notifications are handled. If i refuse to accept it, does the 42 day triger still apply.

Some thoughts on validation here: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/larger-domestic-extensions-some-further.html I'm not sure whether LPA's have any remit to make an application invalid based on the quality / level of information shown in the submitted ‘plan’, the legislation requires: ‘a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development’ Therefore any plan, to scale or otherwise, accurate or otherwise, and detailed or otherwise, would meet this requirement. The LPA has no remit to request additional information unless objections are received. I would suggest that the 42 days would commence from the day the minimum information required by the legislation is submitted. If an LPA does make an application invalid and requests additional information they must be mindful of the requirement to issue consultations, allow a minimum of 21 days for comments to be submitted, and to then issue a decision to be received before day 42 (this deadline is however only really of importance if a refusal is being issued). The information requirements are clearly farcical. It is very difficult to fully demonstrate the likely impacts of a specific proposed extension design without providing full plans and elevations. The information which is required would only give a very basic idea of what could be built. For example if maximum height is given as 4 metres and eaves height as 2.5 metres, an extension complying with these restrictions could if fact be much higher than either figure, dependent on the extension design and land levels, see Steve’s document here for some examples (number 4 is particularly relevant): http://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/Part-1-of-the-GPDO-The-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf Neighbours will not be aware of the intricacies of Class A set out in the legislation and the 49 pages of technical guidance which Government issued in 2010. E.g. that height is measured from the highest ground alongside an extension, so an extension with a ‘maximum height’ of 4 metres, could in fact be 4 metres high at one end, and 8 metres high at the other! One of many issues I am not clear on is whether LPAs have a duty to ascertain at validation stage or during the course of the application that the proposal actually falls within the new depth limits (i.e. 3-6 metres or 4-8 metres). For example, if the information submitted shows a 9 metre extension, does the LPA continue with the application or invalidate it? If they did continue and no objections were received what decision would they issue? Alternatively it could be bought to light at the time of a site visit that the extension proposed was not within the depth limits, if for example an extension which appeared to be 8 metres deep based on the information submitted, was in fact proposed to be built off an existing extension and therefore would be 11 metres from the original rear wall. I am also unclear as to the LPA’s position if the information put forward complies with the depth restrictions, but it is apparent either at validation stage or at the time of a site visit that such an extension would be directly contrary to one or more of the other restrictions set out in Class A. Again, if no objections are received, would the LPA be expected to issue a decision that prior approval is not required? Perhaps with an informative on the notice confirming that whilst is prior approval is not required, it appears that planning permission would be? I would assume LPA’s will be applying Informatives to every decision confirming that the decision relates to prior approval based on the basic information submitted and provides no confirmation as to whether a specific extension design would require planning permission or not..

I totally agree with Jonathan above, in terms of the importance of an informative being placed on the decision letter advsing that the decison to grant or the confirmation that prior approval is not required (on the basis of the details submitted) does not confirm that the development is permitted development. The devil is always in the detail and unlike other types of pror approval, the need for precision could be particularly acute in the case of householder prior approval cases since objecting neighbours may scrutinse the applications closely, particularly if some extensions are refused because neighbours objected whilst others are built without objection. We can all do our best to get as much information as possible but with no fee and 42 days to make sure we decide them, who will have the resources to apply more than a "light touch" ?

The legislation provides for an appeal to be lodged if prior notification for a household extension is refused. Can anyone confirm whether the time limit for making the appeal is 12 weeks as for a 'householder appeal' or 6 months as for other planning and determination appeals? Thanks, Moira

Firstly replying to Jonathan's questions: "...if the information submitted shows a 9 metre extension, does the LPA continue with the application or invalidate it? If they did continue and no objections were received what decision would they issue?..." If a 9m extension is shown, it does not meet the limitations set out in Part 1 A.1(ea)(i) and therefore is not permitted development. As such the prior notification procedure cannot be legimately pursued and as such there is no application before the LPA to make a decision on. This is similar to finding that a Part 6 prior notification is not "reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture" or does not meet size limitations. It is however good practice to provide a letter or decision to say it is not PD and thus there is no valid notification before the LPA to consider. "...it could be bought to light at the time of a site visit that the extension proposed was not within the depth limits, if for example an extension which appeared to be 8 metres deep based on the information submitted, was in fact proposed to be built off an existing extension and therefore would be 11 metres from the original rear wall..." The same thoughts as above apply here. It does not meet the limitations of Part 1 A.1(ea)(i) and thus cannot be PD. "...if the information put forward complies with the depth restrictions, but it is apparent either at validation stage or at the time of a site visit that such an extension would be directly contrary to one or more of the other restrictions set out in Class A. Again, if no objections are received, would the LPA be expected to issue a decision that prior approval is not required? Perhaps with an informative on the notice confirming that whilst is prior approval is not required, it appears that planning permission would be?..." This will be down to best practice by each LPA. In my view the decision notice will need to be very explicitly worded that it is a decision to state the proposal is permitted under Part 1 A.1(ea) but it will still need to comply with the remaining limitations set out in Part 1 A.1 to be capable of implementation without a planning permission. Informatives often go unnoticed, which is why (in the same type of context) it is beneficial to explicitly state under Part 6 that the developer has 5 years to commence (Part 6 A.2(2)(vi)) and must also give written notice to the LPA within 7 days of substantially completing their new, extended or altered agricultural building (Part 6 A.2(7)). Moira, I discussed your query above and Dean provided further thought: "...It does seem that there is a right of appeal. The twist however is "how long is the appeal window open for"? Section 78(3) states "Any appeal under this section shall be made by notice served within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order". As with LDCs, such a period has not been defined by an Order (as yet) and thus there is effectively no time limit in which to lodge an appeal." "...the lack of a specified period suggests it is open ended but, in reality, as any development granted by the revised Part 1 Class A has to be completed by 30 May 2016, the time period for lodging an appeal may not be as open ended as you might at first think!.." Steve: I'd be grateful for any templates and workflows for this as soon as you are able to provide them as it would save a lot of duplication of effort across the country!

Hi Chris, The guide and templates have already been produced, and have been received by approx 100 local authorities - for further info please view the following webpage: http://planningjungle.com/2013/05/16/guide-and-templates-for-the-new-notification-and-prior-approval-process-under-part-1-class-a-of-the-gpdo/ The question that you've referred to about whether this new process should be assessed against only condition A.4 or against all of the limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A is the main question highlighted by the document. The templates have been designed on the basis of the former interpretation, and I'm currently waiting to find out what more local authorities think about this particular issue. If a number of local authorities think that the latter interpretation is more appropriate, then I'll update the templates to show the two different options. Thanks, Steve

I know that time is running out, but I am looking to draft a procedure note on how we as a LA should deal with the commercial elements (covered by parts J, K and M) of these changes. For example when a developer applies for a PN for JK and M, the LA shall consult the relevant bodies (EA, HA, CC etc). However the regs do not appear to indicate that the developer has to submit any info to cover transport / noise / contamination/ flood impacts up front. Do Local Planning Authority’s ask for the info at this point especially if impacts are unknown or consult then request following comments? (e.g.. How do mere planning officers know about land contamination when looking at a site on a map, as they are unlikely to have visited it before?) Surely lack of upfront info will delay any consultation process? Given the complexities of getting a noise / contaminated land survey, FRA or TA drawn up, if we can’t invalidate, we will technically be having to determine the PN before the info is received, opening ourselves up to appeals. There does’ nt appear to be any formal timescales for a developer to get the technical info to a LA. I would welcome peoples views on this. The regs also don’t set out any specifics regarding consultation for Noise and contamination risks and consequently LPAs don’t appear to have to consider any noise related comments. Have I read this right? Is this an oversight in the writing of the regs?

A couple of questions on the householder extensions notification procedure- I would very grateful to receive any views: 1. A.4. (3) (d) States that the LPA must send a consultation letter which: Specifies the date (being not less than 21 days from the date of the notice) by which representations are to be received by the local planning authority. After the 21 day period the LPA would then be able to issue a decision, e.g. if no objections received then issue a decision that prior approval is not required. My question relates to any letters received after the 21 day period. E.g. on day 40 of the application, which could be say 35 days after the notice has been sent to neighbours, the officer has received no objections and has drafted a report recommending that prior approval is not required, but a letter is then received from a neighbour objecting to the application. Notwithstanding the fact that the 21 day period has finished previously, my interpretation would be that the LPA would have to accept this letter and then consider amenity impacts, as A.4. (5) states: Where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. I.e. It is not stated that the objection must be received within the 21 day period. This will have implications as to how such applications are processed by LPAs who will need to check carefully on the day their decision is issued that no late objections have appeared. 2. I am unclear as to how LPAs should proceed if it is identified either upon receipt of the application or later in the application process that the details submitted do not fall within the remit of the new prior notification procedure. Example scenarios where this would apply: • Some / all of the details required by A.4. 2 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) have not been submitted by the applicant. • It is identified that the application property is in fact within a Conservation Area. • It is identified that the application property is in C4 use (and would therefore not benefit from any permitted development rights for extensions and alterations). • It is identified that the details submitted do not comply with the depth and/or height restrictions set out in A.1 (ea). It is my understanding that the LPA cannot make an application ‘invalid’, and cannot ‘withdraw’ an application, as in both cases the 42 day period would continue to run. How should an LPA act in such cases? Can they return the documents to the applicant on the basis that what has been submitted does not in fact represent a prior approval application?

Jon In respect of parts J, K and M - I am looking to get started on this part of it today (!) so will offer any thoughts in due course! As a side note, I do wonder how the HA will react to such notifications as if they consider the information to be insufficient, they issue a holding direction to state they consider the 21 days has no begun. However that will not suffice under this procedure.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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?