Consultation on new permitted changes of use - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi Jonathan, I think your final paragraph sums up the process well. At some point I want to write a detailed post about the "Impact Assessment" for the recent changes to Part 1 of the GPDO, because it's shocking when you realise how many of the key pieces of "evidence" that were used to justify the changes simply don't stand up to any level of scrutiny. The government press release to which you've provided a link is also fairly typical of how these things work. The main impact of these new proposals upon high streets would be allowing A1 and A2 properties to convert to houses and flats. The government press release indicates that these new proposals are supported by the "Portas Review" by stating the following: "The proposals reflect the advice of the Portas Review, which recommended more flexibility for change of use, and would help the high street, rural communities and local retailers by increasing footfall and spending." And yet, if you follow the link in the government press release to the "Portas Review" document, then there doesn't appear to be anything in there that supports the idea of allowing A1 and A2 properties to convert to houses and flats. Indeed, Portas talks about allowing empty retail units on high streets to be used for a range of community uses (e.g. schools, gyms, youth clubs, yoga, bingo, etc), and doesn't mention anything about allowing them to be converted into private houses and flats. Thanks, Steve

At this point it appears government considers that the planning application process is excessively onerous in relation to most minor developments and that the prior approval process is more appropriate. This also allows Government to dictate detailed planning policy from a national level as it appears the presumption should be for LPA’s to grant prior approval unless exceptional circumstances apply, whereas a planning application could be refused were the proposal contrary to local planning policies / objectives. This renders local planning policy redundant in many cases and will also create dramatic disparities between proposals which may benefit from a prior approval process and those which do not. For example, one person may not receive planning permission for a single new dwelling on a countryside site, and a neighbouring site owner may be able to construct a number of dwellings without planning permission because there are existing agricultural buildings in situ. In regard to the conversion of A1/A2 units to up to 4 flats, such proposals can be relatively complex; it therefore appears that they would be more suited to a planning application process than a prior approval process. The same could however be said for all of the permitted changes now proposed (and office to residential conversions). It appears that in many cases the main beneficiary of the proposed permitted changes will be the developer rather than the wider community, bypassing local planning polices (such as those which seek to protect employment uses) and requirements (such as affordable housing). On a practical level, dealing with so many development types under prior approval with minimal application fees will put a significant additional burden upon Local Planning Authorities’ budgets. It seems odd that the prior approval processes for householder extensions and office to residential conversions were introduced on a temporary basis presumably in order to assess their impact and the level of resources they require, however before there has been any opportunity make such an assessment, opinion is now sought on a (presumably permanent) huge expansion of the remit of prior approval processes. Delivering new housing and community facilities are benefits which cannot be ignored; perhaps the first approach however could have been drafting strong and detailed national planning policy which would have been given significant weight in assessing local plans and determining planning applications at a local level and at appeal, rather than pulling so many development types out of the planning application process with a presumption to approve prior approval, when in many cases this will be contrary to national and local planning policies. Government’s current approach demonstrates a lack of faith in the planning system and Local Authorities’ abilities to make appropriate and reasonable decisions, and fails to recognise the positive outcomes which can be delivered through the planning application process.

More from the back of another Policy Exchange fag packet. We can now kiss goodbye to every village shop in the country. If it is the Government's intention to abandon all controls over the use of existing buildings and limit the scope of planning to new build only, they should say so. However to do so might raise questions about the extent to which they are giving local communities the power to influence development in their area.

Hi Jonathan, As you indicate, the government is basically using the GPDO as a tool to force through significant changes in national policy. The above approach is something that I strongly dislike. Firstly, the GPDO was always meant to be a tool to allow minor and uncontentious development, not a tool to force through significant changes in national policy. Secondly, it strikes me that the government, after the negative reaction to the draft NPPF (e.g. the campaign in the Daily Telegraph, etc), has taken the view that they are more likely to be able to achieve their aims without significant public and media reaction if they do so via amendments to the GPDO, rather than via the NPPF. As an example, consider how Part 3 Class J (office to residential) would have looked if the government had instead tried to achieve this same aim via the NPPF, which in my opinion would have been the appropriate place for such a significant change in national policy. Firstly, it would have meant including a sentence in the NPPF that local authorities, when considering a planning application for office to residential, should completely disregard all considerations about the viability of that particular office, even if it's currently being used as an office. Secondly, it would have meant including a sentence in the NPPF that local authorities, when considering a planning application for office to residential, should completely disregard all considerations about the standard of accommodation for the resulting residential unit(s), including minimum room sizes, minimum unit sizes, amenity space, outlook, etc. I'm pretty certain that if the above type of sentences had been included in the NPPF, they would have received the same type of negative reaction as other parts of the draft NPPF. And yet, as amendments to the GPDO, such changes seem to have a much lower public and media profile. Thanks, Steve

I'm just checking with CLG that they are genuinely proposing that the change of use of agricultural buildings to houses will apply in article 1/5 land. They specifically exclude 1/5 land from the retail proposal. If it does then we have 6,000 traditional farm buildings here in the Yorkshire Dales National Park of which 4,000 are unconverted field barns. There are thousands of others across the rest of the Pennines. Given the instant uplift in value from the price of a pile of stones to £150k or more for a desirable second home project, we would be at high risk of the fairly rapid erosion of some nationally cherished landscapes, such as the iconic Swaledale.

Please remember this is a consultation document. Whilst we are jaded by previous exposure to faux consultation exercises, if we treat this as a fait de complie we will be contributing to a self fulfilling prophecy. Please ensure that your council responds to the consultation exercise, invite key local and national consultee/stakeholder groups to contribute, and most of all evidence your replies with facts not unsubstantiated opinions (not that there are ever any of those on this discussion group) So far all the government has heard from is the business and country land owners groups. If we stay silent, who else will stand up for organised and thoughtful planning. I understand that the country needs to emerge from recession, but such sharp turning tactics and opportunism by large pressure groups will leave England with a legacy I would rather live without. Phill

Well CLG confirm that there is no mistake. They are deliberately proposing this across all landscapes and areas. We will make representations but you have to wonder whether it will make any difference after the recent offices to housing consultation. 'Home on the Farm' ? 'Second home in the field' more likely.

Steve, Another advantage of making national policy changes through the GPDO rather than NPPF, is that it does not require SEA or Appropriate Assessment since it is neither a programme or a plan ?

•  A front extension with no meaningful restriction on its length (see appeal decision APP/Y3615/X/10/2142515 for an example of where a property would more than triple its original footprint).
• A half-width side extension on each side (which would double its original footprint).
• A rear extension with length 8m under the new prior approval process (which would be likely to more than double its original footprint).

[quote=Steve Speed]

•  A front extension with no meaningful restriction on its length (see appeal decision APP/Y3615/X/10/2142515 for an example of where a property would more than triple its original footprint).
• A half-width side extension on each side (which would double its original footprint).
• A rear extension with length 8m under the new prior approval process (which would be likely to more than double its original footprint).

[/quote]

Stephen, barn conversions in protected landscapes are almost all hi value character homes for retirement, long range commuter housing, grand designs, second homes or holiday lets. Not many of them will be affordable to first time buyers. The exception may be in some cases where the landowner has family that would benefit from new housing and are able to do some of the conversion work themselves. Once the property is sold back onto the open market however, it will become unaffordable.

 

The concern for us is that the unmanaged release of barn conversions will undermine our adopted development plan and destroy one of the defining qualities of this National Park. I would also argue that sporadic new housing on the scale that is likely from this relaxation of PD will not be a sustainable pattern of future development.