Amendments to the GPDO coming into force on 30/05/2013 ...

[planningjungle]

Hi all,

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, 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

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Or a more user friendly version: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/neighbour_consultation_scheme_guidance_may13.pdf

 

[tony1851]

Am I missing something?

Paragraph 4 (3) (ea) (i) seems to imply that this new proceedure only applies to extensions greater than 6m/8m.

it reads: " extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8m" etc etc

(Addendum; think I understand it now).

Also, what is meant by a "plan"? Will a sketch plan do; will it have to be to scale; will it be to a standard normally applied to planning applications?
I can just see plenty of opportunities here for LPAs holding things up by writing back asking for more information/details on the plans.

And how can they assess the impact without sending an officer round to have a look? (more delay). Will we have to provide plans of adjoining properties showing locations of windows in those properties?

This is a complete mess.

 

[geraldthehamster]

This is a complete mess.

I agree. What are you supposed to do if you start work but run out of money and can't complete it before 30th May 2016? Apply for PP, get turned down and have to demolish it? Just finish the first 4 metres of it?

And who is this "developer", to whom the guidance refers?

Another monumental cock-up from the worst government since Ted Heath. The only thing surer than that is the greater mess that local authorities will make in trying to implement it.

Cheers
Richard

 

[tony1851]

The Government put this amendment forward as 'light touch' regulation; it is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is 'let the neighbours fight it out between themselves and keep us out of it' legislation.

What it will do is put pressure on adjoining owners to 'agree' to, say, a 5m extension. The person next door may not really want it to be 5m, but may feel they might cause bad feeling if they object. Getting neighbours involved may be a bit of 'localism', but it doesn't necessarily make for good feeling.

At least with the outgoing system, everyone knew where they stood and a clear line was drawn. How much better would this have been had the Government just increased the pd limit by a meter or so.

 

[luisdesign]

At least with the outgoing system, everyone knew where they stood and a clear line was drawn. How much better would this have been had the Government just increased the pd limit by a meter or so.

I agree whole heartedly.

The new legislation has basically divided the system up into three areas.

Permitted Development
Prior Approval
Planning Permission

The legislation also says that if you want to extend 6/8m then you MUST apply to the council... which is an interesting way to cut red tape. I want to know what happens if someone builds without applying? what action or recourse can be taken!?

Also, what are the fees for this? are they just as a normal PD application? I feel for the planning officers, at a time where their departments are being faced with making significant cuts they are fronted with having to do more work... apparently for no extra cost.

In addition, is there even a fee involved at all? normally (ie article 4) if you are forced to apply to the council when the work would usually be permitted you don't need to pay a fee at all!?


My wife is a planning officer, they have not received any information on how they are supposed to deal with this, nor enforce various breaches...

Another example of why legislation should not be made by people who don't know the mechanics of a system.

 

[planningjungle]

Hi Luis,

No fee will be payable for this new process.

For info, the DCLG draft guidance document titled "Larger Home Extensions - Neighbour Consultation Scheme" simply states the following:

"There is no fee in connection with this process."

And the DCLG "Impact Assessment" provides a "justification" for the lack of a fee by stating the following:

"Local authorities will benefit from reduced applications, freeing-up resources to be employed elsewhere. Local authorities are constrained by centrally set fees and cannot charge more for additional work in determining applications. Wherever possible, local authorities will seek to determine applications at a cost equal to the fee. In cases where local authorities are currently under recovering costs on householder applications (i.e. they spend more determining the application than they receive in fees) they will make additional savings.

However, local authorities will face limited costs in relation to the time spent reviewing a notification, notifying adjoining neighbours and, where objections are raised, determining whether the impact on amenity is acceptable.

The Department is currently engaging in discussions with the Local Government Association on its assessment of the impact on local authorities. Currently no net costs are envisaged."

It's also worth noting that the legislation doesn't appear to contain any provision to stop an applicant from submitting repeated applications - e.g. first 6.0m, then 5.8m, then 5.6m, then 5.4m, etc - each of which the LPA will have to process. Furthermore, for each application that's refused prior approval, the applicant will be able to submit an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, for which (I'm assuming) no fee will be payable.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[luisdesign]

Thanks for that info Steve,

So in order to lower the number of planning applications the officers deal with you have to make a different application instead!? The amount of work involved is not significantly different between the two to warrant the difference in fee.

So its a statistical fallacy then that the number of applications will be lower because a different system (which involves an applicaiton by another name) is used instead.

Trust the government to use a reel of red tape to try and cut red tape... eh?

also, I just realised what this means:

"Local authorities will benefit from reduced applications, freeing-up resources to be employed elsewhere.

reduced planning applications so the officers will instead need to spend their time on prior approvals - for which an application is now mandatory.

Wherever possible, local authorities will seek to determine applications at a cost equal to the fee.

So if a prior approval has no fee do the government expect people to work for nothing?

In cases where local authorities are currently under recovering costs on householder applications (i.e. they spend more determining the application than they receive in fees) they will make additional savings.

Except of course, that they lose the fees for the would be householder application and instead get no fee whatsoever - the councils will now need to deal with an application with no renumeration whatsoever whilst still having to pay for an officers salary... I'm not sure that constitutes a saving!

However, local authorities will face limited costs in relation to the time spent reviewing a notification, notifying adjoining neighbours and, where objections are raised, determining whether the impact on amenity is acceptable.

Its clear the legislation makers are not aware of the processes a planning officer has to go through... My wife informs me that, for all intents and purposes the planning processes for this prior notification system and a householder application appear to be pretty much the same.

+Receive application
+Review information to ensure information can be validated
+Accept (with written response) and log application
+Notify adjoining neighbours
+Assess the proposals against the relevant rules
+Log and Assess any objections raised and the impact caused
+Compile a report detailing the proposal & issues etc.
+Determine the application by issuing a decision

Am I describing a planning application or a new prior approval application?


It seems to me that as the legislation was pushed through there was a loss of the purpose for the legislation in the first place.

 

[^woody^]

So if there was say some aggrieved, vindictive agent, he could apply for these extensions for all the houses down his street, and cause the local planners lots of work for no payment, and hope some go to appeal?

 

[planningjungle]

Hi Luis - well, if you think that assumption is dodgy (which I do), you should have a look at some of the other assumptions made in the "Impact Assessment". For example, DCLG estimates that between "89%" and "95%" of extensions that go through this new process will be approved! It also estimates that the cost to an applicant to submit this type of notification (including the cost of their time) will be "£6", although it admits that this cost might rise to "£30" if a site visit is required. Indeed, it uses these types of assumptions to estimate that over 3 years, this new process will save householders a total of between "£67.3 million" and "£134.6 million"!

Hi Woody - that's a very interesting point that you've raised. Although the legislation refers to the "developer" notifying the LPA, it doesn't seem to provide a definition of "developer", or say whether or not they need to be an owner of the house.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[tony1851]

One can see some confusion over the interpretation of "plan";

"(b)a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development;"

Scale? accurately-drawn or rough sketch? dimensions? distance to boundary?
etc.
Be interesting to see how LPAs view this.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Hi all,

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, 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

An additional question occurs to me - the guidance says:

"3. The local authority will serve a notice on adjoining owners or occupiers,
i.e. those who share a boundary, including to the rear."

I wonder whether adjoining owners or occupiers includes the owner of agricultural land to the rear of a garden, or woodland, or open countryside. Or is it intended just to refer to adjoining residential property? Commercial property? Hmm.

Cheers
Richard

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

An additional question occurs to me - the guidance says:

"3. The local authority will serve a notice on adjoining owners or occupiers,
i.e. those who share a boundary, including to the rear."

I wonder whether adjoining owners or occupiers includes the owner of agricultural land to the rear of a garden, or woodland, or open countryside. Or is it intended just to refer to adjoining residential property? Commercial property? Hmm.

Cheers
Richard

I am probably about to embark upon an application under the guidance and at the rear is a footpath, not council owned we believe so expect to have to get the ownership clarified (one possibility is NT ) before my submission, if I have to find out from the Land Registry who owns it that's yet another load of bureaucracy to deal with!

 

[geraldthehamster]

An additional question occurs to me - the guidance says:

"3. The local authority will serve a notice on adjoining owners or occupiers,
i.e. those who share a boundary, including to the rear."

I wonder whether adjoining owners or occupiers includes the owner of agricultural land to the rear of a garden, or woodland, or open countryside. Or is it intended just to refer to adjoining residential property? Commercial property? Hmm.

Cheers
Richard

I am probably about to embark upon an application under the guidance and at the rear is a footpath, not council owned we believe so expect to have to get the ownership clarified (one possibility is NT ) before my submission, if I have to find out from the Land Registry who owns it that's yet another load of bureaucracy to deal with!

The guidance mentions "amenity" a lot. Searching the Internet, I find a lot of references to "residential amenity" in a planning context. I wonder if "amenity" is a concept that only applies to residential property. As is often the case, maybe best to ask the LA what their attitude will be.

Cheers
Richard