The ACA responded to the latest Government consultation on permitted development rights. Previous experience suggests it is very likely that the proposed
changes will be implemented regardless of what consultees say. Here’s a summary
We do not agree that prior approvals for design or external appearance in existing permitted development rights should be replaced by consideration of design codes where they are in place locally because good design codes are rare and when they exist they are used too rigidly and tend to squash inventive good design. Beauty cannot be codified or standardised.
The permitted development right for the change of use from the Commercial, Business and Service use class (Use Class E) to residential (Class MA of Part 3), should be amended to remove the limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use. The whole point of permitted development is to widen the opportunity for new housing so any restrictions or limits should be kept to the absolute minimum.
We don’t agree that permitted development rights should support the change of use of hotels, boarding houses or guest houses (Use Class C1) to dwellinghouses, but only because some local areas need more control over tourist uses. Safeguards that should be considered if this change of use is supported include the option of applying for planning permission that can be granted with a condition restricting short term lets. We believe that changes to Class MA will lead to the delivery of new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning application: more flexibility and simplification helps.
The right for the change of use from hot food takeaways, betting offices, pay day loan shops and launderettes (Class M of Part 3) should be amended to remove the limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use, because pd rights should be as wide as possible; and we agree that the existing right should be amended to no longer apply to launderettes, but only because some local areas need launderettes as a social benefit. The right for the change of use from amusement arcades and centres, and casinos (Class N of Part 3) should also be amended to remove the limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use. We agree that the right (Class M of Part 3) should be amended to replace the existing date on which the building must have been in use as a hot food takeaway, betting office, pay day loan shop or launderette instead to a two-year rolling requirement, and that the right (Class N of Part 3) should be amended to replace the existing date on which the building must have been in use as an amusement arcade or centre, or casino instead to two-year rolling requirement, because simplification is key.
We agree that changes to Class M and N will lead to the delivery of new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning application, but not in great numbers.
We agree that the right (Class G of Part 3) should be expanded to allow for mixed use residential above other existing uses
and the right should apply to all uses to allow greater simplification. We also agree that the number of flats that may be delivered under this right should be doubled from two to four.
We agree that the smaller and larger home size limits within the agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses right (Class Q of Part 3) should be replaced with a single maximum floorspace limit of 150 square metres per dwellinghouse, to allow for more family homes: and that an overall limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use, set at 1,000 square metres, should be introduced for the agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses. Also the five home limit within the agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses should be increased to allow up to a total of 10 homes to be delivered within an agricultural unit.
We agree that the permitted development right for the change of use from agricultural buildings to residential use should be amended to allow for an extension to be erected as part of the change of use on previously developed land, to allow greater flexibility of design; and.that a prior approval be introduced, allowing for the consideration of the impacts of an extension on the amenity of neighbouring premises, including overlooking, privacy and light – if neighbours do not object then the pd right must apply.
We further agree that buildings should have an existing floorspace of at least 37 square metres to benefit from this right; and that the right should be amended to apply to other buildings on agricultural units that may not have been solely used for agricultural purposes (including agricultural buildings that are no longer part of an agricultural unit). All uses should benefit from the right, which should be kept as open as possible. We don’t agree that any existing building must already have an existing suitable access to a public highway to benefit from the right – means of access can be provided by upgrading the existing or if necessary applying for planning permission. Usually access through a shared farmyard will be sufficient. We agree that minor changes to the scope of the building operations permitted by the right, such as raising the ridge line by up to 200mm (for example to allow for proper insulation) should be permitted. Also the current planning practice guidance in respect of the change of use of agricultural buildings to residential use should be amended make it simpler.
We agree that permitted development rights should support the change of use of buildings in other predominantly rural uses to residential (subject to a sensible definition of “rural uses” – which we assume includes everything that isn’t residential or business Class E). We agree that permitted development rights should support the change of use of other buildings in a redominantly rural land use to a flexible commercial use; and that the right be amended to allow for buildings and land within its curtilage to be used for outdoor sports, recreation or fitness.
We also agree that the right be amended to allow buildings to change use to general industrial, limited to only allow the processing of raw goods produced on the site and which are to be sold on the site, excluding livestock; and to allow for the change of uses to any other flexible commercial uses, including a mix of uses. Also the right should be amended to increase the total amount of floorspace that can change use to 1,000 square metres; and the ground area limit of new buildings or extensions erected under the right should be increased from 1,000 to 1,500 square metres, to provide greater flexibility. Also the right should be amended to allow extensions of up to 25% above the original building cubic content, and the ground area of any building extended should be allowed to reach 1,250 square metres.
Finally, we agree that the maximum floorspace limit for the extension or alteration to a Commercial, Business and Service establishment on non-protected land should be increased to either 200 square metres or a 100% increase over the original building, whichever is lesser, and that the maximum floorspace of a new industrial and/or warehousing building on non-protected land permitted under the Part 7 Class H permitted development right should be amended to 400 square metres, with the maximum floorspace of a new industrial and/or warehousing extension on non-protected land increased to either 1,500 square metres or a 75% increase over the original building, whichever is lesser.