Government Consultation on Permitted Development Rights

The Department for Communities and Local Government (crazy name, crazy guys) are consulting on proposals "intended to support the Government's priorities for making better use of existing buildings, supporting the high street and rural communities, providing new housing, developing more free schools and contributing to the provision of child care for working families".

The consultation seeks views on 5 proposals for permitted development rights to allow:

• shops and financial and professional services to change use to a dwelling house;
• existing buildings used for agricultural purposes of up to 150 square metres to change to residential use;
• retail uses to change to banks and building societies only;
• premises used as offices, hotels, residential and non-residential institutions, and leisure and assembly to be able to change use to nurseries providing childcare;
• a building used for agricultural purposes of up to 500 square metres to be used as a new state funded school or a nursery providing childcare.

All proposals also include permission to carry out building work connected with the change of use.

For more detail on the DCLG consultation and the specific proposals please use the following weblink https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/greater-flexibilities-for-change-of-use

Initially when I looked at this, I thought there were a few problems, but more good ideas. However, having looked in more depth, I worry its the other way around, and could have a really negative impact on our High Streets and communities. What's the point of trying to boost our High Streets if Eric Pickles has granted permission - without the agreement of the local Council - for the landlords to change all the shops in flats?

The questions on the survey and my answers are below: I don't imagine everyone will agree with all my answers, but if it prompts anyone else to go to the survey and give their views, my work here is done ;)

Greater flexibilities for change of use: consultation response form

Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative relating to each question.

Question 1:

Do you agree there should be permitted development rights, as proposed, for shops (A1) and financial and professional services (A2) to change use to a dwelling house (C3) and to carry out building work connected with the change of use?

How do you think the prior approval requirement should be worded, in order to ensure that it is tightly defined and delivers maximum benefits?

Answer:

No.

Many High Streets / Councils / residents are seeking to protect their retail offer: making the change of use to residential a permitted right, including for the building works could lead to a widespread reduction in town and especially village centre shops, as landlords seek to maximise return.

Some areas have a Village Design Statement (such as Sandgate Parish Council) or other planning statements seeking to protect the retail nature of their High Street etc - not to take that into account would be perverse. Currently, some landlords will attempt to justify conversion to residential by putting off potential retail clients for empty units with high rents and negative responses, and then claim that they cannot find a retail use for their premises in order to "game" the planning process. To remove the right of local Councils to have any say on this process even where there is a demand for retail units would be a bad move.

Question 2:

Do you agree there should be permitted development rights for retail units (A1) to change use to banks and building societies?

Answer:

Yes.

This should exclude premises like bookmakers, but if it's specifically "banks and building societies" then these would have a positive impact in most High Streets, and should be welcomed.

Question 3:

Do you agree there should be permitted development rights, as proposed, for existing buildings used for agricultural purposes to change use to a dwelling house (C3) and to carry out building work connected with the change of use?

Answer:

No.

There are already landowners trying to play the system by creating a smallholding on land where development has not been permitted, to put up small buildings to support that smallholding, and then seek conversion to residential afterwards. This process is a fraud, and shouldn't be made easier.

Question 4:

Do you agree that there should be permitted development rights, as proposed, to allow offices (B1), hotels (C1); residential institutions (C2); secure residential institutions (C2A) and assembly and leisure (D2) to change use to nurseries proving childcare, and to carry out building work connected with the change of use?

Answer:

No.

The potential impact of B1 (office) use and nursery use will be very different: traffic flows, level of noise etc. In many places this may be appropriate, but not all, and should be considered on a case to case basis. C1, C2, C2A and D2 properties may be more appropriate to offer this permitted right to, but there are some where it could be equally inappropriate.

If a planning authority could have a list of exclusions of properties where (with sound, defined reasons) such an extension to permitted rights was not allowed, this could mitigate problems for "difficult" sites.

Question 5:

Do you agree there should be permitted development rights, as proposed, for buildings used for agricultural purposes to change use to new state funded schools and nurseries proving childcare and to carry out building work connected with the change of use?

Answer:

No.

For the same reasons as 3 above: "There are already landowners trying to play the system by creating a smallholding on land where development has not been permitted, to put up small buildings to support that smallholding, and then seek conversion to residential afterwards. This process is a fraud, and shouldn't be made easier."

Question 6:

Do you have any comments and further evidence on the benefits and impact of our proposals set out in the consultation?

Answer:

Yes.

It's not clear what these proposals are seeking to achieve: if the idea is to make it quicker to go for such alterations, then set lower scale planning fees, shorten the application process, streamline the forms that need to be fllled in (even the most basic applications currently require completing daunting forms that request information that should not be required) rather than removing the requirement for proposals to be considered at all.

Planning IS currently a delay on many developments, but that's due to poor system design and management, not necessarily that the system itself is wrong. Fix the design and management, rather than discarding the principle that Council's, neighbours and consultative bodies should have some oversight and, within constraints a say, on appropriate developments in their area.