Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
3
Recommendation
Third Report - Permitted Development Ri…
Rejected
We recommend the Government pause any further extensions of permitted development rights for change of use to residential, including the new class MA right, which is due to take effect on 1 August, and conduct a review of their role within the wider planning system. As part of that review, …
Read more
We recommend the Government pause any further extensions of permitted development rights for change of use to residential, including the new class MA right, which is due to take effect on 1 August, and conduct a review of their role within the wider planning system. As part of that review, it should set out its long-term vision for permitted development for change of use to residential and explain how it plans to retain the benefits of these PDRs whilst not also sacrificing the ability of local planning authorities to control the quality of development. In setting out its long-term vision, the Government should set out how the PDR regime fits with the wider reforms to the planning system and what plans it has, if any, to further extend permitted development rights. (Paragraph 25) Impact on local authorities
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to pause and review permitted development rights, asserting their continued importance as a delivery tool for housing and other sectors, reducing bureaucratic burdens. It reiterates its commitment to PDRs, including future extensions, and mentions the upcoming requirement for local design …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
6
Conclusion
Third Report - Permitted Development Ri…
Rejected
Local councils should be able to protect certain areas from permitted developments rights where they have legitimate concerns about the impact on town centres, high streets and commercial centres. We welcome the amendment to the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework clarifying that Article 4 directions may be …
Read more
Local councils should be able to protect certain areas from permitted developments rights where they have legitimate concerns about the impact on town centres, high streets and commercial centres. We welcome the amendment to the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework clarifying that Article 4 directions may be applied “to prevent the loss of the essential core of a primary shopping area”. This is an improvement on the original proposal, although it is too early to say if it goes far enough. It is also not clear why the Government feel it necessary to amend the current wording or what problem it is trying to fix. In addition, we still believe that councils should not have to wait one year before being able to apply a direction without also being liable to pay compensation to developers.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government defends its current policy on Article 4 directions, stating the higher threshold for their application relating to residential change of use supports high street regeneration. It explains that compensation liability for withdrawn permitted development rights is set by primary legislation, and the 12-month …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
9
Conclusion
Third Report - Permitted Development Ri…
Rejected
We support the Government’s aim of revitalising our high streets and town centres, but we are concerned that the new class MA right could undermine attempts to do so. The current requirement that properties need only have been vacant from three months could put viable businesses at risk of being …
Read more
We support the Government’s aim of revitalising our high streets and town centres, but we are concerned that the new class MA right could undermine attempts to do so. The current requirement that properties need only have been vacant from three months could put viable businesses at risk of being evicted by landlords seeking a profit from residential conversions. This resulting loss of businesses could have a negative effect on footfall. As we heard repeatedly, a viable business will attract more footfall than a residential conversion. We cannot see how footfall will be boosted if high street shops, which serve local workers and visitors, are replaced by flats. That being said, we acknowledge that there may be merit in converting upper Permitted Development Rights 39 floors of properties on the high street. We are also concerned that the protection for ground-floor premises in the prior approval process applies only in conservation areas.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government defends the Class MA permitted development right, stating it supports thriving high streets and prevents empty premises, citing the two-year rule to prevent gaming. It rejects extending ground-floor protections beyond conservation areas, arguing it would make the process too onerous.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
10
Recommendation
Third Report - Permitted Development Ri…
Rejected
The Government should either extend the vacancy period or devise a test that can be applied to properties to make sure they are not still viable as class E premises. It should consider the most appropriate vacancy period or test as part of the review of PDRs for change of …
Read more
The Government should either extend the vacancy period or devise a test that can be applied to properties to make sure they are not still viable as class E premises. It should consider the most appropriate vacancy period or test as part of the review of PDRs for change of use to residential. We also recommend the Government amend the prior approval process for the class MA right so that councils, in deciding whether to approve development, can consider the impact of a loss of ground-floor commercial, business and service use on the sustainability of a town centre or high street. (Paragraph 63) Housing
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects amending the prior approval process for Class MA rights, stating the current system balances support for high streets and prevents gaming, and that further changes would create an undue burden. It does not address the recommendation to extend the vacancy period or …
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government