Third Report - Permitted Development Rights

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 … 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

View Details →

As we have already recommended, the Government should review the role of permitted development rights in the planning system. As part of that review, it should consider how to amend the prior approval process to both simplify it and give … Read more As we have already recommended, the Government should review the role of permitted development rights in the planning system. As part of that review, it should consider how to amend the prior approval process to both simplify it and give local authorities the tools they need to shape their communities in line with Local Plans. In addition, the Government should calculate the cost to local authorities of processing prior approval applications and increase the fees accordingly. Show less

View Details →

The Government should clarify why it considers it necessary to amend paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and set out how the new wording addresses the issues it is seeking to resolve. In addition, we recommend that the … Read more The Government should clarify why it considers it necessary to amend paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and set out how the new wording addresses the issues it is seeking to resolve. In addition, we recommend that the Government monitor whether the changes to paragraph 53 give councils the power they need to protect high streets and town centres from permitted development rights for change of use to residential. If the evidence suggests they do not, the Government should amend the wording again to give councils greater freedom to restrict the use of PDRs in certain areas. We also recommend that the Government allow councils to apply Article 4 directions more quickly without having to pay compensation to developers. (Paragraph 44) Impact on high streets and town centres Show less

View Details →

We broadly welcome the new use class E, as we can see the advantages of greater flexibility, but it should not permit development to bypass the sequential test or risk the loss of medical centres. As we have already recommended, … Read more We broadly welcome the new use class E, as we can see the advantages of greater flexibility, but it should not permit development to bypass the sequential test or risk the loss of medical centres. As we have already recommended, the Government should review the role of permitted development rights within the planning system. As part of that review, we recommend it consider amending the use class regime to prevent out-of-town commercial and business premises from being converted to retail without having first gone through the sequential test and to prevent the loss of medical centres through change of use within the new use class E. Show less

View Details →

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 … 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

View Details →

As already recommended, the Government should pause any further extensions of permitted development, including the new class MA right, which is due to take effect on 1 August, and conduct a review of all PDRs for change of use to … Read more As already recommended, the Government should pause any further extensions of permitted development, including the new class MA right, which is due to take effect on 1 August, and conduct a review of all PDRs for change of use to residential. As part of this review, it should consider how to extend prior approval without also adding to the burden on local authorities. In particular, we recommend that local authorities be able to prevent the siting of homes in inappropriate locations, such as business and industrial parks. Among other amendments to prior approval, the Government should consider the following: • requiring the installation of windows (rather than just skylights) as part of the requirement for adequate natural light; • requiring the provision of outdoor private or communal amenity space; and • enabling local authorities to require that overall the housing delivered through PDRs contributes a mix of housing types that fits with their own assessment of housing need in their area. Show less

View Details →

Whatever the Government’s long-term plans for permitted development and the Infrastructure Levy, we recommend it legislate as soon as possible to ensure that permitted development contributes towards the cost of providing the infrastructure and affordable housing needed to offset any … Read more Whatever the Government’s long-term plans for permitted development and the Infrastructure Levy, we recommend it legislate as soon as possible to ensure that permitted development contributes towards the cost of providing the infrastructure and affordable housing needed to offset any negative impact on the local community. (Paragraph 91) Permitted Development Rights 41 Show less

View Details →

The Government’s recent changes to the use class system and the introduction of the class MA permitted development right are a continuation of the policy of successive governments since 2013 of using PDR to speed up housing delivery. We understand the intention behind residential PDRs. We also support the use …

View Details →

To date, the Government has not explained how its PDR regime fits within the wider planning system or its proposed reforms in the planning White Paper. In particular, the recent extensions to permitted development appear to contradict the increased focus on plan-led development and local democratic involvement, and to fatally …

View Details →

The prior approval process is the principal mechanism by which local planning authorities can control permitted development in their areas, and we welcome the recent inclusion of more criteria, but we are concerned about its increasing complexity and the consequent impact on councils’ resources. This tension— between setting necessary limits …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

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 …

View Details →

When compared to the overall number of new homes being delivered, it appears that permitted development rights have made a contribution to the supply of new homes, although the precise number is difficult to calculate given the likelihood that some of these homes would have been built anyway. It also …

View Details →

Housing delivered under permitted development can have as great an impact on local infrastructure and the delivery of services as housing built through the full planning process. It should therefore contribute to the cost of offsetting its negative impact. The loss of affordable housing is a particularly unfortunate consequence of …

View Details →