Changes to Permitted Development Rights for Non-Residential Properties
Having made changes to expand permitted development rights for residential properties in October 2008, the Government is now consulting on proposals for a similar exercise to widen permitted development rights for non-residential properties. The move stems from a finding in the Killian Pretty report that the cost to businesses of obtaining planning permission for minor development such as changes to shop fronts, small extensions or installing cash machines far outweighed the impact that such development has. In order to address this, particularly in light of the additional difficulties businesses face in the current economic crisis, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued a consultation paper on 30 July 2009 which proposes the following changes. Interested parties have until 23 October 2009 to respond.
Permitted Development
Shops
Retail and town centres uses do not currently benefit from any specific permitted development rights to alter or improve existing buildings or to build new buildings. The consultation paper proposes to introduce new permitted development rights to allow shops and other town centre uses to alter and extend existing buildings up to 50 square metres up to a maximum of 25% of their existing floor area and subject to restrictions on height, proximity to boundaries, use of materials and loss of vehicle turning space. Shops would not be able to create new freestanding buildings other than trolley parks.
Offices
There are currently no permitted development rights for offices but the consultation paper proposes to change that by allowing offices to extend an existing building up to 50 square metres to a maximum of 25% of existing floorspace. There would be restrictions on height, proximity to boundaries, visibility from highways, use of materials and loss of vehicle turning space. There would be no right for offices to build new freestanding buildings without planning permission.
Institutions
Institutions such as universities, colleges, hospitals and some Council buildings already benefit from some permitted development rights however they are not always clearly expressed and are subject to limitations that may not be appropriate. The Government is now proposing to introduce new permitted development rights for universities, colleges and hospitals to allow them to build new extensions of up to 100 square metres for existing buildings and/or one new building per existing building provided the additional floorspace does not exceed 25% of the size of the original building. This would be subject to limitations on height, proximity to boundaries, amount of ground coverage and use of materials.
Schools
New permitted development rights are proposed for schools to allow them to extend and/or create one new building per existing building up to 50 square metres but it would not allow schools to increase the number of pupils they can accommodate as that has other implications on neighbouring properties, such as increased traffic, which need to be properly controlled by the planning system. Building would not be permitted on playing fields and the same limitations would be applied as for universities, colleges and hospitals.
Industry and warehousing
Part 8 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 currently includes permitted development rights for industry and warehouses to extend their buildings by up to 1000 square metres (or 500 square metres in sensitive areas) provided the increased volume does not exceed 25% of the original building (or 10% in sensitive areas)but this does not include the right to construct new buildings. DCLG propose to add to the existing permitted development rights by allowing industry and warehouses to construct one new building per existing building up to 100 square metres. The present permitted development rights do not apply to research and development uses but it is proposed that both the existing and the new permitted development rights in this category should do so. There will be limitations on height, proximity to boundaries, ground coverage, loss of vehicle turning areas and use of materials.
Air conditioning units
Some local authorities currently treat air conditioning units as requiring planning permission while others consider them to fall within the parameters of the permitted development regime. DCLG are considering extending permitted development rights to air conditioning units subject to certain limitations. They estimate that doing so would remove 5,600 planning applications from the system annually and save businesses £9 million a year however they are concerned that an increase in the use of air conditioning would increase air temperature in the summer making it harder for more environmentally friendly options such as passive cooling systems to work.
Prior Approval
The Government is also considering introducing a system of prior approval for the installation of hole in the wall style ATM machines and the alteration of shop fronts which are not in conservation areas, on listed buildings or in World Heritage Sites. An applicant would make an application to the local planning authority and if no comment was received from the local planning authority within 28 days then consent would be deemed to be granted. There would be no need for public consultation on applications as they are generally considered to be uncontentious. Local planning authorities would be able to control the design, appearance and siting of the development but not the principle of it.
Article 4 directions
The consultation paper proposes ways to simplify the procedure for making an Article 4 direction to remove permitted development rights in order to reduce the present burden on local planning authorities. At present local planning authorities can make Article 4 directions but can be liable for claims for compensation years later if they refuse planning permission for a development that would previously have been permitted development. Section 189 of the Planning Act 2008 proposes to limit liability to 12 months and to remove it altogether where 12 months advance notice of the withdrawal of permitted development rights has been given.
In order to simplify the procedure for making an Article 4 direction the consultation paper proposes removing the need for the Secretary of State to approve the direction but retaining a power for the Secretary of State to revoke or revise directions. It also proposes that local planning authorities should consult for at least 21 days before confirming an Article 4 direction. Directions will be notified by serving notice on the owner or occupier of the land to which the direction relates or by site notice. The ability to make a 6 month direction removing permitted development rights immediately in appropriate circumstances will remain.
Hardstanding
The consultation paper also suggests changes to the regulation of hard surfacing that can be laid by certain non-domestic uses in order to reduce flood risk from surface water run off. The intention is that shops, offices and institutions should be able to lay up to 50 square metres of permeable hard surfacing as permitted development. Industry currently has permitted development rights to lay unlimited amounts of hardstanding and DCLG are proposing to amend this so that they can still do so but only if provision is made for surface water to drain to a permeable area (unless there is a risk of contamination in which case the hard surfacing would have to be impermeable).
Conclusion
Given that the Killian Pretty Review found that 80% of planning applications for minor non-domestic development are approved it makes a lot of sense to reduce the burden on both business and local authorities by removing a large proportion of the simplest type of this kind of application from the planning system and by streamlining the application process for the slightly more complex applications. The consultation paper estimates that, if the proposals are implemented in full, they should result in approximately 25,000 planning applications being removed from the system every year in England.
This article was first published in the Property Law Journal on 28 August 2009.
