The Government have announced an amendment to the proposed increase in Permitted Development Rights for single storey rear extensions.

Under current consideration is a proposal to double the depth of single storey rear extensions from 3m and 4m for semi/ terrace and detached houses. This temporary change (for three years) will not apply to areas currently protected under PDR, eg Conservation Areas, AONB etc.

The latest change is to propose that should you wish to exercise the larger option then a consultation with your neighbours will be carried out by the local planning authority (you now have to formally inform them before carrying out the work)  and your neighbours will have 21 days to object. On receipt of an objection then the LPA will consider the impact of the proposals and if they agree with your neighbour then the proposal will be refused. You will be allowed to appeal this, submit a smaller proposal or submit a planning application instead.

Anyone wanting detailed advices on Permitted Development Rights should contact our nearest office.

Read more at the Planning Portal website:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2013/apr13/250413/25042013_1

READ IT HERE

As we predicted – there are NO planned changes to the current Permitted Development Rights in Conservation Areas, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Parks. In addition, there are no planned changes to the current Permitted Development Rights for Listed Buildings.

The safeguards that are inherent within the existing PDR remain in force for these Article 1(5) areas. The principal changes that will be of interest to the majority of our clients relate simply to single storey rear extensions but, as noted above, this does not apply in every instance.

The Consultation document suggests, somewhat misleadingly in our opinion, that this will save householders time and money. We would always advocate obtaining a Lawful Development Certificate for any work you intend to do under what you beleive are Permitted Development Rights – there may be other, more hidden, legislation such as detailed Article 4 Directives, that have reduced the scope of PDR for your property.

Always remember as well that planning permission and / or Permitted Development Rights do not auomatically confer a “right to build”. There is a wealth of other legislation that needs to be navigated including Building Regulations, Party Wall etc Act, Rights of Light, Restrictive Covenants, proximity to shared drains / public sewers or other services etc etc.

Obtaining clear professional advice from the outset is the best way of avoiding a potentially very costly mistake!

Designed as a mirrored pair of Sussex vernacular homes, the houses take advantage of the long site and are set back substantially from the quite road, sharing a central access driveway allowing the existing mature trees to the front of the site to be retained.

Careful consideration of the local planning policies and a design that is sensitive to the local architectural style and character of the immediate area allowed for a smooth route through planning and positive feedback from the Pre-Application meeting with the planners. This scheme demonstrates that while it may be considered ‘garden-grabbing’ by some the planners can be supportive of well thought out and reasoned applications.

The client, disheartened by the outright refusal of the earlier scheme, had decided to drop their ideas for a two storey rear extension to give them a larger ground floor plan but alos a much needed additional bedroom, larger family bathroom and first floor study. Instead they simply wanted us to look at a design for a single storey rear extension.

However, using our detailed knowledge of the Technical Guidance on Permitted Development Rights, we have now completed the designs for a two storey rear extension that answers everything that the client wished for in their initial briefing – the extra bedroom, larger family bathroom and first floor study as well as a ground floor music room, new large kitchen / family room and separate utility room.

All of this has been created using their existing Permitted Development Rights thereby circumventing the need for a full planning permission application and avoiding the possibility of a refusal or objection from the planners.

It always pays to take proper advice from suitably qualified Architects who know the planning system properly – you never know what you can acheive unless you ask!

The Ombudsman has, it seems, recommended that a ‘before’ and ‘after’ valuation is carried out on the complainants property to assess the cost impact on the neighbouring development with a view that Melton Borough Council should stump up the cost difference!

Read more about it here.

The scheme was given full backing by the planning officers, describing it as meeting the requirements of Policy HE8 requiring developments adjacent to Conservation Areas “to be of a high standard to ensure that the design is in harmony with the characteristic form of the area and surrounding buildings”. The Planning Officer’s report went on to state that the proposal was “well designed and consistent with the Councils SPD and Farnham Design Guide.”  Discussing the objections on ‘overdevelopment’, ‘impact on the Conservation Area’, ‘loss of light and overshadowing’ and ‘overlooking’ raised by the the neighbouring councillor the planning officer reported that the “officers were unable to share [those] concerns”.

The completely unnecessary delay to the project while it was brought to committee has not deterred our client who will now push on quickly with the development having already secured Building Regulations approval through the use of an Approved Inspector.

What would have happened if the Localism agenda held sway – would one person’s opinion have railroaded our clients chance to improve their property? Is this really a democratic way to decide things?

A full copy can be found here.

Clearly, one thing of major concern to us is the impact proposed on the Planning Process and the introduction of a the ‘Right to Build’; the proposal to give local communities the ability to vote by a local referendum on development proposals rather than go through the planning process. Hhmmm.. “Right to Build” or “Right to Block”?

The Government have acknowledged that people are concerned that no-one is going to want new houses built on their doorstep but have said, in the above document, the following:

Nimbys will take over and stop all new development – This argument assumes that our highly centralised planning system is delivering the development we need. In fact, new homes are being built at the slowest rate since the war and investment in new infrastructure is falling behind. The only way forward is to embrace decentralised development that is not merely accepted, but actually led by local communities – because local people get to share in the benefits.

So that’s ok then – local communities won’t try to block any new development near where they live because they are all philanthropic and look towards the greater good of the community for years to come, realising that we need to build new houses for places for people to live in the future as the population continues to grow.

Afterall, how many times do local people rally round to raise spurious and vehement objections to development purely because they don’t want any building work being done near where they live?

The world has finally gone mad!

Still, on the upside – there are plans afoot to allow developers to ‘financially compensate’ those possibly effected by their proposals to ensure that they don’t object. I can see the sales of large brown paper bags going up….. Bribery anyone?

The High Court today ruled that communities secretary Eric Pickles’ decision to scrap regional spatial strategies (RSSs) was unlawful.

The judgement is the culmination of a case brought in August by housebuilder Cala Homes, which applied for a judicial review into Pickles’ decision.

In May, Pickles wrote to the leaders of local planning authorities informing them of the coalition Government’s intention to abolish RSSs, and telling them that they could disregard with immediate effect the housing targets laid out in regional plans.

But Cala Homes argued that the communities secretary acted outside his powers by removing a fundamental part of the planning system and claimed that Pickles breached his obligations under European Union law by failing to assess the environmental effects of withdrawing regional strategies and failing to put transitional arrangements in place.

Its challenge to the Government centred on a proposal to build 2,000 homes in Winchester that was rejected in June and would have gone to appeal. But no appeal can take place, Cala Homes argued, while there is an absence of planning policy in the form of the South East regional plan.

In court today, Justice Sales ruled that Pickles was not entitled to revoke regional strategies under existing planning law. He said: “Parliament has given no clear or sufficient indication that that principal [that each region should have a regional strategy] may be set aside by virtue of a contrary policy judgement.”

He added: “The revocation of the South-East Plan is likely to have an immediate impact upon determination of planning applications…I consider that the secretary of state acted unlawfully by purporting to revoke the [RSS].”

Ian Ginbey, head of planning at Macfarlanes LLP, which acted for Cala Homes, said: “The High Court has recognised that the secretary of state’s unilateral revocation of regional strategies was unlawful and premature.

“[Pickles’] decision left a policy vacuum, caused confusion throughout the industry and directly resulted in proposals for tens of thousands of new homes being abandoned. Those housing proposals will now need to be revisited prior to the passage of any primary legislation.”

And a statement from the Home Builders Federation (HBF) said: “Today’s High Court decision is a wake-up call for the Government to put in place clear transitional arrangements for the move from the old planning system towards its proposed localism-based system.

“The revocation of the RSSs, just weeks after the election, left a massive hole in the planning process and considerable confusion among everyone involved in the delivery of housing.”

But Simon Randall, a consultant at law firm Winckworth Sherwood, said: “The court ruling will no doubt be a huge embarrassment to the Government but is unlikely to change anything in the long term.

“The Government is bringing forward its Localism Bill later this month and the decision will be rectified by way of a provision in this bill. Cala Homes has won a short reprieve, but RSSs will no longer play a role in determining local planning matters.”

Local government minister Bob Neill said: “This judgement changes very little. Later this month we will be introducing the Localism Bill, which will sweep away the controversial regional spatial strategies. Top-down targets do not build homes.

“The Government remains firmly resolved to scrap this layer of confusing red tape. Instead, we will work with local communities to build more homes. This was a commitment made in the coalition agreement and we intend to deliver on it.”