tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post6675337608577882508..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Avoiding changes of use from B1(a) to C3Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-3746232118780224142013-07-30T10:34:48.440+01:002013-07-30T10:34:48.440+01:00To save readers having to copy and paste the link ...To save readers having to copy and paste the link and then enter the application number, the application was refused on the grounds that “The proposed change of use from B1(a) office use to C3 residential use has previously been undertaken with the occupation of the majority of the residential units. On this basis, prior approval under Class J is refused.”<br /><br />I don’t know the facts of this case, but if development in respect of which a prior notification or prior approval application is required is carried out before the notification or application is received by the LPA, it cannot be permitted development. There can be no retrospective approval under this procedure of development that has already been carried out, even if it would otherwise have been PD. A full planning application would be the only way of sorting it out.<br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-83885444869602396662013-07-30T09:58:45.206+01:002013-07-30T09:58:45.206+01:00You may be interested in the attache decision by E...You may be interested in the attache decision by Elmbridge Borough Council in relation to an application for Prior Approval on an office building in Weybridge (ref: 2013/2323). The decision was made under delegated powers and the officer addresses the questions of prior approval was needed (it was) and the application of Part N re the NPPF.<br /><br />http://www2.elmbridge.gov.uk/Planet/ispforms.asp?serviceKey=SysDoc-PlanetApplicationEnquiryNick Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-50386603759052967042013-07-11T13:15:52.581+01:002013-07-11T13:15:52.581+01:00I am sory if I missed the point of Jeremy's or...I am sory if I missed the point of Jeremy's original question. The answer to the point Jeremy raises is to be found in paragraphs 42 to 50 of Circular 06/2005. This is too lengthy to summarise here. Permitted development is not precluded, but an appropriate assessment may be required under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as part of the prior notification procedure. There is a useful flowchart in the circular (Figure 2) that shows the steps that need to be taken.Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-84183104367491942662013-07-09T10:28:19.234+01:002013-07-09T10:28:19.234+01:00Thanks for responding so soon Martin.
Although I&...Thanks for responding so soon Martin.<br /><br />Although I've mentioned EIA (which we both seem clear on) my query really is based more on the implications of Class J in relation the Habitat Regulations.<br /><br />Development that, on its own or cumulatively, is likely to have a significant effect on the protected areas gets caught. This can include just one dwelling and therefore the threshold seems to be set much lower than EIA matters. <br /><br />Surely Class J development in close proximity to European protected sites is illegal?Jeremy Ebdonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-81886869036186024022013-07-09T09:44:41.422+01:002013-07-09T09:44:41.422+01:00It is perfectly clear that if a development requir...It is perfectly clear that if a development requires an EIA, this prevents its being permitted development, and a planning application must be made, accompanied by the EIA. This would apply to all types of permitted development in the second schedule to the GPDO, including those in the newly amended Part 3 (such as Class J).<br /><br />As Jeremy says, there are likely to be very few developments under Part 3, Class J that would give rise to a need for an EIA, and so this is going to be a very rare situation. If there is a real possibility of an EIA being required, a wise developer should perhaps seek a screening opinion from the LPA for the proposed development, before any form of development application is submitted. If it becomes clear that an EIA is required, then the developer will know that they will have to make a planning application. However, if the LPA determines that no EIA is required, then the developer can safely proceed with a prior approval application under the GPDO.<br /><br />I don’t think there is any need or justification for an Article 4 Direction in this sort of case; the existing rules provide the necessary environmental protection of designated areas. If you think about it, an Article 4 Direction would just be useless duplication in circumstances in which (if an EIA is required) a full planning application would be required in any event.<br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-5068017213106160022013-07-09T08:39:39.960+01:002013-07-09T08:39:39.960+01:00Martin,
I posted the following question on the Pl...Martin,<br /><br />I posted the following question on the Planning (magazine) website, although the article (on which you commented - first example of B1 to C3)) has now dropped off the bottom of the page so I don't expect many replies. I wondered if you had any thoughts?<br /><br /><br />Like many LPAs, we have several European protected sites in our patch. We are currently using a Joint Interim Agreement that has been devised with several neighouring LPAs and agreed by Natural England which in a simple form requires a set financial contribution per dwelling/unit if it falls within 10km of the protected areas. I this way, the impacts (individually and cumulatively) of the development are mitigated (money pays for different projects in mitigation, including SANGS) and we are able to consent development in line with the Habitat Regulations.<br /><br />I know of at least one large vacant office block not more than 200m from the protected areas that could fit maybe up to 40 flats depending on how you carved it up. That's just one building, there are plenty of others.<br /><br />So as we all know the decision making body (usually LPA) cannot legally grant consent for development if it would on its own, or in combination with other developments, be likely to have a significant effect on the protected habitats (Habitat Regulations). I understand the mechanics of the GPDO such that permission has already been granted by the government for the developments contained therein, subject to the conditions specified. <br /><br />So, is Class J in contravention of the Habitat Regulations in these situations? Or do LPAs have to secure mitigation? In 56 days? Or does some responsibility lie with the developer?<br /><br />I have pondered whether Class J may not apply where a development is EIA development. However I can't think of many situations where this would be likely as the bar for having a 'significant effect on the environment' seems to be set so much higher under the EIA regulations as opposed to the test as to whether under the Habitat Regulations there is likely to be a significant effect either on a development's own merits or in combination.<br /><br />Thinking on this post in particular, does the LPA have some responsibility then to serve an Article 4 direction in the relevant areas (where an effect on protected sites is likely)?<br /><br />Thanks for any insights.<br />Jeremy Ebdonnoreply@blogger.com