tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post7183946118649091268..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: GPDO 2015 - a problem?Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-78106178667386882232018-06-29T14:04:13.917+01:002018-06-29T14:04:13.917+01:00The anonymous query of 30 August 2017 is one of th...The anonymous query of 30 August 2017 is one of those that has been ‘stuck’ in the system.<br /><br />I reached the conclusion some time ago that an Article 4 Direction made under the GPDO 1995 would still apply to PD of the equivalent class under the 2015 Order.<br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-86218402244515250812017-08-30T18:51:44.181+01:002017-08-30T18:51:44.181+01:00Dear Martin,
Did you ever arrive at a satisfactor...Dear Martin,<br /><br />Did you ever arrive at a satisfactory answer to the question above - whether there was any saving provision which preserved the effect of Article 4 directions which had been made under GDPO 1995 so that they would continue to have effect under GDPO 2015? <br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Rob<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-72000141400745105422015-05-27T12:19:21.754+01:002015-05-27T12:19:21.754+01:00Martin,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on th...Martin,<br /><br />Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter. As ever, I find your posts extremely informative and helpful. I have recently discussed the implications of the new GPDO with collegauges and would like to add a comment on the affect of any Prior Approvals granted prior to the new introduction of the new GPDO: My understanding is that they are not made redundant because section 16(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (read with section 23(1) of the same Act) states that where one set of regulations repeals another set of regulations, that repeal does not affect anything done under the original regulations. Accordingly, the steps taken, and everything done, under the former (repealed) regulations, remains validly taken and done.<br /><br />It would be much appreciated if you could share your thoughts on Prior Approvals/Article 4 Directions in the new GPDO: The existing deadline provides that Class O development must be begun before 30 May 2016. However, Reg 4(2)(a) introduces another deadline, in circumstances where an Article 4 Direction has been made. My understanding is that this provides that an Article 4 Direction does not affect the carrying out of Class O development which is permitted by a Prior Approval given before the Article 4 Direction comes into force. This would imply that where an Article 4 Direction has been confirmed, the SoS no would no longer need to modify it in order to 'protect' any properties from losing their Prior Approval prior to the Article 4 Direction coming into effect - do you agree with my interpretation?<br /><br />Good luck with you new book - I look forward to reading it!<br /><br />Many thanks,<br /><br />TomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-23199777818916862872015-05-27T11:02:33.811+01:002015-05-27T11:02:33.811+01:00Or is there some other general rule of statutory i...Or is there some other general rule of statutory interpretation which would preserve the effect of repealed legislation in any way?<br /><br />I am no lawyer, but this seems to be covered under the general savings provisions in s16 of the Interpretation Act 1978. I enjoy the blog, many thanks for writing it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-11730491799894756702015-05-26T15:09:56.948+01:002015-05-26T15:09:56.948+01:00In answer to Dominic Heath-Coleman (21 May), my vi...In answer to Dominic Heath-Coleman (21 May), my view is that if development has been carried out under former Class MB, this will have had the effect of removing Part 6 development rights for 10 years. I think this condition must be deemed to have survived the repeal of the 1995 Order. So Part 6 PD rights are lost whether residential conversion is carried out either under former Class MB, or under the new Class Q.<br /><br />I am, however, open to persuasion if anyone thinks I am wrong about this.<br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-6576639909514362842015-05-26T15:01:54.534+01:002015-05-26T15:01:54.534+01:00In answer to C McNally (25 May), there was a provi...In answer to C McNally (25 May), there was a provision in the former Class M that after a change of use had been made under that class, the development that was permitted at that time by the former Part 41, Class B applied in the same way as it applied to an office building. This permitted the provision or replacement of a limited area of hard surface within the curtilage of the building. However, there is no longer any such provision in Class R, and so any operational development of this nature will now require planning permission. <br /><br />Instead, Class R provides that if planning permission is given for such ‘associated’ operational development, then the three-year time limit for commencing the permitted development starts from the date of that planning permission, rather than from the prior approval date.<br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-80313430839505917502015-05-25T15:58:10.129+01:002015-05-25T15:58:10.129+01:00Hi Martin, this is the first time I have left a co...Hi Martin, this is the first time I have left a comment on your blog, the information you share is irreplaceable. This current topic is of great interest to me, I do grasp the technical point in addition I am aware of LPA using technical points in a negative way when ever possible.<br /><br />The former Class M had a cut off point of 500 sq metres, also a building not exceeding 150 sq metres only required a notification procedure. I have used the 150 sq metres to change the use of a 147 sq metre building. I have another building on the same site that does not exceed 150 sq metres, I do feel that the technical point in your blog could be used to my advantage for this building under Class R in that the simpler notification procedure could be used. Am I correct that the former Class M and Class R differ on a significant point Ie. Class R allows for associated operational development, where as the former Class M did not, your trusted opinion would be most appreciated.C McNallyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05909146698064384082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-78815484933770887452015-05-24T18:42:33.397+01:002015-05-24T18:42:33.397+01:00We had a question at Planning Aid England. Someone...We had a question at Planning Aid England. Someone had obtained the first part of the approval for a Class MB barn conversion and had approached the LPA about making the 2nd one, but had been told he had to start again under Class Q as MB was now revoked. Having looked at the provisions I answered it seemed the LPA was right, though was able to add unless circumstances had changed I felt the LPA should not refuse the new appn under Class Q. <br /><br />John HarrisonJohn Harrisonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-2499357164052677952015-05-22T17:08:04.330+01:002015-05-22T17:08:04.330+01:00Looking forward to the book Martin, I'm sure i...Looking forward to the book Martin, I'm sure it will do very well and is likely to become a standard text for planners and consultants alike!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-46831753328501426032015-05-22T09:56:17.382+01:002015-05-22T09:56:17.382+01:00Yes. The book is intended to be available both as...Yes. The book is intended to be available both as an ebook and in printed form.Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-28019552110106206922015-05-21T17:06:20.694+01:002015-05-21T17:06:20.694+01:00I hope the book will be available in digital forma...I hope the book will be available in digital format.<br /><br />Rgds<br /><br />Ali MusaniUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13832963141027116128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-35258573643236440652015-05-21T12:06:49.699+01:002015-05-21T12:06:49.699+01:00I assume that this would also have the effect of r...I assume that this would also have the effect of resetting the removal of certain PD rights from parts of the GPDO when development is carried out under the provisions of another part. For example, when development is carried out under class Q of part 3 it has the effect of removing permitted development rights for new agricultural buildings under Part 6. So if work had been carried out under part MB of the previous GPDO the part 6 permitted development rights under the new GPDO would now be intact. There are other examples as well. Your thoughts?Dominic Heath-Colemannoreply@blogger.com