Mezzanine Floors

The Minister has announced the intention to align parts of Welsh retail planning with the English approach by bringing proposals for additional floor space over 200 square metres within the existing footprint of a building used for retail purposes within the control of the planning system.   

Consultation is ongoing until 13 February 2015.

The changes wont affect increases in floor space of less than 200m2 which will continue not to be considered "development". 

S106 Affordable Housing and Tariff charges: Small Developments and Self -Build

If you are a small developer you will be delighted to learn that last Friday the Government changed national planning practice guidance, setting out that Councils should no longer charge contributions for affordable housing or other tariff type charges (eg Public Open Space) on residential developments of 10 units or less (with a total of 1000sqm or less) nor on domestic extensions or residential annexes.

Smaller thresholds of 6-10 residential units apply in designated "rural areas" (National Parks/AONB).

If you got excited its England guidance only.  Here in Wales there is no sign of Welsh Government taking any steps to lessen this type of burden.

It pays to take good advice

As Planning Authorities in North Wales ever more rigorously apply SPG to their LDP polices, setting out their aspirations to deliver affordable housing, public open space and other requirements, we are increasingly finding schemes are moving through to permissions with either conditions or S106 obligations to deal with these. The effect of which requires commuted sums to be paid for off-site provision, in lieu of it on-site. 

In the last 24 hours, we have been approached to offer advise on a two schemes, totalling 8 flats in two town centre conversion schemes where sums of over £60000 are being sought on a commuted basis by the Councils involved.

Both situations have involved the use of very capable but generalist design advisors up to the stage where planning has been or is about to be granted.  Neither are Planning Specialists (as we are) and it appears neither client has factored such costs to their viability - simply because they were not told. 

There are policy and legal duties relating to the use of conditions and S106 obligations and we can always advise whether these will apply to a development from the outset. We assist in establishing such potential costs (often and preferably pre-acquisition so that they can be factored into development viability and land value calculations). We may well be able to challenge or reduce the scale of charges through careful examination of the development, policy background to the requests and assessment of the viability of your development.   

Please contact us for assistance before its too late.

P

Amendments to Planning Permissions

We are often asked to assist developers post consent when they need to amend or make ordinarily modest changes to schemes, sometimes as a result of oversight,  regulatory change or just packaging a scheme.  Past Court decisions have meant Councils have often been reluctant to agree any variations to permissions without formality of a new application.  

From 01 September the Welsh Government a new procedures will be introduced in Wales deal to formalise non material changes position.  It has been operating in England for some time with "some" success.  Published guidance can be read here.

A)  Non Material Amendments:  Small changes based on four tests dealing with scale of change and degree of impact, effect on other parties and conflict with policy. A non-material amendment application can be used to modify planning conditions on a permission and can be sought if required retrospectively. It can be done before during or after a development is completed.   

LPA's will no longer be able to deal with non material changes informally (e.g exchange of letter).  So we expect to see quite an upsurge in this type of application. 

A standard application form must be used and the Council has 28 days to make its decision and a fee payable to the Council. If refused, there is no right of appeal but the option to use the following routes would be available.

B) Minor Material Changes and Major Material Changes:

S73 applications can be used to make minor materials changes to developments - where they are not "non-material" (As has always been the case and practice).  Where there is no condition on a permission (ordinarily one that requires development to be carried our in accordance with the approved plans) the non-material change approach can in the first instance be used to secure such a condition, although we are struggling to see the merit in that.

There is a right of appeal to a refusal of an application under S73(in effect a new permission)  as in the past.

The new guidance stresses the importance of dialogue and pre-application discussion to ensure the best route is taken. We trust that Development Management teams remain suitably resourced to ensure that officers are well versed with the changes and operate with the necessary flexibility to make these changes work.

A break

In what is becoming something of a tradition, we close today for a summer break. 

We took over a month off last summer, dealing with sailing championships for children, school holiday and breaks away.  This year sees a family older and people looking to new directions.

Children have completed A' levels and GSCE's and looking to new choices, new lives, new schools, work, university or whatever beckons.  So we take the chance, to take one and her friends away adventuring for a few days and then a family holiday in our beloved France.  In the midst one reaches the age of majority and the inevitable distraction these things bring.

The business has undergone less change than envisaged last summer, and there have been some serious challenges in between, all of which make us stronger.  As the economy slowly grinds upwards we find instructions increasing and the scale of work larger than last year, so we remain optimistic that sustainable growth and opportunity will continue in General Election year and beyond.   

Recharging the batteries is essential. It allows a period of rest, sun, swimming before breakfast, wine at lunchtime and quite possibly a small cafe-Cognac before bed. By the end of it I'm sure we will have reflected and be chomping at the bit with renewed vigour to deliver more and better.

Should you need our services urgently please email plplanning@btconnect.com as we will be picking up email remotely as and when we can.  

Otherwise we thank you for your continued support and look forward to seeing you around the 23rd July. 

P

 

Appeal Success. 17 Apartments. Land for Sale

We are delighted to announce that we have secured approval for 17 apartments for a client on a prime site in Rhos on Sea.  The scheme has no affordable housing requirement and my client is now seeking to dispose of the site.  Contact via email for further details.

Our client resorted to appeal after the Council refused approval citing "inadequate information" on streetscene drawings and sunlight daylight impacts to enable it to positively determine the application, despite having assessed those and supported the impacts in an earlier outline planing permission.

The inspector was moved to comment "Whilst these details might have aided the Council in assessing the scheme I do not consider that such information was essential or that the appellant was under an obligation to provide it" finding that the approval sought complied with the terms of the outline planning permission we previously secured for the client after an earlier refusal.

Yet another example of where our skills get to the heart of things quickly and (cost) effectively.

 (c) Richard Broughton Ltd

BREEAM, Code, Sustainable Buildings

From 31 July 2014, it will no longer be necessary to provide Code for Sustainable Homes or BREEAM reporting with the majority of applications.  

The Minister has now set out how current requirements for BREEAM/Code for Sustainable Homes will be removed from the planning process.  On 31 July 2014, Part B of the sustainable building policy under Planning Policy Wales (minimum sustainable building - standards code level 3, BREEAM para 4.12.4) will be withdrawn.  Decisions made after that date need not take it into account and the current requirement to accompany planning applications with pre-assessment C4SH or BREEAM reports will fall.  The same approach applies to S73 applications to vary planning conditions on existing planning permissions (e.g. requiring interim and post-construction reporting).  We are happy to take instructions on those.

The change is linked to devolving to WG of Building Regulations and the 2014 changes to the Regs. The planning change is procedural (rather than practical) and a welcome one.  It remains to be seen how the practicalities of Building Regs compliance might impact on schemes post-planning.  We will keep an eye on this and the flexibility of planning departments to tweak schemes to meet the 2014 BRegs.

Other parts of the WG sustainability planning policy (designing for climate change and strategic LDP sites) remain in force.  TAN 22 (Planning and Sustainable Building) will be withdrawn in parallel and TAN12 updated. (again as we understand it on 31 July 2014).

The Minister has re-stated his commitment that all new development in Wales be sustainable.  Most LDP's contain sustainable building/construction policies and the main thrust of national policy remains . LDP policies will still have to be considered in developing schemes.  The Minister has warned against developing local-level sustainable building policies in LDP's but that doesn't appear to rule out SPG being developed to flesh out local considerations for current policies - agains we hope if they do that wont push against the spirit of positive planning.  

Pete

PS.  The Future...  The Minister states:

"The next review of Part L, planned for 2016, will consider further steps in energy performance towards meeting the EU Directive target of nearly zero energy new buildings by 2019 for the public sector and 2021 for all new buildings. In the meantime I expect all new development to achieve the new 2014 Building Regulations and for developers to be taking these levels into account in the design of their development proposals (subject to the transitional arrangements set out in Building (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2014/110."

Update

The planning system, policy and law ever changes.  Non more so than at present.  

Although the main focus of our business is  in North Wales for obvious geographical reasons, we work over the "border" too. Driving back from Wrexham along the A483 you briefly drive into England and then back into Wales along the A55.  This week, those "Croeso y Gymru" signs caused me to think about these ever diverging systems.     

ENGLAND:

We've mentioned before Martin Goodall's superb blog which regularly updates on the system in England.  Its definitely worth a look of only to see the speed at which the English Government is "relaxing" planning controls. 

Aside from the temporary (and controversial) 8 metre domestic extensions rules, you can now change the use of offices to dwellings.  change certain agricultural buildings to shops, offices and cafes, as well as temporary flexible uses of typical town centre use buildings.  From 06 April it will be possible to change the use (and carry out necessary operational development) to convert agricultural buildings to dwellings and of A1 (retail) and A2 (financial/professional services) uses to dwellings.  

We would add that there are  limits and conditions to the changes and prior approval procedures required to jump through. So don't get too excited if you own them just yet.  We of course happy to advise and take your instructions.

In his budget speech the Chancellor announced further review of the General Permitted Development Order in England and even before that potential rights to convert warehouses to dwellings as permitted development are being muted.  The government has also stripped away a mass of guidance (much of it we must say being very useful) and replaced it with the much briefer National Planning Practice Guidance.  We also learn this week that the English Government is to axe the Code for Sustainable Homes as part of its review of Housing Standards.

WALES:

The Welsh Government has introduced few f those permitted development relaxations and shows little or no sign of relaxing controls too much further to say permit residential uses or the kinds of flexibility in England.  Householder permitted development was revised last year.  Relatively minor changes to allow larger extensions to industrial and warehouse premises, schools,university and hospitals, offices, alterations to A1 and A2 use buildings come into force on 28 April.  

It has recently revised (again) Planning Policy Wales with a new chapter covering Waste Management and Infrastructure matters and along with an accompanying Technical Advice Note (TAN21) and a. TAN23 (Economic Development)  has been published.  WG has indicated that requirements through PPW for Code 4 SH may well be replaced when B/Regs Part L comes into force (31 July 14 we understand). 

  

With the the Planning Bill consultation over we are now moving towards to the Act and the multitude of changes will begin to impact applications processes, appeals and the the culture.  There are clear signs that the minister is given considerable weight to economic benefits in policy/appeal decisions, but that remains through policy direction rather than legislative action. 

PL 270314    

Appeal Success: Rural Development.

Back in 2012 we began discussions with a Local Authority regarding re-use of a construction compound adjacent to a new sub-station in a rural location.  Early signs and feedback were as positive as you can get (which wasn't saying much back then) so our client committed to the not insignificant costs of proceeding to a planning application. 

Post-submission, the Council's stance began to change somewhat and they eventually refused permission alleging loss of best and most versatile land, policy preference for the use of previously developed land in its farm diversification policies (rather than "greenfield" land) and cited details approved under planning conditions imposed on the first sub-station scheme which required the compound to be re-instated to agriculture.  In the meantime a planning application for another large sub-station to the other side of the site was submitted (and has since been approved) and part of the site became subject of a Compulsory Purchase Order to serve as access into the second site.

After looking carefully at the refusal, we advised our clients that the only way forward was to appeal. 

We looked at each issue and set out a case responding to each element of the refusal:

• Demonstrating in the first instance that the conditions the Council thought required the land to be re-instated  to agriculture, never in fact related to the appeal site (rather land nearby) and so couldn't be enforced thereon. The land could only voluntarily be re-instated to agriculture;
• That there would be no harm to the character or appearance of the locality given the scale and impact of a substation on one or both sides of the appeal site;
• Quantifying economic benefits to tourism and the wider farm holding which would occur and;
• The proposal met with the rural economy policies in the development plan in any event. 

We are delighted that the Inspectorate has this week allowed the appeal.

We don't often blog about appeals as, lets be honest, they can be a little dry.  However we find this one interesting.  Not least because it shows the absolute importance and skills of a Chartered Town Planner in drilling down to research and understand the status of the land, the applicability and effect of planning conditions as drafted (or in this case how they were ineffective) and their impact on future decisions. 

The LPA thought the condition affected the appeal site (and we understand why they might have wanted it to) but it was, as the inspector said "misplaced" in its view that future treatment of the land was controlled by the condition.  The Council may have overlooked that important detail, but we didn't and from that point on its case was undermined.

Secondly, its yet another example where weight is given to quantified economic benefits in the wider consideration of schemes. In this case the sum was perhaps equivalent to a recently qualified planning officers salary. 

PGL