Councils will be left powerless by new planning arrangements
I cant help getting the feeling that the unintended consequences profiled in this story come from the fact that the Minister doesn’t really care too much for the current system of local government and is “impatient” with it. If this is true its a shame because a carefully thought through reform of the planning system could help stimulate local economic development. It tells us:
On first reading, changes to the UK’s planning system – introduced on 30 May – are quite subtle. However, after closer inspection it is clear that they give automatic approval to a wide range of developments.
These include allowing larger home extensions (up to 8 metres for detached properties); authorising changing the use of offices to houses; enabling a range of buildings to be used as schools and encouraging the opening of pop-up shops in the high street.
The government aims to reduce the bureaucracy in the system to make it easier to develop property, which they hope will stimulate economic growth along the way.
While the changes will mean a reduction in the number of planning applications received by local planning authorities, they won’t necessarily mean a reduction in the workload for overstretched planning officers. Many of the changes require the landowner to go through a prior approval process with the local authority, which will add to the burden on local planning authorities without a fee being payable.
A number of local authorities in the south-east are exempted from some of the changes, but for other local authorities their only option will be to use Article 4 directions, which enable authorities to remove specific permitted development rights .
However, two rules complicate the process. First, Article 4 directions require approval from the secretary of state for communities and local government, Eric Pickles – and approval will only be granted in “exceptional circumstances”.
This means authorities will have to demonstrate genuine harm and specific reasons why Pickles’ desire to increase flexibility should be curtailed in particular circumstances. The second sting in the tale is that even if the developer gets through the approval process, Article 4 directions create a right to compensation for anyone who would have benefited from permitted development rights that have been removed – if a subsequent planning application is then refused. It is therefore highly unlikely that authorities will use them.