IMPORTANT: There appears to be a potential pitfall with the fee for an application for prior approval under Part 1 Class A of the GPDO …

[UPDATE: On 01/08/2020, this potential pitfall was removed by SI 2020 No. 632 (note: for more information, please view this post)].

Introduction:

From 19/08/2019 onwards, an application for prior approval under Part 1 Class A of the GPDO (i.e. for a larger rear extension) will be subject to a fee of £96. However, when the Fees Regulations 2012 were amended to introduce this fee, a corresponding amendment was not made to the GPDO 2015.

As a result, it appears that if an LPA receives an application that complies with the requirements of Part 1 Class A paragraph A.4(2) of the GPDO, but the fee has not been paid, then the LPA should not invalidate the application on this basis. Furthermore, if the LPA receives the information specified by paragraph A.4(2) on a certain date, and then receives the fee on a later date, then the LPA should start the 42 day period based on the former date.

More information:

From 19/08/2019 onwards, regulation 14(1)(zab) of the Fees Regulations 2012 sets out that a fee of £96 "shall be paid to [the LPA]" in the case of an application for prior approval under Part 1 Class A of the GPDO (i.e. for a larger rear extension). For reference, regulation 14(1)(zab) was inserted by SI 2019 No. 1154, and is subject to the exemptions set out by regulations 14(1A) and 14(1B) (note: for more info, please view this post).

However, when the above amendment was made, a corresponding amendment was not made to the GPDO 2015. In particular, Part 1 Class A paragraph A.4(2) of the GPDO specifies the information that the developer must provide to LPA (i.e. for an application for prior approval for a larger rear extension). This paragraph A.4(2) states that the developer must provide "a written description", "a plan", and certain other information. However, this paragraph A.4(2) has not been amended to refer to the fee.

The problem is that the 42 day period is based on the date on which the LPA receives the information specified by paragraph A.4(2). For reference, paragraph A.4(10)(c) refers to "the expiry of 42 days following the date on which the information referred to in sub-paragraph (2) was received by the [LPA] without the [LPA] notifying the developer as to whether prior approval is given or refused". As paragraph A.4(2) has not been amended to refer to the fee, this means that the 42 day period is not based on the date on which the fee is received.

As an example, suppose that the LPA receives the information specified by paragraph A.4(2) on 1 January, and then receives the fee on 1 February, and then refuses prior approval on 1 March. In such a situation, it appears that the 42 day period would be based on the 1 January, which means that the LPA issued the decision after the expiry of this 42 day period, which means that the development is not prevented by paragraph A.4(10)(c). In other words, the developer would have successfully completed the prior approval process. [Note: As always, the successful completion of the prior approval process is not legally equivalent to confirmation that the proposed development would be lawful, as the development would still need to comply with all of the other limitations and conditions of Part 1 Class A].

The above situation is a potential pitfall because it's counter-intuitive that the 42 day period can start before the fee is received. Indeed, for the above example, if the LPA receives the fee on (say) 1 March, then it appears that the 42 day period would expire before the fee is received.

In my opinion, the above situation was not the intention of MHCLG, and it appears that the above situation does not occur with other Parts of the GPDO. For example, for an application for prior approval under Part 3 of the GPDO, paragraph W(2) specifies the information that the developer must provide to LPA and ends with the phrase "... together with any fee required to be paid". As a result, for an application for prior approval under Part 3 of the GPDO for which a fee is required, the 56 day period can not start before the fee is received.

UPDATE: On 01/08/2020, the above potential pitfall was removed by SI 2020 No. 632 (note: for more information, please view this post).

Notes:

  • Many thanks to Peterborough City Council for letting me know about this potential pitfall.
  • In accordance with the "Important Disclaimer" within the "Planning Jungle Limited - Membership Terms and Conditions", please note that the information within this post (like all of the information provided by Planning Jungle Limited) does not constitute legal or other professional advice, and must not be relied on as such.