Category Archives: IMPORTANT

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 …

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.

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.

IMPORTANT: New Legislation – Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO (25/05/2019) …

[UPDATE: The information on this page has subsequently been incorporated into the "Part 1 of the GPDO – Summary of Amendments since 2013" page].

The following 1 new Statutory Instrument (SI) comes into force on 25/05/2019: Continue reading

IMPORTANT: New Legislation – Amendments to Other Parts of the GPDO (25/05/2019) …

[UPDATE: The information on this page has subsequently been incorporated into the "Other Parts of the GPDO – Summary of Amendments since 2013" page].

The following 1 new Statutory Instrument (SI) comes into force on 25/05/2019: Continue reading

IMPORTANT: The government publishes its response to the “Planning Reform …” consultation …

[UPDATE: For the subsequent legislation relating to this consultation, please view the following posts:
- This post for the legislation relating to Part 1 of the GPDO.
- This post for the legislation relating to Other Parts of the GPDO.
- This post for the legislation relating to the Fees Regulations 2012.]

The government has published the following response to the consultation titled "Planning Reform - Supporting the high street and increasing the delivery of new homes" (which ran for 11 weeks from 29/10/2018 until 14/01/2019): Continue reading

IMPORTANT: The government states its intention to proceed with most of the proposals within the recent “Planning Reform …” consultation …

[UPDATE: For the subsequent government response to this consultation, please view this post.]

James Brokenshire MP (Secretary of State for MHCLG) has made the following written statement to Parliament, which states the government's intention to proceed with most of the proposals within the recent "Planning Reform ..." consultation: Continue reading

IMPORTANT: The government publishes a consultation (until 14/01/2019) on a range of planning proposals, including proposed changes to the GPDO and the UCO …

[UPDATE: For a subsequent written statement to Parliament, which states the government's intention to proceed with most of the proposals within this consultation, please view this post.]

[UPDATE: For the subsequent government response to this consultation, please view this post.]

The government has published the following consultation, which runs for 11 weeks from 29/10/2018 until 14/01/2019: Continue reading

IMPORTANT: The government updates the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) …

[UPDATE: For subsequent updates to the NPPF in February 2019, please view this post.]

The government has published an updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 24/07/2018: Continue reading

IMPORTANT: There appears to be a significant loophole within Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO …

[UPDATE: For the subsequent legislation relating to this loophole, please view this post].

There appears to be a significant loophole within Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO that would allow an agricultural building to be converted into (say) 5 dwellinghouses each with a floor space of more than 465m2.

Continue reading

IMPORTANT: New Legislation – Amendments to the GPDO in relation to A4 buildings (pubs, etc) (23/05/2017) …

[UPDATE: The information on this page has subsequently been incorporated into the "Other Parts of the GPDO – Summary of Amendments since 2013" page].

The following 1 new Statutory Instrument (SI) comes into force on 23/05/2017: Continue reading

IMPORTANT: DCLG has updated its “Permitted development rights for householders – Technical Guidance” document (April 2017) …

[NOTE: For other updates to the "Technical Guidance" document, please view the following posts:
- This post for the January 2013 updates.
- This post and this post for the October 2013 updates.
- This post for the April 2014 updates.
- This post for the April 2016 updates.
- This post for the April 2017 updates.]

Introduction:

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has updated its "Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance" document. As such, the current and previous versions of the "Technical Guidance" document are now as follows: Continue reading

IMPORTANT: New Legislation – Amendments to Part 1 of the GPDO (06/04/2017) …

[UPDATE: The information on this page has subsequently been incorporated into the "Part 1 of the GPDO – Summary of Amendments since 2013" page].

The following 1 new Statutory Instrument (SI) comes into force on 06/04/2017: Continue reading

IMPORTANT: New Legislation – Amendments to Other Parts of the GPDO (06/04/2017) …

[UPDATE: The information on this page has subsequently been incorporated into the "Other Parts of the GPDO – Summary of Amendments since 2013" page].

The following 1 new Statutory Instrument (SI) comes into force on 06/04/2017: Continue reading

DCLG publishes the “government response to consultation” with respect to additional storeys in London …

DCLG has published the following government response to the "Consultation on upward extensions in London" (which ran for 8 weeks from 18/02/2016 until 15/04/2016): Continue reading

IMPORTANT: High Court judgment about whether the excavation of a basement falls within the scope of Part 1 Class A of the GPDO (02/12/2016) …

The following High Court judgment about whether the excavation of a basement falls within the scope of Part 1 Class A of the GPDO was handed down on 02/12/2016: Continue reading

IMPORTANT: High Court judgment about the phrase “the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse” within Part 1 Class A of the GPDO …

Introduction:

The "Landmark Chambers" website (link) states that the following High Court judgment has found that the phrase "the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse" within Part 1 Class A of the GPDO included only that which was being proposed under Part 1 Class A: Continue reading