Learn An Instrument They Said. So I Picked Up The GPDO

At last – the Secretary of State announced on 30 September 2020 that dwellings created by way of permitted development rights will need to comply with the nationally described space standard.

There is no timescale given for when the change will be effected, which will need to be by way of a further statutory instrument amending the 2015 General Permitted Development Order. We have already had four such SIs already this year and further changes are in the queue, such as giving effect to the 14 July 2020 announcement that planning permission will be required for the demolition of theatres, concert halls and live music venues and giving effect to the proposed relaxation of permitted development rights for 5G infrastructure (of which more below). Good luck keeping up! (It’s odd how the Government can keep updating the Planning Practice Guidance but Parliament still does not make available up to date consolidated versions of secondary legislation, whether in our planning law field or for instance in relation to coronavirus measures.)

I dealt with the nationally described space standard in my 23 March 2019 blog post We Have Standards. Since being introduced in 2015, it has been up to each local planning authority to decide whether to adopt the standard as policy in its local plan. Once it is made a legal requirement for permitted development schemes we will have the curious position that in some areas, where authorities have not adopted it as local policy, it will be required for permitted development schemes but not for projects which are pursued by way of a traditional planning application.

It is disappointing that the additional requirement was not introduced in the June and July 2020 statutory instruments, which for instance introduced the additional prior approval requirement of “adequate natural light” (NB “adequate” undefined – wait for the arguments).

Public pressure and a continuing trail of adverse media stories in relation to office to residential schemes presumably have played their part (most recently Rowan Moore’s 27 September Observer piece ‘It’s like an open prison’: the catastrophe of converting office blocks to homes). As for the 30 September timing of the announcement? That’s obvious – later that day a Commons debate took place, as scheduled, in relation to Labour’s motion that the three statutory instruments amending the General Permitted Development Order be revoked. The announcement neutralised one of the most obvious lines of attack. Predictably the motion was defeated, entirely along party lines, 327 votes to 206 votes.

This month will of course see the hearing into the GPDO changes judicial review that I covered in my 5 September 2020 blog post Lights Camera Action: The Planning Changes – Parliamentary Scrutiny, That JR.

And now there is yet another judicial review underway, into the Government’s 22 July 2020 announcement that it proposes to extend “permitted development rights to support the deployment of 5G and extend mobile coverage”. There is a piece about the challenge here: Government faces legal challenge over 5G phone masts ‘safety fears’ (Evening Standard, 1 October 2020). As with the Rights: Community: Action judicial review it is crowd funded. The Rights: Community: Action challenge appears to have raised £12,245 “of £25,000 stretch target from 271 pledges”. The 5G challenge appears to have raised £66,615 pledged “of £150,000 stretch target from 2,004 pledges”.

As with most crowdfunded litigation there is no analysis for potential donors on the crowdjustice website of its prospects of success, or what the judicial review process entails, but there is a link to the prospective claimants’ pre-action letter dated 21 August 2020 which alleges that the consultation process leading to the 22 July 2020 announcement was unlawful and was in breach of the public sector equality duty – and Aarhus Convention costs protection is sought. Without prejudging at all whether there is any basis for the complaints, this all is of course familiar territory in relation to these sorts of claims.

Finally, some plugs:

5.30 pm 7 October 2020

How will the Combined Infrastructure Levy work, how should it work?

(Town Legal with special guest MHCLG’s director of planning, Simon Gallagher)

Event details and registration: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_HeND28vJQ6STT-FdLz1u_Q

5.30 pm 14 October 2020

PC in 2020 – Has the Planning Court proved a success? What should be its future, and that of judicial review and statutory challenges in the planning system, in the light of the Faulks review?

(Town Legal with Landmark Chambers)

Event details and registration: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_2gsWU81vT7erSoeWqqQ7MQ

And lastly, watch out for a new series by Cratus and Town, Steve Quartermain in Discussion. The first episode is an hour long conversation with Secretary of State Robert Jenrick. More news will appear on the Cratus website.

Simon Ricketts, 3 October 2020

Personal views, et cetera

Linda Manzer’s pikasso guitar

Author: simonicity

Partner at boutique planning law firm, Town Legal LLP, but this blog represents my personal views only.

3 thoughts on “Learn An Instrument They Said. So I Picked Up The GPDO”

  1. Simon

    The Intend to Publish London Plan (2019) contains Policy D6: Housing Quality and Standards, especially D6 F and these are set out in Table 3.1: Minimum space standards for new dwellings (which includes new build, conversions and change of use) These standards were in the 2016 (Boris Johnson) London Plan, after receiving support from the EiP Panel, despite Pickles’ objection!

    The problem, of course, was that this policy  could not be applied to PDR change of use conversions.

    Michael

    From: SIMONICITY Reply to: SIMONICITY Date: Saturday, 3 October 2020 at 11:26 To: Subject: [New post] Learn An Instrument They Said. So I Picked Up The GPDO

    simonicity posted: ” At last – the Secretary of State announced on 30 September 2020 that dwellings created by way of permitted development rights will need to comply with the nationally described space standard. There is no timescale given for when the change will be eff”

    Like

  2. Simon

    Questions for your CIL seminar on 7 October

    Can Affordable Housing be just built into the application and avoid the after the event CIL contribution debate? Ditto all other items (eg transport, education, health) that are essential for a large project to be acceptable. If the acceptability of a scheme is dependent on simultaneous delivery of affordable housing, why would you grant consent for a promise of jam tomorrow or not at all? With the proposed affordable housing deferred until completion, how much longer would the delivery of the affordable housing take? What happens if it is supposed to be on-site? How do all these “delaying tactics” square with the need to deliver the “housing requirements” ?

    Michael

    PS: I am sorry to say that although I have registered, I may not be able to attend on the night

    From: SIMONICITY Reply to: SIMONICITY Date: Saturday, 3 October 2020 at 11:26 To: Subject: [New post] Learn An Instrument They Said. So I Picked Up The GPDO

    simonicity posted: ” At last – the Secretary of State announced on 30 September 2020 that dwellings created by way of permitted development rights will need to comply with the nationally described space standard. There is no timescale given for when the change will be eff”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s