Response form
New opportunities for sustainable development and
growth through the reuse of existing buildings:
Consultation
We are seeking your views to the following questions on the proposals to support
sustainable development and growth through encouraging the reuse of empty and
redundant existing buildings where the original use was no longer required or
appropriate.
How to respond:
The closing date for responses is 11 September 2012.
This response form is saved separately on the DCLG website.
Responses should be sent preferably by email:
Email responses to: Deregulate.planning@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Written responses to:
Saima Williams
Consultation Team (Wider change of use)
Planning Development Management Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
1/J3, Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU
1
About you
i)
Your details:
Name:
Nigel Doyle
Position:
Assistant Head of Planning and Regeneration
Name of organisation
(if applicable):
Cornwall Council
Email:
nigel.doyle@cornwall.gov.uk
Telephone number:
01208 265601
ii) Are the views expressed on this consultation an official response
from the organisation you represent or your own personal views?
Organisational response
Personal views
iii) Please tick the box which best describes you or your organisation:
District Council
Metropolitan district council
London borough council
Unitary authority/county council/county borough council
Parish council
Community council
Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB)
Planner
Professional trade association
Land owner
Private developer/house builder
Developer association
2
Voluntary sector/charity
Other
(please comment):
iv) What is your main area of expertise or interest in this work
(please tick one box)?
Chief Executive
Planner
Developer
Surveyor
Member of professional or trade association
Councillor
Planning policy/implementation
Environmental protection
Other
(please comment):
Would you be happy for us to contact you again in relation to this questionnaire?
Yes
No
3
ii) Questions
Please refer to the relevant parts of the consultation document for narrative
relating to each question.
Question 1: Do you think there should be permitted development
rights for buildings used for agricultural purposes to change use to:
Yes
Class A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), and A3
(restaurants and cafes),
Class B1 (Business) and B8 (storage and distribution),
Class C1 (Hotels)
Class D2 (Assembly and Leisure)
No
Comments
The use of agricultural buildings and land represent an asset both for rural
economic growth and resilience against loss of food supplies due to climate
change and macro economic change. The ability to strategically retail
agricultural land holdings to support the food supply and the wider economy
that relies on it is crucial and should be examined strategically as an issue
within the evolution and monitoring of Core Strategies.
Capturing and monitoring the change of use in this sector is needed:
- To monitor change of use impact on the localisation of
business rates
- To understand the impact on rural issues of potential
increases in traffic and noise
- To understand the impact on biodiversity and natural setting
The proposal could adversely affect the agricultural industry by altering land
values, acting as a disincentive to investment in agriculture and encouraging
a different type of speculator into the agricultural industry.
A greater focus would be placed on new agricultural buildings. New
livestock units would meet greater opposition from their newer incompatible
neighbours.
The proposed uses could have significant implications in terms of ecological
impact, financial public support for rural transport systems, additional traffic
off the main routes, impact on neighbours, undermining existing town and
other centres and the ability to provide renewable energy schemes. Whilst
individual cases may well have excellent merits, proper consideration of
impacts as is current practice should continue.
The report hints that such changed of uses would need to be carefully
defined, but until this is properly set out it is difficult to conclude that the
4
above concerns would be mitigated.
Small scale activities –especially those that diversify farms could be
explored further.
Agricultural development does not have a use class or is sui generis. To
prevent enforcement complaints and judicial challenges agricultural
development would need to be reclassified or CLUEDs approved prior to the
permitted change happening. This would introduce more bureaucracy and
delays into a system. The NPPF could have been more explicit in supporting
such developments on agricultural land.
Collectively the proposals would make it possible to move from a storage
and distribution centre to a shop without the need for planning permission
and this may have not been the intention of your proposals.
The fact that permitted development would not be allowed where land was
contaminated would prevent the majority of agricultural developments from
benefiting from the permitted development rights.
Question 2: Should thresholds and limitations be applied to reduce the
potential impact of any permitted change of use?
Yes
No
Comments
If the above permitted changes are allowed thresholds will be absolutely
essential. They could be set locally and linked to local circumstance.
Question 3: Are there circumstances that would justify a prior approval
process to allow the local planning authority to consider potential
impacts?
Yes
No
5
Comments
All of the above changes of use need some sort of consideration –preferably
through the submission of a planning application –if not some form of prior
approval process should be introduced.
Judicial challenges of the prior approval processes should be expected given
that the initial determination would be: is it a lawful agricultural building,
prior to deliberating on whether the land was contaminated and then
considering whether the Habitats and Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations were met during the processing of the notification process.
Question 4: Do you agree that the size thresholds for change of use
should be increased?
Yes
No
Comments
This would apply to an inconsequential number of applications. They could
be set locally and linked to local circumstance.
Question 5: If so, is 470m2 the correct threshold, or should the
increase in the limit be larger or more modest?
Yes
No
Comments
It is an arbitrary figure and in reality the number of developments that
would take advantage of this new right would be small. 465m2 would link
the size limit to the agricultural development permitted development limit.
Such an increase would mean that the parking provision associated with the
existing units would not correlate with that expected of the new permitted
use which could cause localised highway safety issues and neighbour
disputes.
Question 6: Do you think there should be permitted development
rights to allow for the temporary use of buildings currently within the
A, B1 and D1 and D2 use classes for a range of other specified uses
for two years?
6
Yes
No
Comments
The question conflicts with the statement made in paragraph 39.
This would make it more difficult to promote operational development given
that it would be easier to object to applications. The assessment of the
planning application would need to take into account all the possibilities
allowed by permitted development rights.
The need to notify the local authority and the requirement to monitor are
both welcome. A requirement for the local authority to monitor could help
to gather better intelligence to support retrospective planning applications
which would reduce the burden on prospective applicants. However it would
be impractical to enforce the two year rule and will cause uncertainties with
conveyancing and land values. Local authorities would not have the
resources to monitor temporary developments.
The safeguards are best assessed through the planning application process.
Such temporary applications are not currently refused but equally very few
are submitted.
There would be implications for other Regulations such as Building and Fire
and the capital costs involved in making changes to buildings for a
temporary and uncertain period could be prohibitive.
Question 7: If you agree with the proposal what uses do you think
should be allowed on a temporary basis?
Comments
Moving within the use classes rather than between the use classes could be
trialled to a greater extent.
Question 8: Do you think there should be permitted development
rights to allow hotels to change to residential use without the need for
a planning permission?
Yes
No
Comments
7
In an area with surplus and sometimes substandard hotel accommodation
the result is likely to deter redevelopment that may be more beneficial. The
community contributions that help to improve school capacity and provide
affordable housing would be lost.
Change of use from C1 to C3 would be also be significant if there was a loss
of accommodation that provided jobs and a career structure within the
tourism industry. This trend has already been felt in places like Newquay
where market changes have led to the loss of hotels and guest houses to be
replaced with surf lodges and temporary accommodation. This could have an
impact on local sourcing of food and other products as a different type of
visitor seeks to cut costs by bringing food with them. This (together with job
losses) could therefore impact on ‘sustainable development’
The loss of hotels without any control to residential purposes could put more
pressure on open market dwellings to be bought as second homes in
traditional tourist areas.
The proposals are better reflected locally through policy rather than
nationally imposed legislation.
It is recognised that the HMO licence and other Regulations such as Building
and Fire would control the practical activities associated with the change of
use.
Question 9: Should thresholds and limitations be applied to reduce the
potential impact of any permitted change of use?
Yes
No
Comments
A threshold is essential to minimise impact. But there needs to be local
flexibility as small hotels may be a key part of the economic chain in areas.
Question 10: Are there circumstances that would justify a prior
approval process to allow the local authority to consider potential
impacts?
Yes
No
Comments
8
This could help mitigate the concerns raised above but would undoubtedly
make a confusing planning system more impenetrable to the general public.
Judicial challenges would slow the system and add unintended layers of
bureaucracy.
A prior approval system within the use classes and not between the use
classes could be examined. The movement within the ‘A’ classes could be
considered to help remove constraints on town centres uses.
Question 11: Are you aware of any updates or amendments needed to
the descriptions currently included for the existing Use Classes?
Yes
No
Comments
Agricultural development would need a use class if changes were going to be
permitted to another use or the primary legislation changed to make
agriculture ‘development’.
The use of dwellings as second homes should be a separate use class.
Question 12: If yes, what is the amendment, and what is the
justification?
Comments
Agricultural use is not development. If any building is used for agricultural
purposes planning permission would not be required. That building could
then benefit from greater permitted development rights.
Second homes are prevalent in some coastal and rural areas which makes it
difficult to sustain communities and provide services such as waste
collection, schools and housing for those with local connections. The
proportion of second homes in any area could be controlled if they had a
separate use class. The existing housing stock could be used more
efficiently if the number of second homes was limited.
Question: Impact Assessment
Do you have any comments on the assumptions and analysis set out
in the consultation stage Impact Assessment? (See Annex 1)
9
See also the further specific questions within that Impact Assessment
Yes
No
Comments
The costs of introducing the system have been underestimated. They do not
include the costs to determine the existing land use, the cost to determine
contamination, the cost of applying a prior notification system, the cost of
legal challenges, the costs of proving compliance with the Environmental
Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulations.
Thank you for your comments.
10