Consultation on permitted development rights

The LGA is the national voice of local government. We are a politically-led, cross party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales.

Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems. 

• The LGA are dismayed and strongly oppose the Government’s pursuit to extend national permitted development rights (PD) further. We and other national organisations have highlighted to Government through various research and projects of the negative impact and consequences of PD and call for them to be urgently revoked.
• PD is an ad hoc, disconnected approach to development that undermines councils’ and their communities’ strategic long-term decisions and place-making ambitions. It also affects their ability to make decisions that reflect local need and preserve and enhance the unique and distinctive character of their area. We cannot see how the Government intends to enshrine both a locally-led planning system with emboldened local leaders through powers in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, whilst also pushing forward with new PD rights which disenfranchise those same leaders.
• The Government’s own research has highlighted how conversions to residential through change of use PD can fail to meet adequate design standards, avoid contributing to local areas and create worse living environments. Conversions to residential through this mechanism, which bypasses the full planning application process, affects vulnerable people disproportionately and can exacerbate existing inequalities. This results in people being placed in accommodation with little or no access to green space, often in remote locations in the city with poor access to public transport.
• The Town and Country Planning Association’s (TCPA) recent photo campaign captures some of the realities of ‘homes’ created through PD. Many lack adequate space, security and fire safety, proper ventilation, natural light, access to green space and amenities. We support their response to this consultation and their statement that they are in “clear opposition to these proposals to further deregulate the quality of homes in this country”.
• The Government’s decision to extend PD also means that councils will lose out on more Section 106 contributions for infrastructure and affordable housing at a time when these are most needed. Communities have already potentially lost nearly 20,000 affordable homes through office to residential conversions. If the Government is minded to retain and expand PD then it must urgently introduce mechanisms by which affordable housing and infrastructure contributions can be secured in order to meet Local Plan requirements.
• Only a locally-led planning system in which councils and the communities they represent have a say over the way places develop will ensure the delivery of high-quality affordable homes with the necessary infrastructure to create sustainable, resilient places for current and future generations.
• If the Government is minded to go ahead with the proposals to extend PD, we would call for an urgent review and uplift of the fees charged on prior approval notifications. The Government’s own research highlights that the loss of planning fees when assessing prior approval notifications is problematic for local authorities.

Q.1 Do you agree that prior approvals for design or external appearance in existing permitted development rights should be replaced by consideration of design codes where they are in place locally?

Q.2 Do you think that any of the proposed changes to permitted development rights in relation to design codes could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

Notwithstanding our views on PD expressed in the ‘Key Messages’ section of our response, if the Government is minded to go ahead with these proposals then we would agree that, where a local design code is in place, prior approvals for design or external appearance in existing permitted development rights should be replaced by consideration of local design codes.

Where local design codes are not yet in place, we would call on the Government to amend legislation to ensure the National Model Design Code is a material consideration in prior approvals. This would help to support the “creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places”, as set out in paragraph 126 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The LGA supports the implementation of local design codes across the country as they will hold significant weight in the decision-making process and empower communities to have input into the design and shape the area in which they live. As PD, in general, subverts that local empowerment, the requirement to consider design codes will go some way to ensuring that development brought forward through PD will contribute to the overall quality of the built environment.

We would call for the consideration of design codes, whether local or national, to be a material consideration for all development through PD.

The consideration of design codes will lengthen the process to determine prior approval for PD schemes. We have previously raised our significant concerns about capacity and resourcing of planning departments, and that councils need the ability to recover the costs of processing all applications by setting their fees at a local level. We have reiterated this most recently in our response to the Government’s consultation on stronger performance of local planning authorities supported through an increase in planning fees. This extends to prior approval notifications, which are significantly cheaper to submit than their corresponding minor or major planning application.

The Government has committed to raising planning fees by 35 per cent for major applications and 25 per cent for minor and other applications, laying the regulations in Parliament before the summer recess. We are urging the government to make parliamentary time to introduce the fee uplift, following the return of MPs to Parliament, as taxpayers continue to subsidise planning services by almost £5 million a week until the Government finalises measures to increase fees to cover the cost of processing applications.

The Government’s own research highlights that the loss of planning fees when assessing prior approval notifications is problematic for local authorities. The interpretation of prior approval processes can be subjective, and with burgeoning case law this can create uncertainty which can increase the resource required to adequately assess notifications. Further, PD adds another level of confusion for members of the public to understand, introducing added complexities which contradict the public’s perception of planning and how they can get involved. This can therefore increase levels of communication and engagement required with the public and neighbours for certain schemes. The research also notes that owing to tighter deadlines for decisions, applications coming through the standard planning system can be delayed as prior approvals are prioritised.

Further, councils must have the necessary resources to upskill or hire new officers to develop new design guides. According to Public Practice, to upskill and produce and deliver local Design Codes at scale local planning authorities will need forward-funding. They also estimated that adopting a Design Code for an area of approximately 1000 homes will cost £139,000.

Q.3 Do you agree that the permitted development right for the change of use from the Commercial, Business and Service use class (Use Class E) to residential (Class MA of Part 3), should be amended to either:

a) Double the floorspace that can change use to 3,000 square metres

b) Remove the limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use

c) No change

d) Don’t know

Q.4 Do you agree that the permitted development right (Class MA of Part 3) should be amended to remove the requirement that the premises must be vacant for at least three continuous months immediately prior to the date of the application for prior approval?

As outlined in our response to the Government’s consultation ‘Supporting housing delivery and public service infrastructure’, not all retail space or industrial buildings will be an appropriate size to reconfigure into homes or have the necessary configuration for homes, such as access to daylight, internal and outdoor space. Councils should have the ability to determine together with their communities whether a building can increase in size and if so, by how much, through the traditional planning application process.

We would welcome the publication of the Government’s evidence which shows that the three-month vacancy requirement, introduced with the Class MA of Part 3 PD right, is “ineffective” and resulting in “property being left vacant for longer periods”. We do not agree that the vacancy requirement should be removed, as this could have a negative impact on businesses through potential displacement.

Q.5 Do you think that the permitted development right (Class MA of Part 3) should apply in other excluded article 2(3) land?

Q.6 Do you think the prior approval that allows for the local consideration of the impacts of the change of use of the ground floor in conservation areas on the character or sustainability of the conservation is working well in practice?

No, we do not agree that the right should apply to excluded Article 2(3) land. Local communities must continue to have a say in how their protected and sensitive landscapes and places are managed. This is best done through the existing planning application process.

Permitted development is an ad hoc, disconnected approach that undermines councils’ and their communities’ ability to make decisions that reflect local need and preserve and enhance the unique and distinctive character of an area. It does not allow for consideration of the cumulative impact of decisions that will irreversibly disturb the existing fabric of a conservation area or any other land protected under Article 2(3). Councils should not need to use their already limited resources to make an Article 4 direction to protect conservation areas from permitted development rights.

Conservation areas vary greatly and the special character of these areas does not come only from the quality of their buildings but as a holistic set of uses, including form and function. Historic environments can also play an integral role in a place’s identity and civic pride as well as its success, contributing to a wider economic and social strategy as agreed through a council’s Local Plan. Furthermore, in their report Living with Beauty, the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission advised against allowing permissions such as permitted development to be available in conservation areas and for listed buildings.

Individual local authorities are in the best position to feed back to Government on how well the prior approval process allowing for the local consideration of the impacts of the change of use of the ground floor in conservation areas on the character or sustainability of the conservation area is working in practice.

Q.7 Do you agree that permitted development rights should support the change of use of hotels, boarding houses or guest houses (Use Class C1) to dwellinghouses?

Q.8 Are there any safeguards or specific matters that should be considered if the change of use of hotels, boarding houses or guest houses (Use Class C1) to dwellinghouses was supported through permitted development rights?

Q.9 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class MA permitted development right could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

Q.10 Do you think that changes to Class MA will lead to the delivery of new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning application?

We do not support the extension of PD to allow change of use between hotels, boarding houses or guest houses into dwellinghouses. Similar to our concerns regarding PD conversion of buildings in Commercial, Business and Service use class (Use Class E), many of these may not be of a suitable appropriate size to reconfigure into homes or have the necessary configuration for homes, such as access to daylight, internal and outdoor space. The determination of a loss of such guest accommodation should be made by local authorities and their communities, with consideration of the local visitor economy and local planning policies.  

If the Government is minded to introduce this PD, then we support the mechanism that would limit the use class to dwellinghouses only, and not allow them to benefit from PD change of use rights to a small House in Multiple Occupation of the proposed use class for short-term lets.

The proposed introduction of this new right may well deliver homes that might not have otherwise come forward through the planning application process, but we would question whether the Government is satisfied that the quality of these homes is worth their delivery in the long-term, especially given that there is no mechanism to enforce affordable housing or infrastructure contributions from developers. If the Government is minded to retain and expand PD then it must urgently introduce mechanisms by which affordable housing and infrastructure contributions can be secured in order to meet Local Plan requirements.  

Q. 11 Do you agree that the right for the change of use from hot food takeaways, betting offices, pay day loan shops and launderettes (Class M of Part 3) is amended to:

a) Double the floorspace that can change use to 300 square metres

b) Remove the limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use

c) No change

d) Don’t know

Notwithstanding our views on PD expressed in the Key Messages section of our response, if the Government is minded to retain this PD right then we would not agree any changes should be made that make it easier to change use of more floorspace without being subject to the planning application process.

Councils should be able to determine what level of commercial floorspace is appropriate to retain or lose on their high streets, in consideration of their local priorities, strategies and planning policies.

Q.12 Do you agree that the existing right (Class M of Part 3) is amended to no longer apply to launderettes?

Yes – we support the revoking of PD rights which allow the change of use between laundrettes and dwellinghouses in Class M of Part 3. Whilst we welcome this change in policy, we do not understand why it is national government and not local government who are determining what is an important use for localities and in what circumstances PD should apply. This is why we continue to urge government to revoke PD so that councils, with their local communities, can decide what uses are appropriate and important to their high streets, and the people that use them.

Q. 13 Do you agree that the right for the change of use from amusement arcades and centres, and casinos (Class N of Part 3) is amended to:

a) Double the floorspace that can change use to 300 square metres

b) Remove the limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use

c) No change

d) Don’t know

Notwithstanding our views on PD expressed in the Key Messages section of our response, if the Government is minded to retain this PD right then we would not agree any changes should be made that make it easier to change use of more floorspace without being subject to the planning application process.

Councils should be able to determine what level of commercial floorspace is appropriate to retain or lose on their high streets through the planning application process, in consideration of their local priorities, strategies and planning policies.

Q.14 Do you agree that the right (Class M of Part 3) should be amended to replace the existing date on which the building must have been in use as a hot food takeaway, betting office, pay day loan shop or launderette instead to a two-year rolling requirement?

Q.15 Do you agree that the right (Class N of Part 3) should be amended to replace the existing date on which the building must have been in use as an amusement arcade or centre, or casino instead to two-year rolling requirement?

Notwithstanding our views on PD expressed in the Key Messages section of our response, if the Government is minded to go ahead with these proposals then we would suggest that, for simplicity, the two-year rolling requirement which requires the building to have been in a certain use for a continuous period of at least two years prior to the application for prior approval, should be extended to Class M and Class N of Part 3 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 2015.

Q.16 Do you think that the permitted development right for the change of use from hot food takeaways, betting offices, pay day loan shops and launderette (Class M of Part 3) should apply in other article 2(3) land?

Q.17 Do you think that the permitted development right for the change of use of amusement arcade or centre, or casino (Class N of Part 3) should apply in other excluded article 2(3) land?

No, we do not agree that the right should apply to excluded Article 2(3) land. Local communities must continue to have a say in how their protected and sensitive landscapes and places are managed. This is best done through the existing planning process.

Permitted development is an ad hoc, disconnected approach that undermines councils’ and their communities’ ability to make decisions that reflect local need and preserve and enhance the unique and distinctive character of an area. It does not allow for consideration of the cumulative impact of decisions that will irreversibly disturb the existing fabric of a conservation area or any other land protected under Article 2(3). Councils should not need to use their already limited resources to make an Article 4 direction to protect conservation areas from permitted development rights.

Conservation areas vary greatly and the special character of these areas does not come only from the quality of their buildings but as a holistic set of uses, including form and function. Historic environments can also play an integral role in a place’s identity and civic pride as well as its success, contributing to a wider economic and social strategy as agreed through a council’s Local Plan. Furthermore, in their report Living with Beauty, the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission advised against allowing permissions such as permitted development to be available in conservation areas and for listed buildings.

Q.18 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class M and N permitted development rights could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

Q.19 Do you think that changes to Class M and N will lead to the delivery of new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning application?

In the same respect as our answer to Question 10, the proposed introduction of this new right may well deliver homes that might not have otherwise come forward through the planning application process, but we would question whether the Government is satisfied that the quality of these homes is worth their delivery in the long-term, especially given there being no mechanism to enforce affordable housing or infrastructure contributions from developers. If the Government is minded to retain and expand PD then it must urgently introduce mechanisms by which affordable housing and infrastructure contributions can be secured in order to meet Local Plan requirements.

Q.20 Do you agree that the right (Class G of Part 3) is expanded to allow for mixed use residential above other existing uses?

Notwithstanding our views on PD expressed in the ‘Key Messages’ section of our response, if the Government is minded to go ahead with these proposals then we would urge that further prior approvals are introduced, such as consideration of odour and fire safety, to ensure that any homes situated above high street uses are safe, habitable and comfortable. We would also urge the Government to consult with local authorities once a determination has been made as to which other high street uses this PD might expand to encompass.

Q.21 Do you agree that the number of flats that may be delivered under the right (Class G of Part 3) is doubled from two to four?

No - councils should be able to determine how many new homes are appropriate or suitable as well as their configuration in underused or empty storage space above an existing use through the planning application process, with consideration for local priorities, strategies and planning policies.

Q.22 Do you agree that the permitted development right (Class H of Part 3) is amended to align with any changes made to the uses to which Class G of Part 3 applies?

We do not support the changes to Class G of Part 3 (Question 20) and therefore do not support changes to Class H, which permits the change of use between mixed use residential to Commercial Business or Service use or pay day loan or betting shop.

Q.23 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class G and H permitted development rights could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

We have already highlighted through our Key Messages section in our response, and to other consultation questions, the impact PD has on businesses, local planning authorities and communities.

Q.24 Do you think that changes to Class G will lead to the delivery of new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning application?

In the same respect as our answer to  Questions 10 and 19, the proposed changes to this right may well deliver homes that might not have otherwise come forward through the planning application process, but we would question whether the Government is satisfied that the quality of these homes is worth their delivery in the long-term, especially given there being no mechanism to enforce affordable housing or infrastructure contributions from developers. If the Government is minded to retain and expand PD then it must urgently introduce mechanisms by which affordable housing and infrastructure contributions can be secured in order to meet Local Plan requirements.

Q.25 Do you agree that the smaller and larger home size limits within the agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses right (Class Q of Part 3) should be replaced with a single maximum floorspace limit of either:

a) 100 square metres per dwellinghouse

b) 150 square metres per dwellinghouse

c) No change

d) Don’t know

Q.26 Do you agree that an overall limit on the amount of floorspace that can change use, set at 1,000 square metres, should be introduced for the agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses right (Class Q of Part 3)?

Q.27 Do you agree that the 5 home limit within the agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses right (Class Q of Part 3) should be increased to allow up to a total of 10 homes to be delivered within an agricultural unit?

Councils should be able to determine how many new homes, as well as the appropriate floorspace or configuration, are suitable in previously agricultural buildings through the planning application process, with consideration for local priorities, strategies and planning policies.

We would highlight that, in a similar way that certain PD rights disempower local authorities when protecting or regenerating their high streets, these proposed PD rights would prevent rural authorities or those with agricultural landscapes to manage land which reflets their local plan policies and the Government’s sustainable travel priorities.

Q.28 Do you agree that the permitted development right for the change of use from agricultural buildings to residential use (Class Q of Part 3) should be amended to allow for an extension to be erected as part of the change of use on previously developed land?

Q.29 Do you agree that a prior approval be introduced, allowing for the consideration of the impacts of an extension on the amenity of neighbouring premises, including overlooking, privacy and light?

Q.30 Do you agree that buildings should have an existing floorspace of at least 37 square metres to benefit from the right?

Notwithstanding our views on PD expressed in the ‘Key Messages’ section of our response, if the Government is minded to go ahead with these proposals then we would agree that prior approval would be required to consider, at a minimum, the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties including overlooking, privacy and light.

However, councils should be able to determine the appropriate floorspace or configuration of new homes created through change of use from previously agricultural buildings through the planning application process, with consideration for local priorities, strategies and planning policies.

Q.31 Do you think that the permitted development right for the change of use from agricultural buildings to residential use (Part 3 Class Q) should be amended to apply in other article 2(3) land?

No, we do not agree that the right should apply to excluded Article 2(3) land. Local communities must continue to have a say in how their protected and sensitive landscapes and places are managed. This is best done through the existing planning process.

Permitted development is an ad hoc, disconnected approach that undermines councils’ and their communities’ ability to make decisions that reflect local need and preserve and enhance the unique and distinctive character of an area. It does not allow for consideration of the cumulative impact of decisions that will irreversibly disturb the existing fabric of a conservation area or any other land protected under Article 2(3). Councils should not need to use their already limited resources to make an Article 4 direction to protect conservation areas from permitted development rights.

Conservation areas vary greatly and the special character of these areas does not come only from the quality of their buildings but as a holistic set of uses, including form and function. Historic environments can also play an integral role in a place’s identity and civic pride as well as its success, contributing to a wider economic and social strategy as agreed through a council’s Local Plan. Furthermore, in their report Living with Beauty, the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission advised against allowing permissions such as permitted development to be available in conservation areas and for listed buildings.

Q.32 Do you agree that the right be amended to apply to other buildings on agricultural units that may not have been solely used for agricultural purposes?

Q.33 Are there any specific uses that you think should benefit from the right?

Q.34 Are there any specific uses that you think should not benefit from the right?

Q.35 Do you agree that the right be amended to apply to agricultural buildings that are no longer part of an agricultural unit?

No – we do not agree that the right should be amended to apply to other buildings on agricultural units or agricultural buildings that are no longer part of an agricultural unit. Councils should be able to determine what constitutes appropriate development through the planning application process, with consideration for local priorities, strategies and planning policies.

Q.36 Do you agree that any existing building must already have an existing suitable access to a public highway to benefit from the right?

Notwithstanding our views on PD expressed in the ‘Key Messages’ section of our response, if the Government is minded to go ahead with these proposals then we would agree that suitable access to a public highway is a requirement for prior approval. We would also encourage the Government to consider access to public transportation options in order to support sustainable travel.

Q.37 Do you have a view on whether any changes are required to the scope of the building operations permitted by the right?

Q.38 Do you have a view on whether the current planning practice guidance in respect of the change of use of agricultural buildings to residential use should be amended?

Individual local authorities are in the best position to feed back to Government on how the building operations allowed work in practice and if current planning practice guidance requires amending.

Q.39 Do you agree that permitted development rights should support the change of use of buildings in other predominantly rural uses to residential?

Q.40 Are there any safeguards or specific matters that should be considered if the right is extended to apply to buildings in other predominantly rural uses?

No, we do not agree that PD should support change of use of buildings in other predominantly rural uses, such as equestrian or forestry, to residential. Not all rural uses or buildings will be an appropriate size to reconfigure into homes or have the necessary configuration for homes, such as access to daylight, internal and outdoor space. Councils should have the ability to determine together with their communities whether a residential use is appropriate in that location through the traditional planning application process.

Q.41 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class Q permitted development right could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

Q.42 Do you think that changes to Class Q will lead to the delivery of new homes that would not have been brought forward under a planning application?

In the same respect as our answer to your Questions 10, 19 and 24, the proposed changes to this right may well deliver homes that might not have otherwise come forward through the planning application process, but we would question whether the Government is satisfied that the quality of these homes is worth their delivery in the long-term, especially given there being no mechanism to enforce affordable housing or infrastructure contributions from developers. If the Government is minded to retain and expand PD then it must urgently introduce mechanisms by which affordable housing and infrastructure contributions can be secured in order to meet Local Plan requirements.

Q.43 Do you agree that permitted development rights should support the change of use of other buildings in a predominantly rural land use to a flexible commercial use?

No, we do not agree that PD should support the change of use of other buildings in predominantly rural land use to flexible commercial use. Not all rural land uses or buildings will be appropriate to reconfigure into flexible commercial uses nor have the necessary adaptions or adequate public access. Councils should have the ability to determine together with their communities whether a rural land use can change use through the traditional planning application process.

Q.44 Do you agree that the right be amended to allow for buildings and land within its curtilage to be used for outdoor sports, recreation or fitness?

Q.45 Do you agree that the right be amended to allow buildings to change use to general industrial, limited to only allow the processing of raw goods produced on the site and which are to be sold on the site, excluding livestock?

Q.46 Should the right allow for the change of uses to any other flexible commercial uses?

Q.47 Do you agree that the right be amended to allow for a mix of the permitted uses?

No, we do not agree that any amendments to the right should be made. Councils should have the ability to determine together with their communities whether a rural land use can change use through the traditional planning application process.

Q.48 Do you agree that the right be amended to increase the total amount of floorspace that can change use to 1,000 square metres?

No - not all buildings will be appropriate to reconfigure or change use. Councils should have the ability to determine together with their communities whether a certain use is appropriate in that location through the traditional planning application process.

Q.49 Is the trigger as to whether prior approval is for required set at the right level (150 square metres)?

Individual local authorities are in the best position to feed back to Government on whether or not the floorspace trigger is appropriate or not and how it works in practice.

Q.50 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Class R permitted development right could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

 We have already highlighted through our Key Messages section in our response, and to other consultation questions, the impact PD has on businesses, local planning authorities and communities.

Q.51 Do you agree that the ground area limit of new buildings or extensions erected under the right be increased from 1,000 to 1,500 square metres?

Q.52 Do you agree that we remove the flexibility for extensions and the erection of new buildings where there is a designated scheduled monument?

Q.53 Do you agree that the right be amended to allow extensions of up to 25% above the original building cubic content?

Q.54 Do you agree that the right be amended to allow the ground area of any building extended to reach 1,250 square metres?

Q.55 Do you agree that we remove the flexibility for extensions where there is a designated scheduled monument?

In answer to Questions 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 our view is no – we do not agree with amendments to the right. Councils should have the ability to determine together with their communities whether a development, change of use or extension is appropriate through the traditional planning application process.

Notwithstanding our views on PD expressed in the ‘Key Messages’ section of our response, if the Government is minded to go ahead with these proposals then we would agree that flexibility for extensions or erections of new buildings should be removed where there is a designated scheduled monument.

Q.56 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Part 6 permitted development rights could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

 We have already highlighted through our Key Messages section in our response, and to other consultation questions, the impact PD has on businesses, local planning authorities and communities.

Q.57 Do you agree that the maximum floorspace limit for the extension or alteration to a Commercial, Business and Service establishment on non-protected land is increased to either 200 square metres or a 100% increase over the original building, whichever is lesser?

Q.58 Do you agree that the maximum floorspace of a new industrial and/or warehousing building on non-protected land permitted under the Part 7 Class H permitted development right be amended to 400 square metres?

Q.59 Do you agree that the maximum floorspace of a new industrial and/or warehousing extension on non-protected land be increased to either 1,500 square metres or a 75% increase over the original building, whichever is lesser.

In answer to Questions 57, 58 and 59 our view is no - we do not agree that the maximum floorspaces allowed under these PD rights should not be increased. Councils should be able to determine what is appropriate development with regards to extensions or increasing floorspaces of certain use classes together with local communities through the planning application process, with consideration for local priorities, strategies and planning policies.

Q.60 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Part 7 permitted development rights could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

We have already highlighted through our Key Messages section in our response, and to other consultation questions, the impact PD has on businesses, local planning authorities and communities.

Q.61 Do you agree that the permitted development right for the temporary use of land should be amended so that markets can operate either:

a) 28 days per calendar year (in line with other uses permitted under the right)

b) A different number of days per calendar year

c) No change

d) Don’t know

No, we do not agree that any amendments to the right should be made. Councils should be able to determine what is appropriate with regards to temporary use of land together with local communities through the planning application process, with consideration for local priorities, strategies and planning policies.

Q.62 Do you think that any of the proposed changes in relation to the Part 4 permitted development rights could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

We have already highlighted through our Key Messages section in our response, and to other consultation questions, the impact PD has on businesses, local planning authorities and communities

Q.63 Do you agree that the existing Class M of Part 7 permitted development right is amended to additionally apply to open prisons?

No, we do not agree that Class M of Part 7, which allows for the erection, extension, or alteration of schools, hospitals and closed prisons, should be extended to apply to open prisons. Councils should have the ability to determine together with their communities whether a certain use is appropriate in that location through the traditional planning application process, having due regard to the impact of the development on local areas as well as in discussion with other appropriate stakeholders.

Q.64 Do you agree that there should be a prior notification process where the development under the Class M of Part 7 right is being used for open prisons?

Notwithstanding our views on PD expressed in the Key Messages section of our response, if the Government is minded to go ahead with these proposals then we would agree that prior approval should be determined by the local authority to ensure the development complies with legislation.

Q.65 Do you think that the proposed changes to the Class M of Part 7 permitted development right in relation to open prisons could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

We have already highlighted through our ‘Key Messages’ section in our response, and to other consultation questions, the impact PD has on businesses, local planning authorities and communities.

Q.66 Do you think that the changes proposed in this consultation could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic? (Age; Disability; Gender Reassignment; Pregnancy and Maternity; Race; Religion or Belief; Sex; and Sexual Orientation).

We are concerned that these proposals have been put forward prior to conducting impact assessments on those with a protected characteristic. We recommend that these impact assessments be undertaken prior to any final recommendations and reflected in any proposals taken forward. We have raised this concern in our response to other Government’s consultations on PD in the past.

Q.67 What guidance, policy, or legislative changes could help to provide a more supportive framework for planning authorities to determine planning applications within?

Q.68 What new permitted development rights, or amendments to existing permitted development rights, would streamline and simplify the process? If referring to an existing permitted development right, please be as specific as possible.

Q.69 Would a specific and focused permitted development right expedite or resolve a specific delivery challenge for nutrient mitigation schemes?

Q.70 Please provide specific case studies (including planning reference numbers where available) which can help us understand what issues farmers and land managers are facing in relation to nature-based solutions.

Q.71 Would these issues be resolved by amending planning practice guidance or permitted development rights, or any other solutions?

Q.72 Are there any success stories that we can learn from on individual cases, or in certain local planning authorities?

Q.73 Would you propose different solutions for different sized agricultural units?

Q.74 Do you foresee any unintended negative consequences that may result from more nature-based solutions coming forward (e.g., impacts to other species, flood risk, wildfire risk, risk to public safety, releasing contaminants from contaminated land or hydrology etc.)? How could these be avoided?

Q.75 What guidance, policy, or legislative changes could help to provide a more supportive framework for planning authorities to determine planning applications within?

Q.76 What new permitted development rights, or amendments to existing permitted development rights, would streamline and simplify the process? If referring to an existing permitted development right, please be as specific as possible.

Q.77 Please provide specific case studies (including planning reference numbers where available) which can help us understand what issues farmers and land managers are facing in relation to slurry stores or lagoons and small-scale reservoirs.

Q.78 Would these issues be resolved by amending planning practice guidance or permitted development rights, or any other solutions?

Q.79 Are there any success stories that we can learn from on individual cases, or in certain local planning authorities?

Q.80 Would you propose different solutions for different sized agricultural units?

Q.81 Do you foresee any unintended negative consequences that may result from more farm efficiency projects coming forward (e.g., impacts on nutrient pollution, protected sites or hydrology)? How can these be mitigated?

Q.82 What guidance, policy, or legislative changes could help to provide a more supportive framework for planning authorities to determine planning applications within?

Q.83 What new permitted development rights, or amendments to existing permitted development rights, would streamline and simplify the process? If referring to an existing permitted development right, please be as specific as possible.

Q.84 Are there any other diversification projects which have not been covered in this call for evidence or the wider consultation, that you wish to provide evidence for? If so, please provide specific case studies (including planning reference numbers where available) which can help us understand what issues farmers and land managers are facing.

Q.85 Would these issues be resolved by amending existing permitted development rights, or any other solutions?

Q.86 Are there any success stories that we can learn from on individual cases, or in certain local planning authorities?

Q.87 Would you propose different solutions for different sized agricultural units?

Q.88 Do you foresee any unintended negative consequences that may result from more farm diversification projects coming forward? How can these be mitigated?

Supporting jobs and growth in the rural economy is an important priority for councils. The LGA support farmers and rural landowners maximising the use of their land and buildings and diversifying their business where it is appropriate to do so. As stalwarts of local areas, and acting with the interests of communities, local authorities play a vital role in managing the land through both the plan-making process and planning applications.

Therefore, whilst farm diversification and efficiency projects and nature-based solutions are supported, careful consideration for the wider environment and stakeholders must form part of any decision, and thus the LGA do not support the use of PD for such endeavours. Such projects and development may well be supported should they be in conformity with a councils Local Plan policies and promote sustainable growth in rural areas.

We again call on Government to urgently revoke PD rights so that due consideration for local policies can be given to schemes, whilst ensuring local plans and leaders are not undermined on planning matters in their localities.  

Local authorities and environmental bodies are best placed to provide feedback, including case studies, success stories and unintended consequences, to DEFRA in this call for evidence to help provide a framework which works best for rural areas, environmental schemes and local authorities.