We worked alongside a local architecture firm and the Heritage Officer at Cheltenham Borough Council. We provided all necessary documentation to ensure a prompt and positive decision.

We were instructed to secure necessary Listed Building Consents and planning permission for the refurbishment of a Grade II listed building in Cheltenham.

We worked alongside a local architecture firm and the Heritage Officer at Cheltenham Borough Council. We provided all necessary documentation to ensure a prompt and positive decision.

A full appraisal of the history of the building was included along with a detailed Schedule of Works and photo survey.

All permissions were granted on time and on budget.

But they are not the only ones, with many South East councils charging eye watering fees. For instance, the London [...]]]> While working on a project in Surrey we were shocked to see that Mole Valley District Council were charging £300 to £720 per hour for pre-application advice! Our client politely declined the offer.

But they are not the only ones, with many South East councils charging eye watering fees. For instance, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames is charging from £480 to £4,800 per project for initial advice.

The recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to provide an option for early engagement, noting that there is: “significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties. Good quality pre-application discussion enables better coordination between public and private resources and improved outcomes for the community”.

We agree with the theoretical benefits of the pre-application process, but are LPA’s providing good quality advice or do they view it as just another option to maximise revenue?

The key elements to any advice are reliability, willingness and consistency when putting forward an opinion. With Local Planning authorities constantly under staffed and over worked, in far too many situations pre-application discussions become so laborious and without a perceptible benefit, many choose to simply go to the application stage.

Common complaints are:

1. It takes too long to get advice back (presumably because staff are working on formal planning applications);
2. Advice given by junior officers who are hesitant to offer a firm opinion on a proposal, given the potential for more senior planning officers or members to come to a different view of the acting case officer;
3. Advice is inaccurate or too brief to add any real value.

Such problems are possibly excusable when advice was free, but with LPAs now charging fees (some way in excess of comparative professional fees) the service should offer value for money or applicants will be put off.

At Plainview Planning we understand the need for free unbiased initial advice. If you are looking for prompt, confident and clear advice on your planning issue then feel free to contact one of the team for an informal discussion.

The planning system was not meant to be complicated, and yet Councils and consultants produce more and more [...]]]> As we fast approach submitting our 500th planning application we thought we would share three key lessons that we have learnt about how to approach the planning system.

1) Simplify

The planning system was not meant to be complicated, and yet Councils and consultants produce more and more documentation every year to support or resist developments. Whilst technical documentation is sometimes unavoidable, we always try and strip a project down to basics – is there a need for the development and does it cause identifiable harm?

2) Communicate

We find time and again that a concise, clear and well presented application is the best route to securing permission. It allows for effective communication with the local community, case officers and councillors. We try to make use of visuals and maps where appropriate, and our in-house design team make sure our documents are easy to read and navigate (like a recent example below).

3) Organise

Organisation is central to our success, especially given the high number of clients, sites and contacts we are handling every month. We run a bespoke database allowing us to effectively track applications, appeals and client relationships. This powerful resource allows us to add value to current and future projects by improving project management and information retention.

If you are looking for assistance in tackling the planning system do feel free to contact us for an informal discussion about strategy and the services we can provide – Contact Us

Much has been written about the issue of ‘concealment’ in relation to the new enforcement powers, but new rules on retrospective applications have been largely ignored.

The impact of these new provisions will make it [...]]]> The enforcement provisions of the Localism Act 2011 will become effective on 6 April 2012.

Much has been written about the issue of ‘concealment’ in relation to the new enforcement powers, but new rules on retrospective applications have been largely ignored.

The impact of these new provisions will make it more important than ever to get your planning strategy right when faced with impending enforcement action.

Section 70c of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) grants the power to decline to determine retrospective application if there is an enforcement notice in effect:

(1) A local planning authority in England may decline to determine an application for planning permission for the development of any land if granting planning permission for the development would involve granting, whether in relation to the whole or any part of the land to which a pre-existing enforcement notice relates, planning permission in respect of the whole or any part of the matters specified in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control.

This means that should you lose your enforcement appeal, it will be very difficult to submit a further application to try and rectify issues.

We recently had a client approach us after he had lost his enforcement appeal for, of all things, a pigeon loft. We could see clear flaws in his appeal arguments, so submitted a fresh application. Despite initial resistance from development control officers the scheme was approved at committee. Such a strategy would not be possible after 6th April 2012.

The changes to the enforcement provisions mean two things:

1. Early negotiation and discussion with enforcement officers is more important than ever. Once they issue an enforcement notice, your options become limited. We recommend contacting a planning consultant once you receive any correspondence from enforcement, including a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) or Breach of Condition Notice (BCN).
2. If an enforcement notice is issued you only have one chance to get it right. We strongly recommend seeking professional advice from a planning consultant to ensure you give your case the best chance.

Should you be facing enforcement please contact our enforcement team for prompt and confidential advice – enforcement@plainview.co.uk

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local [...]]]> Below are  a selection of some key quotes from the National Planning Policy Framework released today:

Material considerations

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.

Importantly, the crux of decision making in planning remains the same. Material considerations such as personal circumstances, or housing/economic need etc can still hold weight in decision making if appropriate.

Out of date development plans

It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place

We already knew this, but further clarification is included in Annex 1

For the purposes of decision-taking, the policies in the Local Plan (and the London Plan) should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of this Framework….

For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework.

Weight is also given to emerging plans. So, these are the transitional arrangements everyone was wondering about. LPAs have 12 months to get their policies in place…. on your marks, get-set, GO.

Green belt and previously developed land

A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: ….limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.

The NPPF definition of ‘previously developed land’ includes curtilages again:

Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure….

but excludes private residential gardens ‘in built-up areas’. It will be interesting to see how this impacts upon dwellings not in a ‘built-up area’.

Circulars

Most of these remain in force according to Annex 3 of the NPPF,  much to our relief. We like our Circulars!



On first reading, we think that the NPPF is a fairly positive document but still with plenty of uncertainty that will no doubt lead to an increase in appeals over the coming months. We will publish more analysis over the coming days.

The Government is reforming the planning system so that it supports growth. The Government will publish the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by the end of March 2012, coming into force for plan-making and decisions from that point onwards, with appropriate implementation arrangements for local authorities with pro-growth policies in local plans. There [...]]]> From the complete Budget 2012 document:

The Government is reforming the planning system so that it supports growth. The Government will publish the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by the end of March 2012, coming into force for plan-making and decisions from that point onwards, with appropriate implementation arrangements for local authorities with pro-growth policies in local plans. There will be support to help local authorities get plans up to date quickly.

The NPPF will refocus planning policy to better support growth, will include a powerful presumption in favour of sustainable development to underpin all local plans and decisions, and will localise choice about the use of previously developed land, ending nationally imposed targets. The Government will also work with key statutory consultees to ensure that they support the delivery of sustainable development in line with the NPPF and are held to account for doing so.

In addition, the Government:

• will introduce further measures to deregulate and simplify the planning system. The Government will shortly consult on reducing information requirements and on proposals to amend the Use Class Order and the associated permitted development rights to make changing the use of buildings easier, for implementation by April 2013. In addition, new permitted development rights for micro-renewable energy installations will come into force in April 2012;
• will remove duplication in the consenting regime for major infrastructure development by bringing forward legislation to adjust the scope of Special Parliamentary Procedure, and will shortly publish draft revised guidance to make the regime clearer and easier to use;
• has implemented major reforms to the key consenting and advisory agencies involved in planning applications to give certainty to developers, including ensuring they adhere to a 13 week maximum timescale for most non-planning consents and are improving their performance in dealing with planning applications; and
• has helped make progress on habitats issues that were holding up development for Chiltern Railways and Able Marine Energy Park, so that final decisions can be taken within a year. The Government has also completed a review of the implementation in England of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives, to be published on 22 March 2012. Following this review, the Government will reduce unnecessary cost and delay to developers by: setting up a Major Infrastructure and Environment Unit; streamlining guidance; setting clearer standards for evidence; and changing the culture of statutory bodies.

You can’t earn your future if you can’t get planning permission.

Global businesses have diverted specific investments that would have created hundreds of jobs in some of the most deprived communities in Britain to countries like Germany and the Netherlands, because they couldn’t get [...]]]> George Osbourne’s comments on the planning system in the Budget speach:

You can’t earn your future if you can’t get planning permission.

Global businesses have diverted specific investments that would have created hundreds of jobs in some of the most deprived communities in Britain to countries like Germany and the Netherlands, because they couldn’t get planning permission here.

That is unacceptable.

Next week my RHFs the Communities Secretary and the Planning Minister will publish the results of our overhaul of planning regulation.

We’re replacing 1000 pages of guidance with just 50 pages.

We’re introducing a presumption in favour of sustainable development;

While protecting our most precious environments.

The new policy comes into effect when the National Planning Policy Framework is published next Tuesday.

This is the biggest reduction in business red tape ever undertaken.

Interesting times ahead. Feel free to contact us to discuss the NPPF and its impact on your planning application nppf@plainview.co.uk

Manchester City Council

Our client approached us following a  previous application refusal for the change of use. The reason for refusal [...]]]> The application sought to change the use of an A1 delicatessen to an A3 Cafe/restaurant with a retail element in an affluent suburb of Manchester.

Council

Manchester City Council

Issues

Our client approached us following a  previous application refusal for the change of use. The reason for refusal highlighted the fact that the premises were not located within a local centre thus the change of use would be contrary to the Council’s food and drink policy.

Solutions

It was decided to resubmit the application and provide a more detailed submission that sought to build on the local support for the application.  Support was gained via an in-store petition, a social media petition (involving Facebook and Twitter) and direct contact with neighbouring properties. This resulted in over 400 letters and names of support.  The Council recognised this support and the application was recommended for approval but due to departure from policy the final decision was to be made at Planning Committee.

A prominent MP objected to the proposal, siting amenity problems as the main reasons for the objection.  We presented at committee with counter-arguments to the MP. The Committee members sided with us and the application was approved contrary to the Council’s food and drink policies. The applicant is now able to convert the premises into a restaurant.

This again highlights the importance of stakeholder relations and also proves that material considerations such as overwhelming support for an application, can influence a planning decision.  The Council welcomed this approach and a constant friendly dialogue was maintained throughout  the application process.

An historic gallery built in 1880, and once being the home of the art collection of Sir Francis Cook, faced an uncertain future. The building had been identified by [...]]]> Our client was faced with an enforcement threat over Grade II listed gallery and sought advice on diversification of use.

Issues

An historic gallery built in 1880, and once being the home of the art collection of Sir Francis Cook, faced an uncertain future. The building had been identified by English Heritage on the ‘At Risk’ register. A complicated planning history provided a barrier to future renovation and use. Furthermore, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames considered the D1 gallery use had been abandoned.

Solutions

Following in-depth research into the history of the site and case law on abandonment, we managed to convince the Council  that the gallery still retained its D1 use class, and that any D1 use under the Use Class Order could be carried on at the premises without the need for express planning permission.

Outcome

A Certificate of Lawfulness was granted, and future development options are now available to the client.