General Permitted Development Order: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:38, 12 January 2025

Revision as of 14:55, 1 February 2025

Line 366:

*Greater London: [[London Borough of Camden|Camden]], [[City of London]], [[London Borough of Hackney|Hackney]], [[London Borough of Islington|Islington]], [[London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea|Kensington and Chelsea]], [[London Borough of Lambeth|Lambeth]], [[London Borough of Newham|Newham]], [[London Borough of Southwark|Southwark]], [[London Borough of Tower Hamlets|Tower Hamlets]], [[London Borough of Wandsworth|Wandsworth]], [[City of Westminster|Westminster]]

*Outside Greater London: [[Ashford (district)|Ashford]], [[East Hampshire]], [[City of Manchester|Manchester]], [[Sevenoaks District|Sevenoaks]], [[Stevenage]], [[Vale of White Horse]]

In August 2021, the Government replaced Class O Permitted Development Rights with Class MA Permitted Development Rights (see below). The Government announced that [[local planning authority|local planning authorities]] that have an existing Article 4 Direction which restricts the change of use from office space to residential space (under the old O class) would remain valid until 31st31 July 2022. After this date, [[local planning authority|local planning authorities]] would need to reinstate an Article 4 Direction to resist the conversion of commercial properties to residential use. Many such as St Albans City and District Council have not reinstated these directions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=admin_albans |date=2023-09-25 |title=Is St Albans' economic lifeblood threatened by loss of offices to residential development? |url=https://stalbanstimes.co.uk/planning/is-st-albans-economic-lifeblood-threatened-by-loss-of-offices-to-residential-development/ |access-date=2024-03-30 |website=St Albans Times |language=en-GB}}</ref>

=== Class MA Permitted Development Rights ===

Line 382:

== Legal and environmental considerations ==

Critics of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) have raised several concerns regarding its impact on local communities, the environment, and architectural heritage. One of the main critiques is that the GPDO allows certain developments to bypass the usual planning permission processes, which can result in negative outcomes for the character and quality of local areas. This is particularly evident in conservation areas or areas with significant architectural heritage, where alterations may not be subject to the usual scrutiny.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-05-10 |title=Changes to permitted development rights – Farming |url=https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/10/changes-to-permitted-development-rights/ |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=defrafarming.blog.gov.uk |language=en}}</ref>.

For example, the GPDO allows for the conversion of offices or other commercial properties to residential use without full planning permission. While this can help address housing shortages, it has been criticized for leading to the loss of important historic buildings and architectural features. The lack of full planning review means that important local characteristics, such as traditional facades, street layouts, and architectural styles, might be compromised for the sake of expedience or economic development.

Environmental concerns are also significant. Developments carried out under the GPDO, especially in rural or sensitive environmental areas, may not undergo the thorough Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process that more substantial developments are required to undergo.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hammonds |first=Declan |date=2025-01-12 |title=The Ultimate Guide to Permitted Development Rights |url=https://www.triviumland.co.uk/post/permitted-development-rights-uk-guide |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=Trivium Land |language=en}}</ref>. This can result in harmful environmental impacts that affect local ecosystems, biodiversity, and water management. For instance, new housing or commercial developments in areas near watercourses or wildlife habitats may increase flood risks or disturb wildlife populations without sufficient consideration or mitigation measures.

Local authorities and environmental groups have pointed out that these shortcuts may undermine sustainable development goals, as developments that should ideally have been subject to consultation and detailed environmental reviews instead proceed with limited public input or oversight. This concern is echoed by organisations such as The Guardian, which reported on the growing backlash against certain developments authorized under the GPDO.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Tims |first=Anna |date=2019-03-10 |title=The ‘absurd’ planning loophole that could end up blighting your home |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/10/planning-rules-loophole-home-permitted-development |access-date=2025-01-12 |work=The Observer |language=en-GB |issn=0029-7712}}</ref>. Furthermore, councils, like those in Dartford, have called for reforms to ensure that local planning authorities retain control over developments that could significantly affect local communities and the environment.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Newman |first=Neil |title=Permitted development rights under article 3 |url=https://www.dartford.gov.uk/planning-3/permitted-development-rights-article-3? |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=Dartford Borough Council |language=en}}</ref>.

The general argument is that while the GPDO streamlines processes and aids economic development, it should not come at the cost of the long-term sustainability and integrity of local areas, particularly in terms of environmental and cultural preservation.