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.