Whenever a new prior notification procedure is introduced a Government official tells us it’s all part of the important endeavour of “simplifying” the planning system and bringing more “certainty” to the process for both developers and local planning authorities. The upshot of this continuous process of simplification is that the General Permitted Development Order now runs to 282 pages and makes a good door stop.
But does the claim of more certainty stand up to scrutiny? Class MA office conversions to dwellinghouses are one of the more frequently used – and controversial – prior approvals currently on the books. If the prior approval process provides more certainty then we would expect to see fewer such applications refused compared to planning applications.
Helpfully, the Government collects statistics on applications, and in the 2023/24 financial year 1,225 Class MA applications were submitted to authorities in England. Of those 1,225, 655 were approved, 421 refused and 150 did not require prior approval. So that’s a 34% refusal rate, or a third of all applications.
In the same period, for the year ending March 2024, LPAs approved 86% of all planning applications. I appreciate these two sub-sets are not directly comparable, as the latter includes all developments, from the lowliest home extension to an urban extension, but the stats serve to illustrate that Class MA refusals are higher than one might expect from a “simplified” and “more certain” planning procedure.
The Class neatly lays out the criteria with which one must comply, so why is it that so many applicants (and their hapless agents!) fall foul of the process one third of the time? And here’s the rub. Even though the Class MA criteria are clearly laid out and easy enough to follow, one needs to remember to read between the lines. With each clause is a potential pitfall, and if you don’t see the bear trap you’re likely to fall in it.
So where the regulations refer to transport impacts of the development, this encompasses all methods of transportation. There may be no need for on-site car parking for your new flats, but have you provided the bike store? If there isn’t space in the building, will it fit within the curtilage? Does that mean you need a separate planning application, or can it be covered by condition? For unlike other prior approvals Class MA has no provision for external works.
And what about “noise from commercial premises”? Under this clause, LPAs can consider not just the shop or office downstairs from the proposed dwellings, but any activity that could be linked to those commercial uses, even though it doesn’t expressly state that in the Order. This could be delivery trunks, or customers drinking late at night outside a bar or restaurant.
A missing or inadequate noise assessment seems to be a common reason for refusal on Class MA applications. Lack of evidence to demonstrate adequate natural light to all habitable rooms is another. And don’t forget that the proposed dwellings must comply with the Nationally Described Space Standards.
The upshot is that prior approvals are not necessarily a simpler procedure to a full planning application, and the 34% refusal rate nationally reflects that. Moreover, prior approvals are still assessed on the basis of the development plan.
I wouldn’t go as far as concluding that they’re “planning applications in all but name” because the specific criteria provided for each Class are definitely an advantage. And despite the complications, as a Planning Consultant one of my first questions is still “can we do it under prior approval?”
August 2024
