Local Government Lawyer Home Page


Sharpe Edge Webpage Banner

Welcome to Sharpe Edge, Sharpe Pritchard’s local government legal hub on Local Government Lawyer.

Sharpe Edge features news, views and analysis from our team of specialist local government lawyers working at the heart of the latest legal developments. Sharpe Edge platform is also the only place where local government lawyers can get e-access to two law books by our Head of Local Government Rob Hann: The Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers (‘LACAT’) and The Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships (‘LACAP’).

 

                                                                                                  

Slide background

Time after time: extending time for determination of a prior approval application

Icons DateRachel Lee and Christos Paphiti examine the time period for determination of Prior Approval (‘PA’) applications and explore how a local authority can extend the time period for determination.

The basics of PA applications

Certain types of development are deemed to have planning permission without the need to submit a planning application for planning permission – this is known as ‘permitted development’. The relevant legislation is the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (‘GPDO 2015’).

For certain types of permitted development, there is a requirement on the developer to submit an application to the local planning authority for its prior approval (‘PA’) or for a determination as to whether PA is required.

The Government is pressing ahead with their build agenda and the trend to increase, and expand upon, the categories of permitted development rights shows no signs of slowing. For example, the new class E business to residential class permitted development right is being introduced from August 2021.

Time period for determination

The local planning authority must make a decision on a PA application within the relevant time period specified in Schedule 2 to GPDO 2015 and an applicant should not commence the development until the local planning authority has issued its determination.

A local planning authority has to be very aware of the time periods for determining PAs and should ensure that PA applications are dealt with efficiently and promptly and that the 8 week deadline is calculated correctly. A development could be ‘deemed approved’ if the time period for determination expires and no decision notice has been issued.

If the time period expires without a determination, the local planning authority may lose the opportunity to refuse a proposal that fails to meet the conditions set out under the relevant class of permitted development and/or fail to ensure that the permitted development proceeds with appropriate conditions, for example, ensuring permanent provision of refuse, recycling and cycle facilities. It is crucial that the local planning authority correctly calculates the deadline for determining an application; a key point is that the 8 weeks includes the date on which a valid application is received.

By default, this time period is an 8-week period from when the application is received, but this can vary depending on the type of proposal. Article 7 of GDPO 2015 says that the time period for determination will be:

  1. within the period specified in Schedule 2 (see below),
  2. where no period is specified, within a period of 8 weeks beginning with the day immediately following that on which the application is received by the authority, or
  3. within such longer period as may be agreed by the applicant and the authority in writing.

Two examples where Schedule 2 to GDPO 2015 sets out a time limit are Class A changes (from restaurants, cafes, takeaways, or pubs changing to retail) and Class T (from business, hotel etc. to state-funded schools or registered nursery). The period is 8 weeks for both.

Extending the time period for determination

The time period for determination can be extended if the parties are in agreement: Article 7(c) of GDPO 2015.

The case of Gluck v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 161 Admin concerned Class O permitted development rights which allow a change of use from offices to residential accommodation. In that case, the judge determined that:

“Article 7 must be read as if limb (c) is an alternative to both limbs (a) and (b). The consequence is that any of the prior approval time periods specified either in Schedule 2 or in Article 7 is capable of being extended by an agreement by the applicant and the LPA in writing.” (Para 85).

The judge ruled (at paragraph 102 of his judgment) that “I do not think that limb (c) necessarily insists upon an agreement being expressed by both parties in writing…it is sufficient that a verbal agreement was made by both parties which was then appropriately evidenced in writing”.

Therefore, local planning authorities can rely on Article 7(c) of GDPO 2015 when dealing with a PA application if they need more time to deal with the matter. As a matter of good practice, and to avoid disputes, it will be important to have evidence of any time extension properly documented between the applicant and the local planning authority. A local planning authority will need a clear indication of agreement by the applicant to extend the time frame.

It could be argued that processing these PA applications is not necessarily an easy or quick task, nor should it be. The number of PA applications is likely to rise, not necessarily matched by resources (or income from PD application fees). As the permitted development regime expands and the list of PA considerations for the various types of permitted development increases (for example, the recent introduction last month of minimum space standards for new permitted development homes) the ability to extend the determination time frame and the interpretation in Gluck of Article 7 of the GPDO 2015 may prove an essential tool for local authorities.

Rachel Lee is a Senior Associate at Sharpe Pritchard and Christos Paphiti is a Trainee Solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard. Rachel can be contacted This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or by telephone at 020 7405 4600. Christos can also be contacted This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or by telephone at 020 7405 4600.


For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

sharpe edge 600x100

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

LACAT BookFREE download!

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers

Written and edited by Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, Rob Hann,

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers covers:

• Updated charging powers compendium          • Commercial trading options

• Teckal ‘public to public’                                    • Localism Act

FREE DOWNLOAD

LACAT BookAvailable to buy:

A Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships

An invaluable, comprehensive toolkit for lawyers, law firms and others advising
on or participating in Local Authority Companies and Partnerships”

- Local Authority Chief Executive

BUY NOW

  More Articles

Icons House

The Subsidy Control Bill

Ryan Copeland and James Hughes analyse the main provisions of the Subsidy Control Bill announced in the recent Queen’s speech.
Icons Court

Councils unable to hold meetings remotely from 7th May

Radhika Devesher considers the fallout from the High Court's decision that online council meetings cannot continue past 7th May and outlines the practical steps that councils can take to ensure that the decision-making process is not adversely affected.
Icons Court

You can’t claim that! Court finds exclusion clauses work just like any other clause

The recent case of Mott MacDonald Limited v Trant Engineering Limited serves as a timely reminder that exclusion clauses in construction contracts can and do work and will be enforced by the courts to prevent what may otherwise be valid claims write Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe.
Icons Date

Sparks Flying: Increasing Network Connectivity For Tenants

Lillee Reid-Hunt, James Nelson and Natasha Barlow look at the potential impact of The Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021 on reducing delays in the installation of telecommunications equipment to leasehold properties.
Icons House

Subcontract held to govern works commenced before execution

Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe examine a case which considered which terms governed liability for works carried out prior to the execution of a contract.
Icons Court

No overlap between substance and jurisdictional issues

Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe examine the implications of Ex Novo Limited v MPS Housing Limited [2020] EWHC 3804 (TCC)]
Icons Court

Home is where the heart is

Bernadette Hillman and Christos Paphiti outline the new permitted development right and what it means for the property sector and planners
Icons Date

Can a worker get paid for sleeping?

Some jobs such as care workers, security guards and nightwatchmen require the individual to work night shifts where they may, with the approval of their employer, sleep during some or all of the shift, but nevertheless remain on standby during that time.
Icons Date

Can you decline to sponsor skilled workers under the new immigration rules?

Is there an obligation to consider resident workforce prior to employing migrants? Julie Bann and Aleksandra Wolek report.
Icons House

The Long Goodbye to the PFI

Rob Hann, Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government takes a look at the House of Common’s Public Account Committees’ recent report into the pending expiry of PFI contracts which contains some interesting recommendations….
Icons Court

Changes to the Electronic Communications Code

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has commenced a consultation on changes to the Electronic Communications Code 2017 (the “Code”). James Nelson, Lillee Reid-Hunt and Natasha Barlow report.
Icons Court

The Heat Networks (Scotland) Bill

Until last week the heat network sector in Scotland was not specifically regulated. The recent Heat Networks (Scotland) Bill seeks to rectify this by creating a regulatory framework and licencing system designed to encourage the increased use of heat networks.
Icons Date

A step in the right direction

Rob Hann and Juli Lau outline Sharpe Pritchard’s response to the Government’s Green Paper on reforming the ‘outdated’ public procurement regime.
Rob Hann

Life on the Edge!

This week sees the launch of Sharpe Edge – the home of Sharpe Pritchard on Local Government Lawyer. We have created Sharpe Edge for local authorities who are looking for ways to help their communities rebuild and regenerate following the devasting impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic.
Icons Court

Teckal and Beyond….

In this article Rob Hann, Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, takes a look at what isn’t covered in the recent Green Paper on Transforming the UK’s Public Procurement rules, namely the exception contained in regulation 12 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), commonly referred to as the Teckal exemption and asks whether Teckal is ‘fit for purpose’ in a post Brexit, post pandemic environment?
Icons Court

Jurisdiction Clauses & Enforcing Adjudication Decisions

The case of Motacus Constructions Ltd v Paolo Castelli Spa [2021] EWHC 356 (TCC) confirms adjudication’s status as an interim-binding measure and reinforces its importance as a dispute resolution forum in the construction industry.
Icons Date

Procurement in an Emergency – Requirements for Transparency

Public procurement has never had such a high profile as it has in recent months and most especially since the decision in Good Law Project and Others v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care ([2021] EWHC 346 (Admin)). However, in practice, has anything changed?
Icons Court

Disallowed Costs, Definitions and Default

The recent case of ABC Electrification Limited v Network Infrastructure Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 1645 saw legal practitioners jousting over the definition of a solitary word – namely, “default”. In this case regarding the scope of ‘Disallowed Costs’ in a common rail industry contract, the Court of Appeal issued a stark reminder to contractors that the meaning of individual words can be the difference between millions of pounds.
Icons Court

Automatic suspension and withdrawal of the decision to award

Colin Ricciardello examines a recent case where an authority sought to end an automatic contract making suspension by withdrawal of the decision to award the contract.
Icons House

Rooftop rows: What does an imposed Code agreement mean for site providers and operators?

Lillee Reid-Hunt and Christos Paphiti consider a recent Upper Tribunal decision that provides useful guidance on what site providers and telecoms operators can expect from the terms of an imposed Code agreement, especially in relation to upgrading and sharing of equipment and ballpark consideration and compensation figures.
Icons Date

Curing a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty in possession proceedings

Christian Grierson and Simon Kiely examine the impact of a High Court judge’s ruling on whether a breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED) can be cured in possession proceedings.
Icons Court

Insolvency influx – the upsurge of CVAs

James Nelson examines the rise in Company Voluntary Arrangements, analyses their impact on commercial leases and explains how landlords, including public bodies and local authorities, can respond.
Icons Court

HMO licensing, the ‘fit and proper’ test and spent convictions

The Court of Appeal has provided clarity for the test of a ‘fit and proper’ licence holder for houses in multiple occupancy (HMOs), write Simon Kiely and Christian Grierson.
Icons House

Standing to bring a procurement challenge

A Technology & Construction Court judge recently ruled that a consortium bringing a procurement claim was not an economic operator under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and would have had no chance of winning a hypothetical procurement. Colin Ricciardello analyses the judge's reasoning.
Icons Date

Local authority powers and traffic offences

Rob Hann, local government solicitor and author, explores concerns over proposals for new council powers to impose fines and penalties on motorists for some moving vehicle offences.
Icons Court

Who is in charge of the PFI Train?

Rob Hann, former Head of Legal at 4ps/Local Partnerships, gives his unique insight into the pending expiry of many PFI contracts in the local government sector and asks who will take responsibility for the next generation of local government assets and services, an issue that is becoming ever more urgent…..
Icons Court

Lockdown and local authority commercial development income

Rob Hann sets out the background to local authorities' investment in commercial property and examines why it has proved so controversial.
Icons House

Local government contracts and the ultra vires doctrine

In the light of the recent school facility management case invoving the Isle of Wight Council, Rob Hann takes a look at the weapons now available to local government to avoid the ‘horrors’ of ultra vires.
Icons Date

The End of PFI or… a new dawn for local authority infrastructure investment?

Rob Hann assesses new guidance from the National Audit Office for public bodies as PFI contracts start coming to an end, and looks at what the future holds for local authority investment.
Slide background