Aylesbury Vale Area

FMM077

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3696

Received: 15/12/2020

Respondent: Dr David Saunders

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Representation Summary:

The proposed change to Policy D3, to reference permitted development under Class Q, is unnecessary and inappropriate. As a matter of law, a policy in a plan can never preclude permitted development; and so the policy should not make assertions about whether or not it does so.

Change suggested by respondent:

Do not make the proposed change.

Full text:

The proposed change, to reference permitted development under Class Q, is unnecessary and inappropriate. According to TCPA 1990 s57(1):

"Subject to the following provisions of this section, planning permission is required for the carrying out of any development of land"

and s58(1)

"Planning permission may be granted—
(a) by a development order, a local development order or a neighbourhood development order;
(b) by the local planning authority ... on application to the authority ..."

and s70(2)

"In dealing with an application for planning permission or permission in principle the authority shall have
regard to —
(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, ..."

Thus, according to s70(2), the development plan (of which VALP will be a part) is used to determine planning permission when the authority deals with the application. But according to s.58(i), if permission is granted by a development order under clause (a), then clause (b), which is an alternative to (a), is not engaged, because no application for planning permission has been made to the authority.

A reference in the footnote to Policy D3 to exclude conversions from agricultural to residential use under Class Q of the GPDO 2015 is therefore irrelevant, because planning permission for such a conversion will already have been granted by the development order. As a matter of law, a policy in a plan can never preclude permitted development; and so the policy should not make assertions about whether or not it does so.

Support

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 4015

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Arnold White Estates

Agent: Arrow Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

These changes respond to Gardner Planning’s representations to the MM consultation. AW Group supports the proposed change.

Full text:

See attached documentation