Anti social behaviour question (Full Council Sept 23)

As councillors are only allowed one verbal question, Cllr Jonathan Essex kindly combined the issues in Redhill and the Merstham for his question.

Question on Community Transport (Full Council Sept 23)

 

Article 4 Direction speech (Full Council Sept 23)

 

Article 4 Direction for Local Centres in Reigate and Banstead

Motion: Article 4 Direction for Local Centres in Reigate and Banstead 

Proposer: Councillor Khan 

Seconder: Councillor McKenna 

For the Council to resolve: 

To note that:

In August 2021 new permitted development rights (Class MA) took effect, granting deemed planning permission for change of use from commercial to residential. This Council objected to changes in the PDR regime stating inter alia that the changes are “fundamentally flawed and will significantly undermine economic and employment opportunities”. This Council also acknowledged that the relaxation of PDR enabling conversion to residential use “without the need of planning permission is unnecessary, unwelcome and undemocratic”. 

One local example of the use of these new Permitted Development Rights is where nearly all of a parade of shops in Nutfield Road, Merstham have been closed down by the landlord including much valued local community services such as a launderette. While the landlord systematically exercises its permitted development rights, such action is likely to adversely impact the remaining shops as well by undermining this local centre. 

An Article 4 Direction would limit the action by landlords to secure vacant possession to enable redevelopment via Permitted Development Rights. Instead, a planning application would be required. 

To agree that: 

Therefore, these changes to Permitted Development Rights (2021) present a challenge to the continuation of our designated town and local centres, with many significant adverse impacts, including to local employment. A number of other councils have initiated Article 4 Directions to counter the new permitted development rights. In November 2022, Reading Council applied the direction for change of use (classes MA, M and N) in district and local centres as defined in its Local Plan in order to remove certain permitted development rights that would result in new dwellings. 

To resolve: 

1. 

To bring forward the new ‘Retail Needs Survey’ required as part of its local plan to gather evidence to support this, as soon as is practicable, for the Council to identify where there is the potential for an Article 4 Direction over the four Town Centres and 27 Local Centres designated in the Development Management Plan (Policy RET 3) to restrict Permitted Development Rights PDR in these key locations; and, 

2. 

Subject to the outcome of the Retail Needs Survey, to then consult on a potential Article 4 Direction to add protection to our Town Centres and Local Centres

Written answer to Permitted Development Rights and Article 4 Direction question

                 Member questions on notice. 20th July 2023 

                    Question no.15 

                    From Councillor Khan to Councillor Michalowski

 

Permitted Development Rights

 

A whole parade of shops, and the flats above them in Nutfield Road, Merstham, which includes Sparkle Launderette and The Oriental, is up for sale. The vendor is selling on the basis that all the retail units are, in all but name, residential units, and none of them are required to be affordable homes. Other Councils have realised that Permitted Development Rights have a harmful and negative impact on a key shopping areas and increased the number of locations with an 'Article 4 Direction' to protect shops. Will this council apply an 'Article 4 Direction' on the three shops that are still to be granted automatic change of use?

 

Draft Response:

 

Thank you, Councillor Khan. This Council objected robustly to the Government’s expansion of permitted development rights which now allow a whole host of uses to convert to residential use without needing planning permission.
I share your frustration at the seeming eviction of tenants in this popular and vibrant local shopping parade to make way for residential redevelopment.
The Council cannot interfere with private tenancies and therefore the only potential means of  preventing this is through the use of an Article 4 Direction removing the permitted development rights granted by the Government.
Article 4 Directions have been used, most commonly to secure employment floorspace when the office to residential rights were first introduced. Article 4 Directions preventing the loss of local shops are far less frequently used and there are none in Surrey that I am aware of. 
 
Unfortunately since the first raft of Article 4 Directions, the Government has made it increasingly more difficult for local authorities to secure them, through its updating of the National Planning Policy Framework in 2021, and reiterated by the Secretary of State in announcing the proposed expansion to permitted development rights last month. Both of which state that Article 4 Directions will only be allowed where the (planning) impacts are wholly unacceptable and that they need to be robustly justified by evidence.
 
Unfortunately therefore an Article 4 Direction would not be straightforward and would need to be robustly justified through evidence as it is would essentially be taking away the rights of property owners conveyed by Government legislation, no matter whether we agree with them or not.
 
The process does therefore take time, with most Directions taking a year or more. They are therefore to be used proactively rather than reactively and ought not be sought to protect a single unit or two in an attempt to save them from eviction rather than giving consideration to protection of commercial uses at a Borough-wide scale. As we build our evidence base, including on retail and employment needs, through the new local plan processes, the use of Article 4 Directions across the Borough is something that I am keen we review and consider. In the meantime, we will be responding to the latest permitted development rights consultation to reiterate our concerns about the impact these can have, using Nutfield Road as an example of the unintended consequences of them. I would like to thank you for raising the issue and for your time and our recent meeting which I’m sure was helpful to all those attending.