Gardens & wildlife

Crescent Rd proposal is wrongly described

See also: sample letter to the Case Officer:
28/28B Crescent Rd fails the permitted development tests

Application BH2014/00841 as "permitted development" makes for an undemocratic public consultation in which residents who would be very badly affected by the scheme are gagged from expressing their main concerns. However, the assumption that this proposal meets the terms of "permitted development" must be challenged to right an obvious injustice.

Change of description on the Council's planning registernotpermitted














Exemptions to permitted development

See Guide to "use categories" in England, May 2013

Offices in Class A2 office use (Financial and Professional) are not covered by the new rule and would need normal planning permission for conversion to residential. Other classes of office use which are outside the terms of "permitted development are B1(b) Research and development of products and processes, and B1(c) for any industrial process (which can be carried out in any residential area without causing detriment to the amenity of the area). Only B1(a) [Office other than a use within class A2] qualifies for conversion to residential under the new permitted development right introduced on 30th May 2013. This too is subject to prior approval process, previous use timings, limitations, and exempt areas.

  • Associated external physical development may still require planning permission

The extension of the permitted development right therefore applies only to office units which were in B1(a) use immediately before 30th May 2013 or during the last use before that date. A full planning application may be needed (and permitted development therefore ruled out) when conversions from B1(a) office use to C(3) residential require significant external physical development. The buildings & annexes at 28B Crescent Road, which the applicant is claiming as having been in B1(a) use in presenting application BH2014/00841 as "permitted development" having classified the same office floorspace as class A2 use just a few weeks earlier in application 2014/00124, are an untidy warren which have evolved piecemeal. It is very unlikely that they are suitable structures for conversion into decent residential accommodation without external physical development sufficient to require a full planning application. The Council needs to be made aware of the exemptions to the permitted development right, before it is assumed that the new rule is more draconian than it is. See external article on exemptions to the permitted development right.

See also: sample letter to the Case Officer:
28/28B Crescent Rd fails the permitted development tests

This page was last updated by Ted on 27-Jan-2019
(registered users can amend this page)