\n| \u00a0FAME does not object to changes in providing the historic environment is protected in the normal manner, if permitted development is granted. Change of use from commercial\/retail to residential in town centres (historic ones) would be a benefit as this would help increase income for maintenance of the historic building stock and make conservation areas more alive with more people living in them.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q2.1 Do you agree that the right should not apply in areas of outstanding natural beauty, the Broads, National Parks, areas specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 41(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and World Heritage Sites? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Please give your reasons:<\/p>\n \n\n\n| \u00a0FAME does not object to changes in providing the historic environment is protected in the normal manner, if permitted development is granted. Change of use from commercial\/retail to residential in town centres (historic ones) would be a benefit as this would help increase income for maintenance of the historic building stock and make conservation areas more alive with more people living in them.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q2.2 Do you agree that the right should apply in conservation areas? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Please give your reasons:<\/p>\n \n\n\n| \nFAME does not object to changes in providing the historic environment is protected in the normal manner, if permitted development is granted. Change of use from commercial\/retail to residential in town centres (historic ones) would be a benefit as this would help increase income for maintenance of the historic building stock and make conservation areas more alive with more people living in them.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q2.3 Do you agree that, in conservation areas only, the right should allow for prior approval of the impact of the loss of ground floor use to residential? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Please give your reasons:<\/p>\n \n\n\n| \nFAME does not object to changes in providing the historic environment is protected in the normal manner, if permitted development is granted. Change of use from commercial\/retail to residential in town centres (historic ones) would be a benefit as this would help increase income for maintenance of the historic building stock and make conservation areas more alive with more people living in them.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q3.1 Do you agree that in managing the impact of the proposal, the matters set out in paragraph 21 of the consultation document should be considered in a prior approval? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q3.2 Are there any other planning matters that should be considered? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q4.1 Do you agree that the proposed new permitted development right to change use from Commercial, Business and Service (Class E) to residential (C3) should attract a fee per dwellinghouse? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q4.2 If you agree there should be a fee per dwelling house, should this be set at \u00a396 per dwellinghouse? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q5 Do you have any other comments on the proposed right for the change of use from Commercial, Business and Service use class to residential? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q6.1 Do you think that the proposed right for the change of use from the Commercial, Business and Service use class to residential could impact on businesses, communities, or local planning authorities? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n If so, please give your reasons:<\/p>\n \n\n\n| \nFAME does not object to changes in providing the historic environment is protected in the normal manner, if permitted development is granted. Change of use from commercial\/retail to residential in town centres (historic ones) would be a benefit as this would help increase income for maintenance of the historic building stock and make conservation areas more alive with more people living in them.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q6.2 Do you think that the proposed right for the change of use from the Commercial, Business and Service use class to residential could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q7.1 Do you agree that the right for schools, colleges and universities, and hospitals be amended to allow for development which is not greater than 25% of the footprint, or up to 250 square metres of the current buildings on the site at the time the legislation is brought into force, whichever is the larger? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q7.2 Do you agree that the right be amended to allow the height limit to be raised from 5 metres to 6? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q7.3 Is there any evidence to support an increase above 6 metres? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q7.4 Do you agree that prisons should benefit from the same right to expand or add additional buildings? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q8 Do you have any other comments about the permitted development rights for schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and prisons? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q9.1 Do you think that the proposed amendments to the right in relation to schools, colleges and universities, and hospitals could impact on businesses, communities, or local planning authorities? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q9.2 Do you think that the proposed amendments to the right in relation to schools, colleges and universities, and hospitals, could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q10.1 Do you think that the proposed amendment to allow prisons to benefit from the right could impact on businesses, communities, or local planning authorities?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q10.2 Do you think that the proposed amendment in respect of prisons could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q11 Do you agree that the new public service application process, as set out in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the consultation document, should only apply to major development (which are not EIA developments)? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q12 Do you agree the modified process should apply to hospitals, schools and further education colleges, and prisons, young offenders’ institutions, and other criminal justice accommodation? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q13 Do you agree the determination period for applications falling within the scope of the modified process should be reduced to 10 weeks? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q14 Do you agree the minimum consultation \/ publicity period should be reduced to 14 days? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n Q15 Do you agree the Secretary of State should be notified when a valid planning application is first submitted to a local planning authority and when the authority anticipates making a decision? (We propose that this notification should take place no later than 8 weeks after the application is validated by the planning authority.) <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q16 Do you agree that the policy in paragraph 94 of the NPPF should be extended to require local planning authorities to engage proactively to resolve key planning issues of other public service infrastructure projects before applications are submitted? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q17.1 Do you have any comments on the other matters set out in the consultation document, including post-permission matters, guidance and planning fees? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q17.2 Do you have any other suggestions on how these priority public service infrastructure projects should be prioritised within the planning system? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q18 Do you think that the proposed amendments to the planning applications process for public service infrastructure projects could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q19.1 Do you agree with the broad approach to be applied to the review and update of existing permitted development rights in respect of categories 1, 2 and 3 outlined in paragraph 76 of the consultation document? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Please give your reasons:<\/p>\n \n\n\n| \nFAME does not object to changes in providing the historic environment is protected in the normal manner, if permitted development is granted. Change of use from commercial\/retail to residential in town centres (historic ones) would be a benefit as this would help increase income for maintenance of the historic building stock and make conservation areas more alive with more people living in them.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q19.2 Are there any additional issues that we should consider? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q20 Do you agree think that uses, such as betting shops and pay day loan shops, that are currently able to change use to a use now within the Commercial, Business and Service use class should be able to change use to any use within that class? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q21 Do you agree the broad approach to be applied in respect of category 4 outlined in paragraph 76 of the consultation document? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Agree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Disagree<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Don’t know<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Q22 Do you have any other comments about the consolidation and simplification of existing permitted development rights? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| Yes<\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| No<\/td>\n | X<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" FAME responded to the recent consultation on a proposed new permitted development right for the change of use from Commercial, Business and Service use to residential in England. You can find our answers to consultation questions below: Q1 Do you agree that there should be no size limit on the buildings that could benefit from […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-responses"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3935","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3935"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3935\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3936,"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3935\/revisions\/3936"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/famearchaeology.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |