Earlier this year the planning laws were changed when a new Use Class (C4) was created for small HMOs (Houses in Multiple Occupation). What this meant was that any L who let to three to six unrelated people might find that the letting had moved into C4 Class – and thus required a new planning permission from the LA. However, that change was reversed as from 1 October (see our October issue, p26). 


Is GCT payable on the profit arising when land is compulsorily purchased?

In our September issue (p32) we pointed out the difference between a non-material change and a minor material amendment. The former brings about a change in the planning permission (ie you still have a single planning permission). The latter is usually called a ‘variation’ and results in a second planning permission (ie you have two planning permissions for the same development, but on different terms).

A reminder that the obligations under an s106 agreement (entered into by the developer with the LA) will run with the land. Thus, the planning obligation can be enforced against anyone who acquires an interest in any part of the land. This means that the full provisions could be enforced against a residential purchaser of one of the units in a development.

In April, the planning rules were changed when a new Use Class (C4) was created for small HMOs (Houses in Multiple Occupation). This covered uses of dwelling houses by between three and six unrelated people, who formed two or more households and shared basic amenities such as bathroom and kitchen.

There can be confusion about the difference between a non-material change to a planning permission (s96A TCPA 1990), and minor material amendments (under s73).

The two are often seen as the same thing, but that is not correct; in law, they produce different outcomes:

When deciding on a planning permission, the LA must have regard to the development plan and also ‘any other material considerations’. The classic definition of a ‘material consideration’ was given in South Cambridgeshire [2002]:

The Labour Government’s policy was that 60% of new housing each year should be built on previously developed ‘brownfield’ land. Importantly, private residential gardens were regarded as brownfield land (since they were part of an existing development), which meant that LAs usually felt unable to prevent the loss of gardens for residential development.

The Law Society has published a revised version of its model s106 agreement (this updates the previous version by referring to the new statutory tests, and gives guidance on procurement issues, as well as containing a dispute resolution clause).

Planning Policy Statement 3 deals with housing. Two important changes have been announced:

garden grabbing is to be thwarted through the reclassification of domestic gardens so they are no longer ‘previously developed land’ or brown-field land;

This is an important example for anyone involved in dilapidations or forfeiture cases. It involved a lease with fairly typical wording which allowed L to recover all costs:

‘In connection with any steps taken or in contemplation of, or in relation to, any proceedings under s146 or s147 LPA 1925 or the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938... even if forfeiture is avoided.’

Since April 2006, certain types of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) have had to be licensed by LAs (under HA 2004). These include properties that are let to three or more Ts, who form two or more households. Note, however, that there are now planning issues to be considered – and some Ls who may have already incurred costs in converting their properties to meet HMO licensing standards, may now find that they cannot obtain planning permission if they live in an area with a high concentration of HMOs.

If an LA introduces the community infrastructure levy (CIL), then any CIL is to be paid by the landowner of the land in any planning application.

These days, most planning permissions must be implemented within three years (previously five years). This means that the development must be ‘commenced’.