The effect of the GPDO is that work that would normally be ‘development’ (and thus need planning permission) is deemed to have ‘permitted developing rights’ (ie it is as if permission had been granted by the council). However, watch out for article 4 which says that the local planning authority (or the Secretary of State) can take away the permitted development rights within a specified area. This is done by making an article 4 direction. The result is that any property within the area specified in the article 4 direction will no longer enjoy permitted development rights under the GPDO. Thus, ‘development’ that would normally be permitted will now need specified planning permission in the usual way. For instance, the erection of a barn within an agricultural holding would normally be ‘development’ but it is permitted by the GPDO – unless the council has made an article 4 direction (in which case permission will be required). Likewise, suppose a homeowner has used a company for installing a conservatory, with the salesman giving all the assurances that the size of the conservatory means that it falls within the GPDO, without the salesman realising that an article 4 direction has been made in respect of the local area.

Article 4 directions are registered as local land charges and are therefore disclosed on your local search – see enquiry 3.9(J). So, if the local search comes back with such a local land charge revealed, it is vital that you get specific confirmation that there has been planning permission granted for any development within the scope of the article 4 direction. For an introduction to the recent changes to the GPDO, see [2008] 218 Property Law Journal 22 © Practical Lawyer