Letter: Planning bypassed
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I would like to comment further on the issue of "permitted development rights" referred to by P Jenkyns (letter, 7 January) and raised by Evan Harris, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, in Parliament on 16 December.
A company which enjoys permitted development rights is exempt from the usual planning regulations. In the debate, Nick Raynsford, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, justified this situation by saying, "It would be in nobody's interest to require the submission of a planning application every time development was proposed, no matter how small or insignificant." Surely, the answer then is to limit permitted development rights to small and insignificant matters?
Permitted development rights also give a company immunity from prosecution under normal environmental health law. Should not this immunity be restricted to occasional, temporary situations such a short-term repair work, rather than allowing permanent ongoing noise nuisance like that generated by Railtrack's "virtual quarry" in Oxford?
There is also the question of compensation. Permitted development rights can be withdrawn in exceptional circumstances by issuing an article 4 direction, which then has to be upheld by the Secretary of State. If an article 4 direction is successful, then the development has to go through the normal planning procedure. This would appear to be a "safety net", ensuring that totally unsuitable and damaging developments can be stopped. However, if planning permission is refused, the company can claim compensation because it has been "deprived of the rights that would normally be enjoyed". This means that issuing an article 4 direction is not a financially viable option. Is it right that a company should be compensated for having to withdraw an unacceptable development which should never have been proposed in the first place?
Permitted development rights need to be much more narrowly defined.
ANNA GLAZEBROOK
Oxford
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments