Floating Fly Line Color Does It Matter

09.58 in Boat Plans, color, does, floating, fly, form, game, in, it, line, matter, memory, muscle, redington, time

You cant always pick your family but you can pick your fly line.

Over the last 10-15 years I have watched fly line manufactures building more lines with earth tone colors or even clear and fewer hi-vis or bright colors. Anglers seem to be asking for and buying more and more of these lines that are more camouflaged, but does the color matter to the fish. That is the question that few seem to ask, nor do I think we really know. When it comes to this subject color of a fly line, there are all types of opinions, so here is what I think.

I personally come from the train of thought that being able to see a fly line on the water and in the air really helps an angler’s ability to catch more fish. First off a bright colored line is easier to see while casting, this helps you judge distance and placing a cast in tight quarters. Second and most important is being able to see your line while it is on the water, if you can’t see your line, you cannot control it. As a former guide line control is everything! That brings me to the third reason; if you go on guided trips it allows your guide to see your line and judge where your fly is much better.

I am a steelhead addict and fish dry lines with flies on the surface or in the surface film as much as I can. I fish the brightest line I can, all though these bright lines in good tapers are getting hard to find. Here is why I like a bright line for steelhead angling. When fishing a damp fly in the surface film I am always scanning for a fish that came to check my fly out, but did not eat it, this is a fish I want to work. When these fish come up from the bottom to check a fly out they commonly make a disturbance on the surface as they turn to return to the bottom. It is critical to see exactly where your fly is, once you know where the fly is; now you can scan the area around it for any signs of fishing moving. If you do this you will catch more steelhead, but if you have trouble seeing the tip of your line this task will get much more difficult. Scanning an area 6 foot by 6 foot is much easier than trying to locate the tip of a fin in an area 20 foot by 20 foot.

Trout anglers that are very successful will generally tell you the most important tricks to catching more fish is presenting the fly properly. If your line is not controlled properly than the fly is not presented properly, the result is not very successful trout fishing. Drag on the fly is generally a big NO, NO. Drag is minimized by controlling and correcting the drift or drag of your line. This is much tougher to do with a line that is hard to see. I have never seen a trout spook from what I would say was the color of the line, but I have seen many spook from the shadow of the line. Even a clear line cast a shadow, I have seen many fish spook from a clear lines’ shadow.

Greg Darling joined me this year on our annual trip to the Palometa Club in Ascension Bay, Mexico. We did a rod comparison that Greg wrote an article about called NRX vs ONE...Who rules the flats!  Rio had just released the Rio Bonefish QS Fly Line in florescent orange; this looked like the perfect fly line to take to pop out in photos. A few days into the trip we found some nice bones on a outer flat, guides wanted us to put the permit rod away and get our bonefish rod out. I knew that these bigger single bones were much spookier, so here is the test. When we pulled out the 9’ 7 weight Sage ONE rod lined with this line, I was waiting for the two guides to start scream at me “what did you bring that line for!” As I cast the line 75 feet to a bone, the only thing that our lead guide said was “nice cast, strip, strip, strip. You got him!” I hooked and lost a bonefish in less than a foot of water. We fished the rest of the afternoon searching for permit and sliding into the shallows whenever a nice bone presented itself. Greg hooked and landed several bones that day on the Orange line. We asked the guides about their thoughts on the bright lines. They said that they love them, it helps them see right where the fly is. This helps them read the fish and see the eat. They wished that more of the lines anglers showed up with had these lines.

Sage ONE + Hatch 7plus + Rio Bonefish line = BONEFISH

Here is why I do not think a bright colored line spooks anymore fish than a camouflaged or clear line. Think about it this way, have you ever swam under water and opened your eyes? What does the surface look like? It has lots of broken colors and lines; this is from light being reflected in the surface water. This reflected light is always moving and changing, I would think that a bright yellow, green or orange line would be no different than this constantly changing surface light. Fish spook from the shadow of a fly line, bright or camouflage they shadow the same, even clear fly lines shadow.

Orange is the new Clear

At the end of the day fish what you have confidence in, but if you want to try a really bright line in a good taper they are getting harder to find. Line companies have had to go with consumer demand which is for natural colored lines. Rio does a very nice bright orange in the Rio Gold; this is a great choice for trout. For Saltwater Rio the Bonefish Quickshooter in a hi-vis.

By Travis Duddles
Owner, Gorge Fly Shop

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read more

Enforcement notice served out of time is quashed

15.08 in –, a1, and, Boat Plans, c3, enforcement, is, notice, now, of, out, quashed, served, time, to

The case of R (Stern) v. Horsham District Council [2013] EWHC 1460 (Admin), in which judgment was given by Leggatt J on 1 May 2013, is a salutary reminder to LPAs and their officers of the need to ensure that statutory requirements in connection with the service of enforcement notices are strictly adhered to.

Section 172(3) of the 1990 Act provides that a copy of an enforcement notice must be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates, and on any other person having an interest in the land (being an interest which, in the opinion of the LPA, is materially affected by the notice) not more than 28 days after the date on which the notice is issued, and not less than 28 days before the date on which it is to take effect.

In this case, two enforcement notices were issued on 6 December 2011, and specified 4 January 2012 as the date on which they were to take effect. To comply with section 172(3) the notices would need to have been served at the latest on 7 December 2011. The notices were in fact served on 9 December 2011, i.e. less than 28 days before the date specified in the notices as the date on which they were to take effect.

The claimant immediately instructed an agent to lodge an appeal under section 174, but due to some delay on the part of the claimant’s agent, and with the intervention of the Christmas and New Year holidays, the appeal did not reach the Planning Inspectorate until 4 January 2012, i.e. the day on which the enforcement notices took effect. This was a day late, as the appeal must reach the Planning Inspectorate no later than the day before the notice takes effect. The Planning Inspectorate has no power to extend time for appealing, and so there could be no appeal against these enforcement notices.

In the circumstances, the claimant sought to persuade the council to withdraw the enforcement notices and reissue them so as to give him the opportunity to appeal. However, the council refused to do so, and the claimant applied to the High Court by way of Judicial Review, seeking an order quashing the enforcement notices on the grounds that they had been served out of time (i.e. less than 28 days before they were due to take effect).

The claim for judicial review proceeded on two grounds. It sought first to challenge the validity of the enforcement notices, by reason of their late service. In the alternative, the claimant argued that, if the enforcement notices were valid, the council acted unlawfully in refusing to withdraw and re-issue the notices when the fact that the notices had not been served in accordance with section 172(3)(b) of the 1990 Act was pointed out to the council.

The council sought to defend its position by contending that the claimant could have ensured that the appeals reached the Planning Inspectorate by 3 January. They further argued that section 174(2)(e), when read together with section 285, has the effect that the validity of the enforcement notices issued in this case could not be questioned in any proceedings whatsoever on the ground that they were not served on the claimant within the time required by section 172(3). Therefore, they claimed, the claimant could not challenge the validity of the enforcement notices on that ground in these proceedings or in any other proceedings.

Leggatt J held that, interpreted in the context of the legislative scheme as a whole, the words of section 172(3) must, to avoid unfairness which cannot reasonably have been intended and to make sense of the scheme of the legislation, be interpreted as referring only to a situation where copies of the enforcement notices were not served at all as required by section 172. On this ‘narrow’ interpretation, Ground (e) in section 174 of the 1990 Act (alleging non-service of the notice) does not cover a situation where, as happened in this case, copies of the enforcement notice were served on the persons specified in section 172(2) but not within the period specified in section 172(3). Thus the preclusive provisions of section 285, on which the council relied, did not prevent the defective service that had occurred in this case being challenged by way of judicial review.

The claimant also ran an argument under Article 6 of the ECHR (the right to a fair trial). Article 6 applies to planning determinations including the issue of enforcement notices and, in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of R (Alconbury Developments Limited) v Secretary of State for Environment [2003] 2 AC 295, this brings section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 into play (which states that "So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."). His lordship pointed out that the interpretative obligation imposed by section 3(1) is a strong obligation. It requires that the more favourable interpretation of section 174(2)(e) must be adopted unless it is plainly impossible: see e.g. R v A (No 2) [2002] 1 AC 45. The interpretation of section 174(2)(e) that was more favourable to the claimant must accordingly be adopted in order to achieve compatibility with Article 6 of the Convention.

On the question of the exercise of the court’s discretion, one of the causes of the failure to appeal in time was the councils breach of statutory duty. That being so, the claimant had been substantially prejudiced by the councils breach of duty (as well as by the fault of his own agent). Hence, this was not a case where the Court should decline to make a quashing order.

Although, in view of his other findings, it was unnecessary for him to adjudicate on the claimant’s alternative argument (that, if the enforcement notices were valid, the council acted unlawfully in refusing to withdraw and re-issue the notices when the fact that the notices had not been served in accordance with section 172(3)(b) of the 1990 Act was pointed out to the council), Legatt J indicated that he would also have found in favour of the claimant on that ground.

What I really don’t understand about this case is why on earth Horsham didn’t just withdraw the enforcement notices as requested. Even if they had been issued and served right at the end of the four-year period, the council would still have another four years in which to issue and serve fresh notices under the ‘second bite’ provision – section 171B(4)(b). OK, so that would give the claimant a right of appeal under section 174, which they would otherwise have lost, but so it should. A theme which runs right through the judgment of Leggatt J is the need for fairness. It would be manifestly unfair for the council to seek to take advantage of their own procedural mistake to deprive the claimant of their right of appeal.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

The recent GPDO amendments – a last look

04.18 in –, a, amendments, Boat Plans, enforcement, gpdo, is, last, look, notice, of, out, quashed, recent, served, the, time

NOTE: There have been significant changes to the law since this blog post was published, and so the material printed below does not accurately reflect the current position. The Second Schedule to the GPDO has been substantial ovehauled and re-numbered in the 2015 GPDO.

I promised in a previous post to deal with the new PD rights for other operational development granted by the amendment to the GPDO made in May.

The amendment order allows larger extensions of industrial premises than were previously permitted under Part 8 (industrial and warehouse development). The version of Part 8 that applied before 30 May 2013 was inserted in the GPDO in 2010. Class A comprises “the erection, extension or alteration of an industrial building or a warehouse.” Paragraph A.1 set out various dimensional limitations. These included [A.1(d)] any new building having a gross floor space of more than 100 square metres. Prior to April 2010, permitted development was limited to alteration and extension of existing buildings; there were no rights to provide new buildings under Class A. I have mentioned this because the editors of the Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice have not yet amended the text of their commentary to reflect this change, one of several instances where the text of the Encyclopedia relating to the GPDO is woefully out of date.

After April 6 2010, under paragraph A.1(e), the gross floorspace of the original building could be extended by up to 25% or 1,000 sq metres whichever was the less, provided the site was not within a National Park, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Conservation Area, the Broads or a World Heritage Site (“Article 1(5) land”). If it was in such an area, the size limits were 10% of the floorspace of the original building or 500 sq metres whichever was the less.

The effect of the recent amendments is that, with effect from 30 May 2013, but only for a three-year period ending on 30 May 2016, the figures mentioned above are increased, so that the size limit for a new building is now 200 sq m, provided it is not on “Article 1(5) land” or (a new provision) within a Site of Special Scientific Interest. For extensions, the limits are also doubled to 50% or 1,000 sq metres, whichever is the less, provided the site is not on “Article 1(5) land” or an SSSI. In an SSSI (which is not also “Article 1(5) land”) the absolute limit is still 1,000 sq m, but the percentage limit is reduced to 25%; and, again, the lesser figure applies. In “Article 1(5) land” the limits are 10% or 500 sq m (whichever is the less).

In respect of those developments that are larger than the previous limits, there are certain extra conditions (which do not apply to new buildings or extensions that are within the previous limits). The development must be completed before 30 May 2016, and the developer must notify the local planning authority of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion. This notification must be in writing and must include the name of the developer, the address or location of the development, a description of the development, including measurements and calculations (by reference to the new size limits) and the date of completion. Note that no prior notification is involved in this case and no prior approval is required.

Article 9 of the amending order amends Part 24 of Second Schedule the GPDO (developments by electronic communications code operators). The changes remove the need on “Article 1(5) land” for prior approval of the construction, installation or replacement of telegraph poles, cabinets or lines for fixed-line broadband services under Part 24 (paragraph A.3 ) for a 5 year period. Any developments covered by this concession must be completed before 30 May 2018.

It is easy to forget that Part 41 was added to the Second Schedule of the GPDO with effect from 6 April 2010, allowing certain extensions or alterations to office buildings. There is no reference here to “Article 1(5) land”, and the only restrictions relate to development within an SSSI. Except in an SSSI, the gross floor space of the original building can be increased by up to 50%; or 100 square metres, whichever is the less (up from 25% or 50 sq m under the 2010 rules). The same rules about notifying completion of one of these larger buildings or extensions apply here as apply to Part 8.

It is also easy to overlook Part 42 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO, another provision added in April 2010, which allows certain extensions or alterations to shops or catering, financial or professional services establishments. Again, the size limits have been increased from 25% to 50% or from 50 sq m to 100 sq m, subject to the same time limit for these larger extensions (completion before 30 May 2016) and the same requirements as to notifying the LPA of completion.

I have deliberately omitted the new permitted development rights for schools, as these are really only going to be of interest if you are directly involved in educational development. Suffice it to say that these changes represent the long-awaited delivery of the promise made way back in 2010 by our wonderful and ever so talented Education Secretary, Gussie Fink-Nottle (alias ‘Michael Gove’), to “tear up the planning laws” to allow his new ‘free’ schools to be built. It only took them 3 years to get there!

Meanwhile, our Welsh friends have also acquired a ‘round tuit’, and have finally amended the Welsh version of the GPDO to bring it more up-to-date. I have not had time yet to compare the new Schedule 2 in Wales with the version of the same schedule that now applies in England, but a very brief scan through it suggests that there are substantial similarities. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2013 (SI 2013/1776) comes into effect in Wales on 30 September.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Redington Form Game time in muscle memory

20.47 in 8th, Boat Plans, december, fishing, form, game, in, memory, muscle, redington, report, time, weekly

Redington Form: Game Rod - Game time

Im still very new to fly fishing and love getting on the water every chance I get, but it seems lately its been very difficult to get fly time. At times Ive dreamt where I could be camping, or in elk camp plinking beer cans off stumps with this very rod. Places where I was unable to get to water. The ideas (lets call them games) are almost endless. So recently I pulled the trigger and acquired my first Redington Form "Game Rod". I didnt want this rod in place of, but more to fill a void. For example, during a most recent exciting (que sarcasm) family Thanksgiving I found myself outside with my oldest and a brand new Wave Blue form game rod. Before my first cast my son asked what I was doing. I sarcastically replied daddys working (but showed him the rod anyways). Ok. Step back. I started feeding line getting into the motion of things, thats right I thought... there it is... muscle memory beginning to kick in, less wrist, more line. With the cool fresh air and the fallen leaves in the grass mimicking drag in water (sort of) with a yarn fly I was smiling. I began to enjoy this short two piece rod with no reel. I began picking targets in the yard. Kicking a soccer ball further and further out to the ends of my reach. I was getting into the groove, no. I was in the groove. All I needed was a cold beer...

10 Month first cast, kidding

Pause: Game Two! Set up the beer cans. 
As cans began to line up things got serious. These where no longer cheap beer cans laid out amongst the grass they where targets, fallen soldiers in the Thanksgiving wake. A trout here, big fat bass over there. Had to put my half empty can down, its go time! Hunched down, cast after cast, a hit, miss, miss, hit!!! "Mike!" - Shoot, time to head in.

Game Three - Live Bait!
Needless to say I revisited this game a few more times throughout the rest of my day. Later as my 4 year old got anxious and wanted to play I decided to change things up. As he swung on the swing set I began swinging the hookless fly at his feet, he began to laugh, I laughed. Hey this is fun and safe I thought. We continued, laughing and moving around the swing set and once we where done we began to run around the yard. I must have been chasing a Permit. Elusive bugger he was, casting the rod at his backside 20-30ft at a time, all the while running circles and weaving in and around trees, laughing and smiling. Something I havent done in quite a while, at least so much! When 30ft was no longer enough I was forced to feed more line, 30-40ft... Oops, too much, reel back in. These games and others continued throughout the day.


I sometimes ask my wife and kids what they are thankful for or what their favorite part of their day was. On this day, I was thankful for happy kids and my new game rod because this was the most memorable (favorite) part of my Thanksgiving Holiday (yes, even more than the Thanksgiving dinner).   



Article by: Mike Prine - The Newbie
Gorge Fly Shop - Webmaster

Redington Game Rods: When in stock, available in wave blue or lava red.

"Fly Fish the World with Us"

Read more

Running out of time

09.07 in 6, again, barn, Boat Plans, conversions, of, out, part, running, time

One of the problems with having a fixed-term parliament is that the final stages of the parliamentary term risk degenerating into a fag-end of miscellaneous business, while ministers increasingly focus their attentions on the forthcoming election campaign. Commentators have already noted that the current parliamentary session contains a significantly reduced number of Bills compared with an average session but, despite this, time is rapidly running out in which to clear up remaining legislative proposals that the government would like to bring into force before the election. There certainly isn’t time now to introduce any new Bills, and so it is just a question of taking pending Bills through their remaining stages, and laying statutory instruments in parliament to deal with the various subordinate legislation that the government has announced its intention of making.

In the meantime, ministers seem to be resorting to the rather pointless exercise of putting down resolutions to record their future intent in the event that they were to be re-elected, in a vain attempt to commit a future government to a certain course of action, or simply to try to ‘wrong foot’ the opposition on particular issues.

The House of Commons rises for the Christmas recess today and will return on Monday 5 January. The Lords rose yesterday and will return on 6 January. There will then be a ‘half-term’ recess for both houses from 12 to 23 February, and Parliament will be dissolved on Monday 30 March 2015. This may be preceded by prorogation, marking the formal end of the parliamentary session, although the House of Commons may decide that it will not prorogue prior to dissolution. In any event there is now precious little parliamentary time left in which to complete unfinished business – barely 5 weeks in January/February, and then another 5 weeks to the end of March – 10 weeks in all for Bills to complete their remaining stages and obtain Royal Assent.

One piece of legislation that is of interest to planners (and to property owners in Greater London) is the Deregulation Bill. It contains a clause (currently Clause 33) which will come into immediate effect upon Royal Assent, and will give the Secretary of State power to make a statutory instrument relaxing, to some (as yet unspecified) extent, section 25(3) of the Greater London (General Powers) Act 1973, so as to allow some types of short-term lettings in Greater London that are currently prohibited by that sub-section of the 1973 Act. If the government wants to give effect to this change before the General Election, they will need to be drafting the necessary statutory instrument now, so that it can be laid before parliament without delay after the relevant section of what will then be the Deregulation Act 2015 comes into force.

In order to give sufficient time for parliamentary scrutiny of the SI (admittedly theoretical rather than actual, as an SI of this sort is never actually debated), it should be laid before both houses no later than mid-February, bearing in mind the impending dissolution at the end of March. But the Bill is still going through its committee stage in the Lords, and it must be a moot point as to whether it can complete its remaining stages in time to gain Royal Assent before the half-term break which starts on 12 February.

This is not the only problem now facing the government as the sands of time run out. The same timetabling considerations would apply to other subordinate legislation that the government has announced its intention to introduce. The Chancellor of the Exchequer uncharacteristically resisted the temptation to re-announce these proposals in his Autumn Statement earlier this month, but there is no reason to believe that the government has abandoned their intention to make further planning changes by fresh amendments to the General Permitted Development and to the Use Classes Order. On the other hand, the proposal to consolidate the GPDO, the UCO and also the Development Management Procedure Order may have to await the attention of the next government.

We have been promised a further amendment to Part 3 of the Second Schedule to the GPDO to permit the change of use of light industrial units (B1(c)), warehouses and storage units (B8) and some sui generis uses (launderettes, amusement arcades/centres, casinos and nightclubs) to residential use (C3), and changes of certain sui generis uses to restaurants (C3) and leisure uses (D2), plus the change of use to a widened retail (A1) class from betting shops and pay day loan shops (A2), restaurants and cafés (A3), drinking establishments (A4), and hot food takeaways (A5).

On the other hand, the intention to make permanent those permitted development rights which currently expire in May 2016 could be postponed for the time being. If the present government were to find themselves still in power after May 7 (which does seem a little improbable) there would be plenty of time before 30 May 2016 for them to make these further changes.

The right to make alterations to commercial premises so as to facilitate commercial filming, the installation of larger solar panels on commercial buildings, minor alterations within waste management facilities and for sewerage undertakers, and further extensions (in addition to those already allowed) to houses and business premises may or may not feature in the expected subordinate legislation in the New Year, and the same may apply to the proposed changes to Classes A1 and A2 of the Use Classes Order, which may involve the merger of these two use classes in a single new ‘town centre’ use class, so as to create a much more flexible range of uses in our High Streets, while at the same time restricting the scope of what is currently Class A2, so that betting offices and pay-day loan shops (both currently falling within this Use Class) will become sui generis uses.

I confess that I am a little hazy when it comes to the finer details of the negative resolution procedure, but I believe that a 40-day period has to be allowed for this purpose in most cases, even though such statutory instruments come into effect more or less automatically, without ever having been discussed or debated. If that is right, then Uncle Eric would need to lay these further statutory instruments before parliament between 6 January and 12 February in order to be sure that they can take effect before the General Election.

So we shall just have to watch and wait, to see whether the expected subordinate legislation does come forward in the coming weeks. If not, then it will depend on the policies of the ministers who are in office after the General Election as to whether these and the other planning changes that the present government has proposed will ever be brought forward.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more

Further planning changes put off until after the General Election

16.17 in after, Boat Plans, changes, election, further, general, of, off, out, planning, put, running, the, time, until

In the interval between Christmas and the New Year, De-CLoG sneaked out its “Ninth Statement of New Regulation: January to June 2015”, which (if what it says on the tin is to be believed) lists all the subordinate legislation that De-CLoG ministers intend to bring into force between 1 January and 30 June 2015. The word “all” is not actually used in the document, but it is reasonable to assume that if the government had a firm intention to introduce any other measures before the General Election they would have been included in this document.

The statement is therefore unintentionally revealing in having omitted a number of significant planning changes which were loudly trumpeted by ministers last year, and which would certainly have been included in the list of forthcoming measures if the government still intended to bring them forward before the General Election.

Among the previously proposed changes about which the document is deafeningly silent are further amendments to the GPDO to enable more changes of use in addition to those previously introduced within the past two years. These were expected to include the change of use of light industrial units (B1(c)), warehouses and storage units (B8) and some sui generis uses (launderettes, amusement arcades/centres, casinos and nightclubs) to residential use (C3), and changes of some sui generis uses to restaurants (C3) and leisure uses (D2).

There is no mention, either, of the government’s intention to make permanent those permitted development rights which currently expire in May 2016. We had been promised that the existing time limit for completing office to residential conversions would be extended from 30 May 2016 to 30 May 2019. It doesn’t look as this is going to happen this side of the General Election. The same applies to the right to build larger domestic extensions (under Part 1), currently expiring in May 2016.

Another measure that it seems will not be coming forward is the right to make alterations to shops, so as to allow retailers to alter their premises, plus additional PD rights covering (among other things) further extensions to houses and business premises, over and above existing permitted extensions.

Turning to the Use Classes Order, there is no mention of the proposed merger of Use Classes A1 and A2 in a single new ‘town centre’ use class. This was expected to be accompanied by a further amendment of the GPDO to allow change of use to the widened retail (A1) class from betting shops and pay day loan shops (A2), restaurants and cafés (A3), drinking establishments (A4), and hot food takeaways (A5). Similarly there is no mention of the intended restriction of the scope of the current A2 use class, so that betting offices and pay-day loan shops (both currently falling within this Use Class) would become sui generis uses.

Another measure of which no mention is made is the suggested increase in floorspace in a building in retail use (including the introduction of mezzanine floors), currently limited to 200 sq m, that can be made without its coming within the definition of development under section 55 (and therefore requiring planning permission). [I thought the original provision in the 2004 Act had been brought into force with effect from 10 May 2006, but I haven’t been able to put my finger on the SI which confirmed this limit, and have begun to wonder whether this provision in the 2004 Act is actually in force. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.]

There is one measure (relating to a proposed reduction in qualifying time for the Right to Buy scheme) which has been pencilled in for April 2015, but is flagged up as being “dependent on the Deregulation Bill”. The same would apply to the previously announced intention to relax section 25(3) of the Greater London (General Powers) Act 1973, so as to allow some types of short-term lettings in Greater London that are currently prohibited by that sub-section of the 1973 Act. But in this case, there is no mention of the proposed measure in the De-CLoG statement. Is this another measure that has bitten the dust?

Perhaps it was the realisation that these various measures could not now be brought forward before the General Election that led to George Osborne refraining from re-announcing them yet again in his Autumn Statement.

In Cloud-cuckoo-land, where Tory members of our coalition government seem to live, it is confidently expected that the government will be able to introduce these various measures after the General Election, and in the meantime they will no doubt feature as commitments in the Tory Party election manifesto. In the real world, where the rest of us live, the survival of the present government after May seems a little less than probable. An incoming government of a different political composition may not wish to continue with these proposals, and so this may be the end of the road for the present government’s planning ‘reform’ agenda.

UPDATE: I am grateful to Sally Davis of G L Hearn and to Ray Tutty of Savills, both of whom kindly emailed me with a note of the provision that I had been unable to find, which specifies the limit for internal enlargements of retail floorspace. This was Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006, which inserted Article 2A in the original DMPO stating that the amount specified under section 55(2A) of the Act is 200 square metres. Any change in this floorspace limit would therefore be by means of a further amendment of the DMPO. It would still be possible for this change to be made in the time available, but its omission from the statement of forthcoming subordinate legislation suggests that the government may not see it as a priority.

NOTE: As readers are no doubt well aware, the coalition government did manage at the last minute to make the promised changes to the GPDO. For completely up-to-date and fully comprehensive coverage of this subject, we would strongly recommend readers to obtain a copy of the author’s new book - “A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PERMITTED CHANGES OF USE” published by Bath Publishing in October 2015. You can order your copy by clicking on the link on the left-hand sidebar of this page.

© MARTIN H GOODALL

Read more