Transcript Householder Development Consents Review

Householder Development
Consents Review
Will French
DCLG/PINS
Background






Sheer Growth in
householder
applications
1995–2005 114%
All other applications
rose by < 8%
Appeals have grown even faster – 136%
Barker 1 call to reduce minor applications to
release resources for more strategic ones
Barker’s call echoed elsewhere eg by POS
BUT … the problem is not just
managing the case load …

The system is not proportionate to the types of
development undertaken



65% of householder applications are granted
without amendment.
Yet harmful development is lawfully undertaken as
permitted development without the need for a
planning application.
Moreover, the system is not user friendly householders find it hard to get the right advice
and planners to give it.
… plus a wider regulatory context

Principles of Public Service Reform

Principles of better regulation



Regulations must be proportionate, accountable,
consistent, transparent, and targeted. This means
an RIA.
Lifting the Burden on Business – DCLG’s
Simplification Plan
Barker 2.
So HDCR was established 2005

Steering Group chaired by Mavis
Macdonald scoped the subject.

Report published June 2006

11 Recommendations in 3 areas:




Making the system more proportionate
Making the system more user-friendly
New ways of working
Ministers require any changes to:



Protect the interests of neighbours and the
wider community
Be fully tested
Be subject to full consultation
HDCR in 2006
New Steering Group, chaired by Katrine Sporle
White Young and Green have been asked to pursue three
of the Steering Group’s recommendations:
1.
2.
4.
A new and simplified Permitted Development Order for
Householder Developments – an HPDO. Based on Parts 1 and 2 of
the GPDO, this should move from the present volume based
approach towards one based on impact. It should be issued with a
plain-English user guide.
DCLG should develop model Local Development Orders to
illustrate how they can help Local Planning Authorities to extend
permitted development rights in their areas.
DCLG should issue clear guidance on the procedures for
processing householder planning applications.
WYG has a demanding brief
Stage 1



First findings report by end of October 2006
to establish "proof of concept“ that HPDO will
be deliverable against defined criteria.
A first draft report by the end of Nov 2006.
A final report in early January 2007.
With a view, if reform proves feasible, to
moving to Stage 2:

design an HPDO and user guidance
Success criteria
Proposals are to be tested
(a) By case study to assess
 Impact on application numbers
(b) By working with stakeholders to assess
 easier application processes
 user friendliness
 clarity and rationality
 fewer neighbour disputes
 improved design
 a reduction in the number of LA staff handling applications
 a reduction in unnecessary costs to householders
 a reduction in the number of enforcement notices
 a reduction in the kind of consequences that lead to poor
publicity for the planning system.
adopting an impacts based approach
Householder developments considered to have one
of 4 levels of impact:

Level 1 impacts only affect the host property and its occupants

Level 2 impacts affect the living conditions of immediate
neighbours (through overshadowing, loss of privacy, etc.)

Level 3 impacts affect the character and appearance of the street
and concern the wider neighbourhood

Level 4 impacts affect interests of importance beyond the
immediate street scene and concern the community as a whole –
eg CAs, AONB’s and Green Belts. Also includes cumulative impacts of
relatively inconsequential individual development eg paving front gardens
where surface drainage capacity is limited.
WYG are examining 3 approaches
1. Derestricted single storey extensions
Extensions to be subject to criteria eg: Maximum eaves height
 A maximum depth of extension behind the
original main rear wall
 No raised terraces or balconies.
 No more than x (50%?) of the curtilage
(excluding the original dwellinghouse) to be
built over
WYG are examining 3 approaches
2. A developable envelope
WYG are examining 3 approaches
3. 45/25 degree codes
HDCR has also been reviewing pd
rights for microgeneration

Perceived barriers to take-up of new
technologies emerged as high priority






Photovoltaics
Solar hot water
Heat pumps
Wind turbines
3 month study by ENTEC complete
Programme:


End 2006 – Consultation on new pd rights
October 2007 - Commencement
Contribution PD microgen could
make to an ‘average’ household’s
annual energy needs
Heating
Hot Water
Electricity
Solar Photovoltaics
N/A
N/A
Around 30-50%
Solar Hot Water
N/A
Around 40-60%
N/A
Heat Pumps
100%
100%
N/A
Micro Wind
N/A
N/A
Around 15-20%2
Biomass
100%
100%
N/A
Micro CHP
100%
100%
Around 10-30%
N/A
N/A
100%
Technology
Micro Hydro
Further comment please to:
Will French
Householder Development Consents Review
DCLG
3/H5 Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU.
[email protected]