Householder Development Consent

22-May-07

Introduction

Consultation Papers issued around the White Paper set out proposals for extending permitted development rights to:

  • domestic microgeneration
  • householder developments

The White Paper also contains proposals to Streamline the system by:

    • simplifying the GDPO;
    • allowing minor amendments to be made to planning permissions;
    • taking steps to unify consent regimes;
    • New TPO rules
    • streamlined information requirements for all applications; and
    • reducing Secretary of State involvement in casework.

 

 

Consultation Paper 2 published alongside the White Paper contains proposals to rationalise the need for planning permission for minor developments.  These proposals are important because:

  • Many people encounter the planning system only when they or their neighbours make minor alterations to their homes. Their experience on these occasions colours their view of the planning system overall.
  • Householder developments affect peoples' homes and their most valuable asset. They can therefore be extremely sensitive and raise very strong emotions.
  • The existing 'volume-based' system for determining whether or not planning permission is required is extremely complicated - even experienced planners can have trouble understanding it.
  • In recent years, the number of minor applications by householders have risen far faster than the number of applications overall. Planning authority resources are scarce and need to be carefully used.

This page sets out a summary of the proposals.

Members' views are always welcome. 

 

Consultation Paper 2: Permitted Development Rights for Householders proposes new permitted development limits for householder developments which based on the potential impact of the development outside the host property.  It suggests that if a proposal is likely to have an impact beyond the property it should require a planning application. Otherwise a planning application should not be required.

In effect, therefore, the Consultation paper sets out what the Government considers to be the thresholds beyond which householder developments have a public impact that is sufficient to require the Local Planning Authority to decide its acceptability. 

The intention is to reduce the number of householder applications while protecting the interests of neighbours, community and the environment.

On this basis new permitted development rights are proposed for the following:

  • Extensions - limits for which are set by simple metric measurements in place of the existing volume-based limits
  • Roof extensions - these to become pd if set into the roof of the house
  • Roof Alterations - see the proposed changes relating to microgeneration
  • Curtilage Developments - height limits near boundaries, no raised terraces etc, limits for raised decking  
  • Hard Surfaces - the case for restricting the right to pave front gardens eg for car parking is not supported
  • Other Minor Changes - relating to oils storage containers

 

  • A consultation on Basements is proposed at a later date

The consultation paper also raises issues relating to:

  • Local Development Orders
  • Compensation for costs payable where pd rights are removed
  • removal of the need for the Secretary of State's Approval to approve an 'Article 4' Direction
  • A separate Householder Permitted Development Order

The White Paper anticipates further work will be done in the coming months to extend the Impact Approach described in this consultation to other types of development.

Streamlining where applications are still required

Streamlining planning application processes by:

  • simplifying the GDPO;
  • allowing minor amendments to be made to planning permissions;
  • taking steps to unify consent regimes;
  • New TPO rules
  • streamlined information requirements for all applications; and
  • reduce Secretary of State involvement in casework.

Improving the appeal process

The consultation proposes to improve the appeal process in the planning system – making it proportionate to the significance of the matter under consideration, customer focused, efficient and well resourced.

Key proposals are:

  • For all householder cases, the period for lodging an appeal would be reduced from 2 months to 8 weeks.
  • There would be new tree appeals procedures
  • the Planning Inspectorate would be allowed to determine the appropriate appeal method (allowing more small matters to be dealt with using written representations);
  • There would be tighter procedures for submitting evidence
  • Voluntary mediation would be supported

Is this what the RTPI asked for...

The RTPI position adopted from January 2007 in the run up to white paper publication was:

The RTPI supports the proposition that planning resources should be targeted to planning business in proportion to the significance and need for that business to address the requirements of society, the economy and the environment. We need better plans and better outcomes. We need to be able to deliver and we need delivery to be expeditious, efficient and to quality.

In this context, it concerns us to observe significant rises in small scale development proposals requiring planning permission, in circumstances where many such proposals have limited or no adverse impacts in public interest terms. Serving such applications draws much needed planning human and financial resources away from the tasks that really need to be done.

For these reasons, the RTPI broadly supports proposals to simplify permitted development for householders on an 'impact based' principle. It looks to the White Paper to set the foundation stones for changes to householder development consents and in respect of permitted development for renewable energy development.

The white paper broadly delivers against this position, but work will be necessary to ensure that the detailed proposals in Consultation Paper 2 also deliver. One key area for action will be to ensure that the proposals remain simple and customer focussed: easy for the public to understand, logical and consistent and easy for planners to explain to the public.

Interestingly, the white paper has not included a much flagged proposal for 'Neighbour Agreements', whereby neighbours would be able to agree and in circumstances make payments to secure agreement that a proposal did not need planning permission. That being said, the government is continuing to seek comments on this point.

The RTPI has maintained consistent opposition to any proposal that would enable the purchase of planning permission, or an agreement that would have the effect of enabling a proposal to proceed without planning permission.

'The RTPI opposes the suggestion in the Barker Review that there should be any form of ‘side payment’ or other agreement between neighbours over a proposed development which would result in the application being removed from the planning system, whether or not money is exchanged.  If the impact of a development is such that permission is required then it should be a matter requiring consultation to identify the best balance of public benefit.  If it does not have any wider impact, then it should fall into a class of permitted development.  'Side payments' are considered particularly pernicious in that they generate in the the public mind a view that payments between parties can secure the removal of a matter from necessary public scrutiny and can secure agreement to development impacts that on any objective measure would be viewed as unacceptable.  Such an approach would do untold harm to the public benefit perceived to be provided by planning and to its reputation for probity.'

It will be important for planners to contribute to the public debate and lay this proposal to rest.

 

 
Author:
Will French and Rynd Smith
Publisher:
The Royal Town Planning Institute
Date:
22-May-07
Categories:
Policy, Practice 
Sections:
What Planning Does

This article has been read 6023 times.