Householder Development Householder Development Consents ReviewConsents Review

Will FrenchWill FrenchDCLG/PINSDCLG/PINS

BackgroundBackground

Appeals have grown even faster – 136%Appeals have grown even faster – 136%

Barker 1 call to reduce minor applications to release resources for more Barker 1 call to reduce minor applications to release resources for more strategic onesstrategic ones

Barker’s call echoed elsewhere eg by POSBarker’s call echoed elsewhere eg by POS

Sheer Growth in Sheer Growth in householder householder applicationsapplications

1995–2005 114% 1995–2005 114%

All other applications All other applications rose by < 8%rose by < 8%

BUT … the problem is not BUT … the problem is not just managing the case just managing the case load …load …

The system is not proportionate to the The system is not proportionate to the types of development undertaken types of development undertaken

65% of householder applications are granted 65% of householder applications are granted without amendment.without amendment.

Yet harmful development is lawfully Yet harmful development is lawfully undertaken as permitted development undertaken as permitted development without the need for a planning application.without the need for a planning application.

Moreover, the system is not user friendly - Moreover, the system is not user friendly - householders find it hard to get the right householders find it hard to get the right advice and planners to give it.advice and planners to give it.

… … plus a wider regulatory plus a wider regulatory contextcontext

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 So HDCR was established 20052005

Steering Group chaired by Mavis Steering Group chaired by Mavis Macdonald scoped the subject.Macdonald scoped the subject.

Report published June 2006Report published June 2006

11 Recommendations in 3 areas:11 Recommendations in 3 areas: Making the system more proportionate Making the system more user-friendly New ways of working

Ministers require any changes Ministers require any changes to:to: Protect the interests of neighbours and

the wider community Be fully tested Be subject to full consultation

HDCR in 2006HDCR in 2006New Steering Group, chaired by Katrine Sporle

White Young and Green have been asked to pursue three of the Steering Group’s recommendations:

1. 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.

2. DCLG should develop model Local Development Orders to illustrate how they can help Local Planning Authorities to extend permitted development rights in their areas.

4. DCLG should issue clear guidance on the procedures for processing householder planning applications.

WYG has a demanding briefWYG has a demanding briefStage 1Stage 1

First findings report by end of October First findings report by end of October 2006 to establish "proof of concept“ that 2006 to establish "proof of concept“ that HPDO will be deliverable against defined HPDO will be deliverable against defined criteria. criteria.

A first draft report by the end of Nov 2006.A first draft report by the end of Nov 2006. A final report in early January 2007.A final report in early January 2007.

With a view, if reform proves feasible, to With a view, if reform proves feasible, to moving to Stage 2: moving to Stage 2:

design an HPDO and user guidance design an HPDO and user guidance

Success criteriaSuccess criteriaProposals are to be testedProposals are to be tested

(a) (a) By case study to assess By case study to assess Impact on application numbers Impact on application numbers

(b) (b) By working with stakeholders to assessBy working with stakeholders to assess easier application processeseasier application processes user friendlinessuser friendliness clarity and rationalityclarity and rationality fewer neighbour disputesfewer neighbour disputes improved designimproved design a reduction in the number of LA staff handling a reduction in the number of LA staff handling

applicationsapplications a reduction in unnecessary costs to householdersa reduction in unnecessary costs to householders a reduction in the number of enforcement noticesa reduction in the number of enforcement notices a reduction in the kind of consequences that lead to a reduction in the kind of consequences that lead to

poor publicity for the planning system.poor publicity for the planning system.

adopting an impacts based adopting an impacts based approachapproach

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 approachesWYG are examining 3 approaches

1. Derestricted single storey extensions 1. Derestricted single storey extensions

Extensions to be subject to criteria eg:-Extensions to be subject to criteria eg:- Maximum eaves height Maximum eaves height A maximum depth of extension behind the A maximum depth of extension behind the

original main rear wall original main rear wall No raised terraces or balconies.No raised terraces or balconies. No more than x (50%?) of the curtilage No more than x (50%?) of the curtilage

(excluding the original dwellinghouse) to (excluding the original dwellinghouse) to be built overbe built over

WYG are examining 3 approachesWYG are examining 3 approaches

2. A developable envelope2. A developable envelope

WYG are examining 3 approachesWYG are examining 3 approaches

3. 45/25 degree codes 3. 45/25 degree codes

HDCR has also been reviewing HDCR has also been reviewing pd rights for microgenerationpd rights for microgeneration

Perceived barriers to take-up of new Perceived barriers to take-up of new technologies emerged as high priority technologies emerged as high priority PhotovoltaicsPhotovoltaics Solar hot waterSolar hot water Heat pumpsHeat pumps Wind turbinesWind turbines

3 month study by ENTEC complete3 month study by ENTEC complete Programme:Programme:

End 2006 – Consultation on new pd rightsEnd 2006 – Consultation on new pd rights October 2007 - CommencementOctober 2007 - Commencement

Contribution PD microgen could make to an ‘average’ household’s annual energy

needs

Technology 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%

Micro Hydro N/A N/A 100%

Further comment please to:Further comment please to:

Will FrenchHouseholder Development Consents ReviewDCLG3/H5 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU.

householderconsents@communities.gsi.gov.uk