Developing relations between building control and planning

1. Developing relations between building control and planning David McCullogh FRICS PPIBC TPS

2. Action Plan • The Problem • The reports • The resolving actions

3. How does it work now? • 2 separate professions • 2 separate legislative codes • 2 necessary “hurdles” to development • Separate processes with duplication and even contradiction

5. What are the drivers? • State of the construction industry / economy • Shrinking public sector budgets – the spending review • Coalition Government review of planning and building control systems • Overlaps / potential to develop synergies • Create a more “efficient” regulatory system in tune with industry • “Controlling” development culture • Planning system too “output” focussed. • Building Control – too inward looking • The customer as the focus

6. Other considerationsKillian Pretty Review • Planning applications: A faster and more responsive system • Joanna Killian and David Pretty • Final report 24 November 2008 • Government response 5 March 2009 • 2 progress reports taking forward Government’s response - July and December 2009

7. Killian Pretty – final report 17 recommendations grouped into 5 themes • Process should be made more proportionate with more PD and streamlined processes for small scale development and streamlined info requirements where full planning permission is required. • The process should be improved particularly in relation to pre-app and post decision stages • Engagement should be made more effective by improvements in the way elected members, stat and non stat consultees and the wider community are involved • Changes in culture are encouraged by replacing time basedperformance targets with a measure of customer satisfaction and by seeking ways to reward better quality applications • Unnecessary complexity should be removed by making the national policy and legislative framework clearer, simpler and more proportionate.

8. Killian Pretty – final report • Building Control not mentioned in report, however Recommendation 17 states “ Gov should substantially overhaul and simplify both the national planning policy framework and the secondary legislation for the processing of planning apps to provide a clearer framework for a more positive approach to development management and to reduce unnecessary complexity and burdens for all parties engaged in the process”

9. Development Management • Proactive planning from pre-application to delivery CLG produced a draft planning policy statement (PPS) for consultation on development management, and draft policy annexes on the pre-application and determination stages December 2009

10. Development Management – what is it? • Integral part of the spatial planning process • End to end management for delivery of sustainable development • Signals a culture change indentifying LA as a place shaper in partnership with others • The processes for considering proposals are proportionate and appropriate to the impact of development • Approach will necessitate changes in the structure and allocation of resources within planning authorities

11. Development Management • Linchpin of a wider framework supporting shift from development control • Sector led – PAS, PoS • Not a just a change of name – a change of culture!

12. Development Management – key principles • A positive and proactive approach to place shaping • Putting planning policy into action • Front loading • A proportionate approach • Effective engagement • Proactive delivery • Monitoring and reviewing outcomes

13. Open Source Planning • Conservative Party - Policy Green Paper No 14 • How will a Lib Dem input influence? • Footnote – “This pledge does not apply to any recommendations of the Killian Pretty Review that are rendered irrelevant by existing Conservative Party Policy. • Development Management is to stay

14. Open Source Planning 3 key tenets • Restore democratic and local control over the planning system • Rebalance the system in favour of sustainable development • Produce simpler, quicker, cheaper and less bureaucratic planning system

15. National Planning Forum – Final draft Working group task – March 2009 “consider the extent to which better co-operation between planning and building control can assist in delivering higher environmental standards and more sustainable outcomes, and in particular consider; • Synergies and distinctions between planning and BC inc enforcement • Means of reducing overlap between the 2 systems, improving efficiency and improving mutual understanding, in particular to new construction methods • Implications for policy, practice, staffing, training and inspection • Recommendations of appropriate action for consideration by the NPF Board”

16. National Planning Forum - proposals • Clarity between roles of planning and BC • Establishing a better more integrated service for small scale developments • Establishing stronger links between planning and BC to ensure a more integrated approach to the use of building technologies in larger and more complex developments • Unlocking potential for dealing more effectively with completion and if necessary enforcement • Rethinking CDM to reduce complexity and tackle whole life issues.

17. CLG – Draft Structural Reform Plan • Sits alongside Green Paper • Sets out key dates, objectives • Spending Review – October 2010 • Localism Bill – November 2011 • National Planning Framework • Work has already started – RDAs, Government Offices, HIPs, garden grabbing

18. The Future of Building Control Implementation Plan • CLG – 2009 -Vision statement – “Our vision is for a building control system which ensures buildings are safe, healthy, accessible, and sustainable for current and future generations” • Looks at interface between planning and BC • An integrated and e enabled building control service • Modernising inspection and enforcement • Flexible approach to charges – service plan approach • Improvements to building notice system • Alternative routes – competent persons and pattern book • Strengthen BC performance management

19. BC/Planning - similarities • Same challenges – both key to the development process • Same customers/clients • Both deliver buildings to standards – right place, safe, accessible, sustainable • Financial restraint • Key to construction industry recovery

20. Synergies • Client involvement – pre application involvement • Design and Access Statements • Environmental Impact Statements • Flood Risk Assessment • Land Contamination Assessment • Site Waste Management Plan • Structural Survey • Sustainability Statement

21. Major difference • Commercial world of BC • Political world of planning

22. So what can we achieve? • More pro activity from Local Planning Authorities • Effective “joined up” pre application process • Closer contact with developers, wider business engagement • Elected Member involvement • Clearly defined policies for developers • More streamlined processes simplify validation process 1 APP inc BC unified consent for minor works • Removal of duplication – Penfold Review • Joint compliance/enforcement

23. Emphasis on Simplicity

24. Thanks for listening - any questions

25. Building Regulations, Planning and Low Carbon Development David McCullogh FRICS PPIBC TPS CONSULTANCY TPS - making tomorrow a better place

26. Plan of Action • Background to major challenges • The Changes to Building Regulations • Future delivery for carbon emission reduction- The European Directive and Zero Carbon

28. Main Messages • Regional plans to be co-ordinated • Avoid duplication between regimes • Planning = Location, siting and infrastructure • Killer comments re “if local need or opportunity for higher standards”

29. Confusing Messages

30. This guide provides advice to local authorities on how to provide a more co-ordinated and customer oriented approach to obtaining the consents required for a development project (such as planning permission, listed building or conservation area consent, and approval under building regulations).

31. Planning involved in too much detail • Planning requirements for the submission of SAP / SBEM • Planning requirements for CSH levels • Clients – “this is not the right stage for detail” • Planners – “we want to get back to Planning”

32. Too much detail “In certain circumstances the Council may require lift installation where the floor area is below the minimum size specified in Approved Document M of the Building Regulations, for example in basement restaurants and wine bars.” “The going of treads must measure at least 280mm. Whilst the Council will seek to achieve this standard, the Council will require that at a minimum the standards set out as follows in BS 8300:2001 are achieved (The goings for a step should be 250 mm to 300 mm, with a preference for 300mm).”

33. “House-builders are also dissatisfied with the regulatory regime as it is. They find it hard to understand the respective scope of planning and building regulations, particularly as environmental requirements are increasingly stipulated under both systems. They are also concerned by the increasing complexity of standards: if the average builder on site does not understand what he is being required to do, non-compliance is a constant risk.”

34. Building a Greener Future

35. Building regulations Under Labour, we believe that building regulations have become unnecessarily prescriptive and overly complex. They need to be simplified and reduced, with a focus on outcomes (e.g. public safety, energy efficiency) rather than box-ticking, and ensuring that regulation is proportionate to risk. In particular, we believe that building regulations can play a significant role in the greening of our housing stock. Conservative Policy

36. Lib Dem Policy “Improvements to the building regulations themselves to make them easier to understand and use, along with improvements in the enforcement regime to ensure new homes are built to the required standards.”

37. Policy framework for future changes • Coalition Ministers have already set out a number of policy priorities: • Ambitions to be the greenest government ever • Commitment to continuous energy efficiency improvements for new homes • Plan to continue to use the Code for Sustainable Homes to signal future direction of regulations - changes to align with Part L 2010 also 1 Oct (subject to agreement with ministers) • Grant Shapps announcement on zero carbon homes, including: • Minimum fabric energy efficiency standards in future Part L revisions • Zero Carbon Hub to re-examine and report back on the 70% carbon compliance level previously proposed • Exploring the feasibility of meeting further obligations through local community energy funds • Have just let a contract to start modelling the impact of future energy efficiency and carbon compliance standards for new non-domestic buildings BUT all predicated on the basis that we should only be using national regulation where it is considered the most cost-effective means of achieving policy aims. New regulations will only be considered on the basis ofone in one out.

38. Identifying pressures for change & options for deregulation • Andrew Stunnell launched an exercise calling for ideas about how the regulations can be improved, added to, or slimmed down and how we can deliver even better levels of compliance • Analysing responses to this exercise together with those received from the Your Freedom, Cutting Red Tape websites • Plan to complement this with workshops run by CLG and other partners • Ministerial statement on the future direction of building regulations expected in December with a view to consultation in late 2011 and introduction of changes in 2013

39. Addition to Building Regulations – 1 Oct 2010 • 25% reduction in carbon Emissions • Improving compliance • CO2 emission rate calculations at design stage • More and more rigorous testing and commissioning • Reports to building Control • Roles and responsibilities • Wider use of competent persons and accredited detailing

40. Remember the big message when it comes to regulation

41. New build compliance steps Criterion 1 – (BER<=TER) Criterion 2 – Limits on design flexibility Criterion 3 – Limiting effects of solar gain Criterion 4 – Construction & commissioning Criterion 5 – Provision of information

43. . Energy Performance Certificates

44. Code for Sustainable Homes

45. Future Issues Zero Carbon Consultation

46. EPBD - “Nearly Zero” • Article 9 – Nearly zero-energy buildings • Member States must ensure that (a) by 31 December 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero- energy buildings; and • (b) after 31 December 2018, new buildings occupied and owned by public authorities are nearly zero-energy buildings. • Member States must draw up national plans for increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings. These national plans may include targets differentiated according to the category of building. • Member States must furthermore, following the leading example of the public sector, develop policies and take measures such as the setting of targets in order to stimulate the transformation of buildings that are refurbished into nearly zero-energy buildings, and inform the Commission in their national plans referred to in the above paragraph. • Member States may decide not to apply the requirements set out in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 in specific and justifiable cases where the cost-benefit analysis over the economic lifecycle of the building in question is negative.

47. Forward look • New homes to be zero carbon from 2016 • Ambition for new non-domestic buildings to be zero carbon from 2019 • What is zero Carbon? • Separate consultations proposing changes to the Code for Sustainable Homes and trajectory for new non-domestic buildings

48. The preferred solution 70%?

49. Allowable Solutions • Carbon Compliance beyond the minimum standard • Credit for energy efficient appliances or advanced building controls systems • Exports of low carbon / renewable heat or cooling • S106 contributions towards local LZC infrastructure • Retrofitting existing buildings • Investments in LZC energy infrastructure • Offsite renewable electricity (direct connection) • Anything else later agreed

50. Allowable Solutions – Further work • Further investigation of CIL as a mechanism for funding LZC • Mechanisms to favour local vs remote actions • Buy out fund not allowed