1 / 15

Householder Development Consents Review

Householder Development Consents Review . Will French DCLG/PINS. Background. 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. Sheer Growth in householder applications

yvon
Download Presentation

Householder Development Consents Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Householder Development Consents Review Will French DCLG/PINS

  2. Background • 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 • Sheer Growth in householder applications • 1995–2005 114% • All other applications rose by < 8%

  3. 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.

  4. … 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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: • 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. WYG are examining 3 approaches 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 1. Derestricted single storey extensions

  11. WYG are examining 3 approaches 2. A developable envelope

  12. WYG are examining 3 approaches 3. 45/25 degree codes

  13. 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

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

  15. Further comment please to: Will French Householder Development Consents Review DCLG 3/H5 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU. householderconsents@communities.gsi.gov.uk

More Related