9.3 We propose a range of measures which will offer greater freedom and flexibility
for:
(a) householders wishing to make minor extensions or improvements to their home; and
(b) other occupiers of buildings and land, including small businesses who wish to extend or improve their premises.
9.4 In addition, we invite views on Kate Barker’s proposal to introduce
neighbourhood agreements to facilitate quicker planning decisions on smaller developments. In Chapter 7, we set out our proposals to extend permitted development rights in relation to the provision of micro-generation equipment.
(a) Householder extensions
9.5 Applications for planning permission for minor developments, particularly from
householders, are in danger of clogging up the system. From 1995 to 2005 householder applications for planning permission grew by 114 per cent, against growth of less than 8 per cent from all other applications.
9.6 Small scale extensions and improvements to houses often require planning permission, although their impact on neighbours and the surrounding street may be minimal. On the other hand, some developments with adverse impacts on neighbours – for example on their privacy or causing overshadowing – do not need planning permission.
9.7 Our approach to changing the system is based on the work of the Householder
Development Consents Review (HDCR) which was set up by the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in January 2005. We intend to introduce an approach that assesses the impact on others, to determine what type of householder development is permitted without the need to seek the specific approval of the local planning authority. This is based on the practical approaches currently adopted by local planning authorities when considering applications across the country.
9.8 So a proposal with no or low impact on the area outside the immediate site, for example, in terms of visual amenity or overlooking, would be considered permitted development, that is where planning permission is automatically
granted without the need for an application. Conversely, developments considered to have more than a low impact on the wider neighbourhood and/or street scene would require specific planning permission from the local planning authority.
9.9 Overall, these proposals should reduce the number of minor applications for planning authorities to determine and reduce bureaucracy for householders seeking to improve their homes whilst protecting the interests of neighbours, the wider community and the environment.
9.10 Alongside the White Paper we are publishing a consultation paper entitled,
Changes To Permitted Development Consultation Paper 2: Permitted Development Rights for Householders which sets out in detail our proposals for introducing an
impact approach to permitted development rights for householder development and on which we are seeking views.
(b) Extension of the impacts approach to permitted development rights for other Land Uses
9.11 We also propose to extend the impact approach to permitted development to other types of development such as industrial or commercial buildings as appropriate, subject to limitations and conditions. We invite views on what limitations might be appropriate for particular sorts of development and local circumstances. We intend to develop detailed proposals and start consultations later in 2007.
Consultation Question:
Which types of non residential development offer the greatest potential for change to permitted development rights? What limitations might be appropriate for particular sorts of development and local circumstances?
Safeguards against inappropriate development
9.12 Our proposals to extend permitted development rights are aimed at reducing bureaucracy for minor applications which have little or no impact beyond the individual property. However we recognise that the cumulative effect of such
changes could be a cause for concern, for example, where there is a desire to preserve the special character of a neighbourhood or sensitive landscape. We therefore wish to ensure that local planning authorities can protect areas where necessary.
9.13 Planning authorities can already restrict permitted development rights in
exceptional circumstances by making an article 4 direction under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO), where the imposition of directions would be justified – for example, to seek to address the impact that the paving over of front gardens can have on the run-off of rainwater and the capacity of local sewers to cope. However, there are some potential constraints on the use of directions by local planning authorities. These constraints include the procedures for making some directions and the possibility of compensation payable in the event of refusal or conditional grant of a planning application made following an article 4 direction.
9.14 We are considering what measures might be taken to remove the barriers to the use
of article 4 directions where they are justified. One option would be to remove the requirement for the approval of certain article 4 directions to be approved by the Secretary of State. Another would be to amend the current provision for
compensation. On the other hand, to ensure that a clear justification for their existence remains, we might also require planning authorities to review these directions every five years. We are inviting views on these points in the consultation
paper, Changes To Permitted Development Consultation Paper 2: Permitted
Development Rights for Householders, issued alongside this White Paper.
9.15 In addition, compensation may also potentially be payable where Government reduces permitted development rights through changes to the GPDO. Although the impact approach is generally more likely to reduce the need for applications for planning permission, there may, as has been described above, be instances where development that is currently permitted would in future require specific planning approval. The Government is considering whether these existing compensation rights should be amended and what safeguards might be appropriate. Views are invited as to how this might work as part of the householder permitted development rights consultation paper.
Neighbour agreements
9.16 Kate Barker proposed the development of a voluntary system, probably for smaller developments, whereby if there was agreement between a developer and neighbours affected, a full planning application would not be required. Kate Barker argued that this could make the process easier for householders in situations where those affected by the development are content for it to proceed, and so avoid small applications unnecessarily placing a burden on local planning authorities. We have a number of concerns about how this might work in practice, but welcome views.
Consultation question:
What is your view on the general principle of introducing a streamlined process for approval of minor development which does not have permitted development rights and where the neighbours to the proposed development are in agreement?