2012 Response to Extending Permitted Development Rights to Homeowners and  

NORA's prime aim is to protect and improve the environment of residents in England and Wales.

NORA members view with concern and alarm as the government's programme appears to be designed to reduce the involvement of Local Planning Authorities in the management of development with the inevitable concomitant reduction of involvement of residents in the planning process. Kate Barker's magnum opus on development and planning has opened Pandora's box by encouraging successive governments to allow developers' powers to become dominant in a process that needs community involvement.

Many increases in Permitted Development Rights have already led to considerable disquiet among residents. Further changes run the serious risk of so dismantling the planning regime, admired by most Western countries as an example of how to protect the environment and still produce worthwhile developments, that the disastrous mistakes of the Victorian era, the 1920s and the 1960s will be repeated.

Two changes to government planning policy in these proposals are worrying. First, where the introduction of Permitted Development Rights includes protected areas, the proposals appear to be in direct conflict with the protection provided in the National Planning Policy Framework. And secondly, the concept of localism was welcomed by residents, since it appeared to recognise the value of community involvement, but the concept appears to be slowly dissolving and disappearing from the government agenda. These changes will surely sadden our successors.

These views colour the NORA's response to this consultation. To the eleven questions NORA offers only two positive responses, and sadly all the other nine meet with disapproval for sound reasons.

On the other hand, there is a possible alternative to the choices offered of 'Do nothing', and 'Changing the permitted development thresholds'. If the aim is to increase the number of developments so that the construction industry is supported in these difficult times, reducing the costs of extensions would surely have such a stimulating effect. If a three year period of relaxing planning controls is being proposed, why not introduce instead an appropriate financial inducement for three years?

Reducing the VAT. say by 50%, on the developments listed in this consultation paper would provide a distinct stimulus both to homeowners and businesses. If planning fees were also reduced, say by 50%, although they are a relatively small charge for most extensions, any antipathy to the planning process by applicants should diminish.

Many other restrictions on development would still remain, but the government's proposals were not intended to interfere with them e.g. Building Regulations and the Party Wall etc. Act.

This alternative proposal would retain the ability of residents to comment on proposals that would affect their environment, and the mediation process managed by planning officers would ensure that developments would be acceptable to those affected by them.

Would you be happy for us to contact you again in relation to this questionnaire?

YES

QUESTIONS

Question 1: Do you agree that in non-protected areas the maximum depth for single-storey rear extensions should be increased to 8m for detached houses, and 6m for any other type of house?

NO

Comments

New detached dwellings in the UK have an average footprint of 70 sq.m., and on average they are 7 metres wide, so an extension of 8 metres, if it is the width of the main building, would nearly double the footprint. In the case of bungalows such extension would double the size of the property. An important consequence of such expansion is the increase in run-off, substantially increasing the risk of flooding in susceptible areas. Furthermore the considerable increase in the extensions into gardens is bound to lead to the felling of many trees adding further to the risk of flooding.

In isolated areas such large extensions might be acceptable, but in an urban environment they require adequate consultation with neighbours, planning departments and environmental officers. For dwellings in terraces the average width is 6 metres and the average footprint 50 sq.m., so a 6 metre extension the width of the building would also nearly double the footprint. To demand a 2 metre gap from boundaries if the eaves are more than 3 metres high, would only permit extensions 2 metres wide, so no doubt the eaves of extensions would all be less than the 3 metre limit. All such extensions could involve the implementation of the Party Wall, etc. Act. Accordingly there is an ever-present need for the involvement of neighbours in order to avoid conflict and preserve community relations.

The need for planning consent allows neighbours to express an opinion and offer advice on how proposals could be modified to meet their approval. Whilst the current Permitted Development Rights for extensions do not appear to result in much conflict, a doubling in the size of extensions would lead to conflict in many instances if neighbouring residents were denied the opportunity to express their concerns and suggest modifications to meet them.

The need for extensions to dwellings appears to be based on the supposition that they are to house family members or to build conservatories. NORA members, whose areas are victim to excessive Houses of Multiple Occupancy used by students, will dread the exemption of extensions from the need for planning consent, because they could add considerably to the serious problems of anti-social behaviour and noise-nuisance they already suffer.

The data provided in the Consultation Paper appears to assume that planning departments play no useful role in the development of extensions to dwellings. The inference that they are just overseers, who not only delay such developments but also increase their cost, is an insult to their professional status. In our members' experience the involvement of planning departments in the development of extensions to dwellings results in ensuring that the development is designed to be acceptable to neighbours and preventing the construction of unsightly and obtrusive extensions. The suggested delay incurred by seeking planning consent is likely to be no longer than the delay in finding appropriate builders and waiting for them to appear. Furthermore the calculation also ignores the delay in obtaining Building Regulations approval, which proceed in parallel to the application for planning consent. Much of the current delays are due to the failure of applicants to consider the likely consequences of their proposals and the likely objections to them, so that their proposals need modification to resolve the problems.

Extensions to dwellings comprise a significant amount of the workload of planning departments, and the fees support sufficient planning officers to cover a variety of skills. If the income were to fall significantly the staff levels would fall, and in order to ensure a sufficiency of skills, amalgamation of adjacent planning departments is a likely consequence, otherwise the quality of planning decisions would inevitably decline. This might be feasible and practical in large urban environments, but cannot be efficient in small towns and rural areas. Listed buildings are included in this exemption from the need for planning consent, but, as they would still need Listed Building Consent, planning officers with special skills will still be needed.

Listed Building Consent attracts no fees, so the workload remains but without any funding. Similarly if Article 4 Directions are introduced to rescind the proposed Permitted Development Rights, planning applications will also be exempt from fees to the further detriment of planning departments.

Accordingly NORA members contest the statement 'The application process adds costs and delays, and in many cases adds little value.' No evidence for this is provided in the Consultation Paper. The current system allows neighbours to express any concerns they may have, and the planning process allows planning officers to negotiate appropriate modifications to meet the wishes of applicants and neighbours. No evidence is provided that indicates there are unreasonable delays in the processing of such applications nor what proportion are refused nor what proportion benefit from modifications agreed as a result of mediation. The costs of the sizeable extensions, the subject of this consultation, would run into thousands of pounds, so the costs of the planning process fees - £150 or so - are trivial.

Question 2: Are there any changes which should be made to householder permitted development rights to make it easier to convert garages for the use of family members?

NO

Comments

The current exemption from the need for planning consent is wide enough to allow the change from garage to dwelling provided the use is by family members, that there are no planning conditions or covenants to prevent such changes, and provided there is adequate off-street parking to replace the garage use, since it is preferable to encourage cars off the streets where they cause congestion and hazard to cyclists and pedestrians.

NORA members expressed their concern should the exemption be extended to the uses other than by non-family members, such as Houses of Multiple Occupancy or commercial use, or where the area lacks adequate street parking and the particular dwelling lacks adequate alternative off-street parking. Under such circumstances, unless appropriate Article 4 Directions are already in place, they may be required in order to protect the environment and avoid conflict on the streets.

Question 3: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, shops and professional/financial services establishments should be able to extend their premises by up to 100m2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%?

NO

Comments

Class A1 and Class A2 properties adjacent to dwellings should not be granted Permitted Development Rights to build extensions. It is essential that the neighbouring residents have the right to register any concerns they have, so that if planning consent is forthcoming it will include the necessary conditions to meet the concerns of the relevant residents.

It is also essential that harmony of design with the surroundings is given adequate local scrutiny. Communities still suffer from the junkyard look that many ill-advised 60's development intruded into areas where such poor design was totally out of place.

Short term business gains must not be paid for by long term community degradation.

Question 4: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, shops and professional/financial services establishments should be able to build up to the boundary of the premises, except where the boundary is with a residential property, where a 2m gap should be left?

NO

Comments

Class A1 and Class A2 properties adjacent to dwellings should not be granted Permitted Development Rights to build extensions. It is essential that the neighbouring residents have the right to register any concerns they have, so that if planning consent is forthcoming it will include the necessary conditions to meet the concerns of the relevant residents.

It is also essential that harmony of design with the surroundings is given adequate local scrutiny. Communities still suffer from the junkyard look that many ill-advised 60's development intruded into areas where such poor design was totally out of place.

Short term business gains must not be paid for by long term community degradation.

Question 5: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, offices should be able to extend their premises by up to 100m2, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%?

NO

Comments

Offices adjacent to dwellings should not be granted Permitted Development Rights to build extensions. It is essential that the neighbouring residents have the right to register any concerns they have, so that if planning consent is forthcoming it will include the necessary conditions to meet the concerns of the relevant residents.

It is also essential that harmony of design with the surroundings is given adequate local scrutiny. Communities still suffer from the junkyard look that many ill-advised 60's development intruded into areas where such poor design was totally out of place.

Short term business gains must not be paid for by long term community degradation.

Question 6: Do you agree that in non-protected areas, new industrial buildings of up to 200m2 should be permitted within the curtilage of existing industrial buildings and warehouses, provided that this does not increase the gross floor space of the original building by more than 50%?

NO

Comments

New industrial buildings adjacent to dwellings should not be granted Permitted Development Rights to build extensions. It is essential that the neighbouring residents have the right to register any concerns they have, so that if planning consent is forthcoming it will include the necessary conditions to meet the concerns of the relevant residents.

It is also essential that harmony of design with the surroundings is given adequate local scrutiny. Communities still suffer from the junkyard look that many ill-advised 60's development intruded into areas where such poor design was totally out of place.

Short term business gains must not be paid for by long term community degradation.

Question 7: Do you agree these permitted development rights should be in place for a period of three years?

NO

Comments

NORA members reject the whole concept of increasing the Permitted Development Rights to include larger extensions, since there does not appear to be any soundly-based evidence to justify the claim that the current planning system delays such development. The planning system provides a managed solution to the problems of extensions, and, where there are no obvious problems, officers using delegated powers can grant planning consent well within the targets currently set. Where there are problems of design, traffic or intrusion on neighbours, the skills of planning officers can make the difference to the proposals so that a satisfactory solution compatible with protecting the environment can be achieved often within the target time.

If these proposals are approved even with a period of three years restricting their use, there is the serious risk that substantial damage may be caused to the environment and community cohesion. The scars on the environment and the distress that might be caused to residents, because they were denied the opportunity to explain their concerns, will remain as an indictment of these proposals.

Another problem will occur when the property was sold, since there would be no planning consent to confirm whether or not the extension had been built in the relevant three year period. It would give rise to the need for the seller to obtain a Certificate of Lawfulness in order to satisfy any prospective purchaser that the extension was legal. This would incur extra expense for the householder, and would place an administrative burden on local planning authorities processing the certicates.

Question 8: Do you agree that there should be a requirement to complete the development by the end of the three-year period, and notify the local planning authority on completion?

YES

Comments

If this misguided policy is implemented then the three year limit for completion must be enforced in order to ensure that unfinished extensions would not remain unfinished possibly for years and blight the environment. It is not clear how this would be enforced nor what powers would be available to force the completion.

Question 9: Do you agree that article 1(5) land and Sites of Special Scientific Interest should be excluded from the changes to permitted development rights for homeowners, offices, shops, professional/financial services establishments and industrial premises?

YES but also.......

Comments

Some owners of listed buildings will presume that because planning consent would no longer be needed for extensions, listed building consent is also not needed. Unfortunately enforcement departments are often poorly staffed and funded, and such infringements are unlikely to be properly managed. If the breach is reported, it is likely that retrospective permission will be granted, because it is cheaper and easier to do so rather than ensuring that the development is appropriate.

It is also wise to protect the settings of listed buildings and conservation areas.

Accordingly in the interest of protecting our valuable heritage, we seek an addition of Listed Buildings to the list of exclusions from these Permitted Development Rights. In order to protect the settings of listed buildings and conservation areas, buildings whose boundaries adjoin listed buildings and conservation areas must also be excluded from any extension of Permitted Development Rights, to prevent damage to such buildings, areas, and their settings.

Question 10: Do you agree that the prior approval requirement for the installation, alteration or replacement of any fixed electronic communications equipment should be removed in relation to article 1(5) land for a period of five years?

NO

Comments

The failure to include Article 1(5) Land and listed buildings in the list of sites protected from the withdrawal of the prior approval requirement for electronic communications equipment before implementation is a step too far according to NORA members. The proposals appear to be in conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework in protecting such areas and are the most worrying aspect of this government initiative.

In most urban environments cabling is underground and the environment is protected, but, in those urban areas where overhead cabling for telephones is already present, further overhead cabling could be damaging. This is particularly true for Conservation Areas and sites near listed buildings.

For the introduction of overhead cabling and cabinets to be Permitted Development in all Article 1(5) Land and near listed buildings except Sites of Scientific Interest exposes a curious bias. Urban and rural residents and amenity societies have spent years of effort and argument to protect such areas, and to lose the protection for a specified period of five years lacks any logic and any respect for those tirelessly striving to protect our precious environment from undesirable intrusion and development.

By all means allow Permitted Development Rights for underground cabling but over-ground cabling at the discretion of communication developers has no support from NORA members.

If this restriction is not accepted, Councils will need to consider taking Article 4 Direction powers to require planning consent in designated sensitive areas coupled with a short ban on Permitted Development Rights to give the Councils time to implement these powers.

The greatest user of fast broadband is the entertainment industry sending videos and CD data to consumers. NORA members do not see how increasing broadband speeds will produce growth in the general economy. It may be good business for the communications industry and the entertainment industry, but the evidence that commerce and manufacturing industry will benefit is spurious.

Do you have any comments on the assumptions and analysis set out in the consultation stage Impact Assessment? (See Annex 1)

YES

Comments

The assumption, that these proposals will encourage more development, is not evidence-based. The estimates for development lost because of the need for planning consent are conjectural. No data is provided on the number of planning applications for extensions that have been refused nor how many were modified, nor how many were delayed beyond the recommended target time.

All the evidence produced by the media and supported by the major representatives of commerce states that planning is only a minor impediment to development and that the two main reasons for slow development are the lack of funding and the lack of demand. Extensions are expensive and the cost of a planning application trivial as a proportion of the total expenditure. Any delays between the development of the thought and the implementation of the proposal are due more to the time it takes to organise and to search for funding for the project.

The UK planning system is designed to protect the environment and manage appropriate development. These proposals tinker with the system for a limited period of time with no certain improvement but with permanent foreseen undesirable consequences that imperil the environment for ever

December 2012                                                Alan B Shrank - NORA chairman