James Groux is the owner and director Building Design Workshop, a multi-skilled consultancy that promotes sustainable architecture. Having founded the firm in 1990, he possesses 40 years of experience in the field of architecture. In the following piece, Groux explores the UK planning system and analyses how it can be improved.
Over the past few years the UK government have made attempts to put changes in place to the planning system to enable more flexibility and allow the general public to realise development opportunities now and in the future.
Whilst this has been a long time in coming, it has been introduced without a robust and coherent consultation process with all UK local authorities. The net result is a system that has become even more complex and unwieldy than before.
In short, it simply does not work. Local authorities have maintained sufficient unilateral control over planning in their councils and boroughs, to the extent that making an application has now become unclear and confusing.
The intention, whilst admirable, has been to expand the “permitted development” rights of both individuals and developers in the hope that this will bring a fast track approach to allowing an outdated process to improve.
All that has happened can be described as follows:
1. Releasing change of use regulations for B1 business user class over to C3 residential without planning consent. This has resulted in thousands of new flatted developments which, in very many cases, are grossly undersized and simply do not comply with the guidelines that are laid down in, for example, The London Plan. I have seen examples of two-bedroom flats of a net internal area under 50m2, and less, with bedrooms in which you cannot practically provide adequate space. This is due to there being no statutory minimum area cited in the permitted development change allowance. The result is that there are now many undesirable flats in former office blocks that have little to offer the community.
2. Allowing additional stories to be added to existing houses and blocks of flats, without formal planning consent. As an architect I am frankly appalled at this revised approach. In reality there is little prospect of traditional houses, in an urban controlled environment, having additional stories added, without formal consent, when this radically changes the street scene and architectural merit of many developed communities. Fortunately there are still sufficient controlling measures in place for local authorities to maintain some control over the proposed end result. Ironically this flies in the face of the current and still enforceable volume conditions associated with roof conversions (40m3 for terraced and semi detached houses and 50m3 for detached) which are there to prevent increasing the bulk and scale of buildings.
3. Allowing rear extensions to project up to six metres for terraced and semi detached homes and eight metres for detached homes (subject to the amount of land taken that cannot exceed 50 per cent of the total) under “permitted development”. In opposition to this the current restrictions under local planning policy are a projection three metres under permitted development which, technically, means that anyone wanting to build more than this must apply (under national policy) for a notice confirming that “prior approval” is not required. The option to this is for the applicant to seek formal planning consent from the local authority for these larger extensions which will often be refused due to over development.
4. The new national permitted development rights extend to a first floor rear extension that does not extend more than 50 per cent of the width of the existing property. Seeking guidance on the national Planning Portal, proves that there are very unclear lines of what can be allowed in this instant. This is, again, a very grey area in a very unstable set of rules.
All of the above causes an enormous amount of additional work for both private consultants working for the public and local authority planning officers who’s time could be better spent dealing with more pressing urban matters.
The new rules for a very simple area of development must be simplified and brought in line nationally with no local authority opposing conditions other than those that relate to listed buildings or buildings in a local conservation area. The Planning Portal must provide an absolutely clear description of what is required under permitted development using one set of national rules. This could all be controlled through the Planning Portal which could be the provider of consent rather than using local authorities to make the decision. This could then also be an opportunity to dispense with outdated local authority planning committees. Conditions for buildings in conservation areas and those that are listed could then be controlled by a separate body.
I would also support the introduction of a “Building Licence” which covers both planning and building regulations, similar to what occurs in many European and overseas countries. This would further reduce the long drawn out process of obtaining consents for building from different parties.
