LGA submission to DLUHC’s consultation on changes to various permitted development rights

The LGA is the national voice of local government. We are a politically-led, cross party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales.  

Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems. 

• There is no place in the current or future planning system for permitted development (PD) rights, in particular those which permit the creation of new homes. A fully resourced and well-functioning planning system does not require this deregulated approach to development which undermines the Government’s own and local authorities planning policies and place-making ambitions. 
• We strongly oppose extending national PD rights further. We and other national organisations have highlighted to Government through various pieces of research and projects of the negative impact and consequences of PD and call for them to be urgently revoked.
• Local government cannot oversee the planning and delivery of the right homes in the right places if PD rights continue to undermine and override their decision-making powers. New homes and buildings created though PD rights represent a disconnected approach to development that damages and weakens councils’ and their communities’ strategic long-term decisions and place-making ambitions. 
• PD rights affects the ability for councils to make decisions that reflect local need and preserve and enhance the unique and distinctive character of their area. We cannot see how the Government intends to enshrine both a plan-led system with emboldened local leaders through powers in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, whilst also pushing forward with new PD rights which disenfranchise those same leaders.
• The Government’s own research has highlighted how conversions to residential through change of use PD can fail to meet adequate design standards, avoid contributing to local areas and create worse living environments. Conversions to residential through this mechanism, which bypasses the full planning application process, affects vulnerable people disproportionately and can exacerbate existing inequalities. This results in people being placed in accommodation with little or no access to green space, often in remote locations with poor access to public transport.
• Extending PD further also means that councils will lose out on more Section 106 contributions for infrastructure and affordable housing at a time when these are most needed. Communities have already potentially lost 22,000 affordable homes through office to residential conversions. If the Government is minded to retain PD rights, then as a minimum it should urgently introduce mechanisms by which affordable housing and infrastructure contributions can be secured in order to meet Local Plan requirements. 
• Only a locally-led planning system in which councils and the communities they represent have a say over the way places develop will ensure the delivery of high-quality affordable homes with the necessary infrastructure to create sustainable, resilient places for current and future generations. 
• The Government’s own research highlights that the loss of planning fees when assessing prior approval notifications is problematic for local authorities. Since the time of that research, it is our opinion that the Government has recognised that the prior approval process does not adequately assess the required parameters to determine a potential development through PD rights and has thus introduced far more conditions, increasing the burden on planning officers without giving them full powers to assess a potential development against their local policies. If the Government is minded to retain PD rights, then as a minimum we recommend that the Government urgently undertake a review of, and subsequently uplift, the fees charged on prior approval notifications to accurately reflect the costs incurred on local authorities. 

Our fundamental position, as set out in our Key Messages, on the need for PD to be urgently revoked remains. However, we offer a few nuanced points in relation to householder development in recognition of the cumulative impact these proposals may have on residential amenity and external appearance. 

We offer no comment on the proposed changes to exact sizes and measurements of extensions, as these should be determined on a case-by-case basis by local authorities with localised knowledge. Likewise, there may well be circumstances where it would not be appropriate to allow extensions up to the rear boundary and local authorities should have the power, through the planning application process, to determine this. 

The Government should recognise that there may be unintended consequences of extending PD rights to allow such increases in the size of householder development such as impacts on residential amenity, external appearance and design, and daylight and sunlight. Further, the inability for neighbours to offer comment or insight on the impact development may have on their property or the use of their property for impacts outside of the prior approval process continues to erode the democratic nature of the planning system. 

We are concerned that there is a dichotomy emerging between the external quality and appearance of buildings delivered through the planning system, with the Government, rightly, placing a more significant weight on the external design quality of new schemes in national planning policy to ensure they consider the existing area and are attractive, and those brought through PD rights. The consultation proposes permitting the use of materials in extensions which do not need to be of a similar appearance to the existing exterior. Whilst we support the use of modern sustainable materials, if the Government is serious in their pursuit of building beautiful then it must ensure that external appearance of householder development is of high-quality and meets the aesthetic of the existing property or street. 

We do not consider that any changes should be made to how PD is applied to areas currently exempt from PD (Article 2(3) land which includes conservation areas, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Broads, National Parks and World Heritage Sites).

Our fundamental position, as set out in our Key Messages, on the need for PD to be urgently revoked remains. The comments we make below regarding PD rights for building upwards could and would however be considered if these determinations were made through the planning application process. As such, we put forward no alternative appropriate date for homes to have been built in order to use the PD right, as this level of detail should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

We are concerned that there is a dichotomy emerging between the external quality and appearance of buildings delivered through the planning system, with the Government, rightly, placing a more significant weight on the external design quality of new schemes in national planning policy to ensure they consider the existing area and are attractive, and those brought through PD rights. The consultation states that “we have received feedback that the existing prior approvals can be too burdensome and limit the use of the right”; these include external appearance. If the Government is serious in their pursuit of building beautiful then it must ensure that external appearance of development, when building upwards, can be considered by councils during the prior approval process.

We support the re-use of vacant or under-used buildings for new homes where they are suitably located, built to a high-quality, and in accordance with local planning policies. This must be done through the planning application process, as homes created through PD rights are too often lower quality, poorly sited and poorly designed, as highlighted by the Government’s own research. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions for their communities using the policies in their Local Plans. Local authorities are ambitious and want to deliver the high-quality homes our communities need and desire, not ones which are simply acceptable in planning terms.

The creation of new homes must be considered seriously, as homes play a key role in the health and wellbeing of residents. Research shows that “current policies, guidance and regulations are complex and inconsistent in what they require regarding homes created through permitted development. By side-stepping the requirement to obtain full planning consent, the government has removed a key mechanism for ensuring affordable, good quality homes in appropriate locations. The lack of clear and specific requirements regarding the quality of housing created through permitted development creates a risk that regulators and developers might not ensure vital health-related requirements are addressed”.

Our fundamental position, as set out in our Key Messages, on the need for PD to be urgently revoked remains. The comments we make below regarding PD rights for demolition and rebuild could and would however be considered if these determinations were made through the planning application process. If the Government goes ahead with these proposals, we believe prior approvals should demonstrate the environmental need to demolish and rebuild instead of re-purpose, in particular for structures built relatively recently. The list of prior approvals for Class ZA demolition and rebuild is lengthy and already places a burden on potential developers; in order for local authorities to determine the prior approval notification within the timeframes the Government should urgently uprate the fees associated with Class ZA, and all, prior approval notifications. 

Our fundamental position, as set out in our Key Messages, on the need for PD to be urgently revoked remains. However, we offer a few nuanced points in relation to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure should the Government go ahead with their proposals, as we recognise the role electric vehicles will play in the future of decarbonising our transport system. The comments we make below could and would however be considered if these determinations were made through the planning application process. 

Councils want to support the roll-out of EV charge-points and do so in a considerate way. However, we have concerns over the rationale for why these changes are actually needed – we do not believe these have been adequately set out. A desire to simply increase EV charge-points does not present a robust argument in favour of the change. 

One specific concern we have relates to the proximity to and facing the public highway for wall-mounted or free-standing EV chargers. This may encourage the public to think that they are positioned in that way so that cables can be draped across the footway to a vehicle parked on the highway – contrary to Section 162 of the Highways Act 1980 which reads as follows:

162. Penalty for placing rope, etc. across highway.

A person who for any purpose places any rope, wire or other apparatus across a highway in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the highway is, unless he proves that he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger, guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1 level 3 on the standard scale].

Our fundamental position, as set out in our Key Messages, on the need for PD to be urgently revoked remains. However, we offer a few nuanced points in relation to air source heat pumps should the Government go ahead with their proposals, as we recognise the role air source heat pumps can play in decarbonising heating. The comments we make below could and would however be considered if these determinations were made through the planning application process. 

Proposals to remove the limitation that an air source heat pump must be at least one metre from the property boundary appear sensible however the Government may want to consider a limitation in places with higher density housing where there may be a potential cumulative effect. Likewise, proposals to increase the current volume limit for pumps from a maximum of 0.6 cubic metres appear sensible as this allows for more consumer choice, though we caution against unrestricted maximum volume limits. 

We have concerns about the proposals (Question 48, 49 and 50) related to blocks of flats. In these cases there are more units directly impacted by the proposals, and residents may be more likely to be tenants and therefore not only will they not have a chance to comment on the proposals but are less likely to be involved in the prior approval as they are not the landowner. Determining both the siting or number of air source heat pumps with appropriate level of community consultation through a planning application is a far greater method of rolling out the use of air source heat pumps in a positive way that is supported by the community. 

We are concerned that these proposals have been put forward prior to conducting impact assessments on those with a protected characteristic. We recommend that these impact assessments be undertaken prior to any final recommendations and reflected in any proposals taken forward. We have raised this concern in our response to other Government’s consultations on PD in the past.