3 Conclusions
20. We start with the impact assessment which provides
the evidence, and the assessment of the evidence, justifying the
Government's proposals. In our view it has two shortcomings. First,
the assumptions on which it is based are so "tentative",
broad-brush and qualified as to provide little assurance that
the monetary benefits suggested for applicants for planning permission
will be achieved. There is insufficient detail and, furthermore,
the impact assessment does not analyse how much of the claimed
reduction in costs would actually result from the changes. For
example, although plans would no longer need to be submitted with
a planning application to the local authority, they may still
need to be drawn up for much of the building work arising from
the new permitted development rights. The Government's estimated
range for the possible savings to applicants, of between £5
million and £100 million annually, is so wide that it does
not provide a sound basis for the change. If the realised savings
are at the bottom end of the range, there must be a question of
whether the changes are worth the disruption. Second, the assessment
ignores all costs foregone in lost benefits of leaving the current
arrangements unchanged such as increased neighbour disputes or
additional costs because of the need to secure Lawful Development
Certificates. While Eric Pickles dismissed arguments about the
significance of these additional costs as "thin and insubstantial"
and Nick Boles said that it would "be a much less onerous
duty [...] to go around, after it is built, and check that it
is less than four metres and only single storey",[40]
neither they nor the impact assessment had any figures to support
these contentions. The difficulty of estimating these costs is
likely to be on a par with estimating the costs the Government
does cite in the impact assessment. We
conclude that the impact assessment is inadequate and does not
provide a sound basis justifying the proposed changes to permitted
development rights for domestic extensions.
21. As to the merits of the change, we go back to
our Report on the National Planning Policy Framework published
a year ago. As we noted in that Report, the definition of sustainable
development was critical to discussions when the Framework was
drawn up.[41] The final
version states that:
At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework
is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should
be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and
decision-taking.[42]
In our Report we described sustainable development
as a stool resting on the three equal and complementary legs of
economic, social and environmental considerations.[43]
The Framework itself says that "there are three dimensions
to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental".[44]
Indeed, Eric Pickles made the point to us during the evidence
session on 12 December that he had noticed, when reading planning
reports, that "since the presumption in favour of sustainable
development, you can actually see that process of looking at the
environment, looking at the damage and looking at the economic
gain".[45]
22. In reviewing the Government's proposals to extend
permitted development rights for domestic extensions we looked
for evidence that it has taken account of the three components
of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental.
The justification for the changes is framed almost exclusively
in terms of economic considerations. We found little or no evidence
that the Government had considered or addressed the social or
environmental impact of the changes. It has ignored the detrimental
effects of the change—increased neighbour disputes and any
deleterious impact on the quality, design and amenity of the permitted
development and the local area. We cannot see why claimed economic
advantages for making the changes should without any assessment
trump social and environmental arguments against extending the
permitted development rights. Such an unbalanced approach could
be used to justify any extension of permitted development rights.
We regret that the Government
has failed to address or evaluate the social and environmental
arguments put forward against the proposed changes to permitted
development rights for domestic extensions. Its approach has disregarded
two of the components of sustainable development: the social and
environmental impact.
23. Part of the explanation may be that the Government
has placed a time-limit on the relaxation: the changes are for
three years. However, the impact of temporary changes to development
rights is not temporary. Given that the social and environmental
effects of the permitted development on neighbours and on the
locality will be permanent we consider that it is inconsistent
with the principles of sustainable development to allow a temporary
relaxation solely on economic grounds. If
the change to permitted development rights is worth making, it
should be permanent. If it is not, the change should not be made.
The proposed changes need to be subject to a thorough and rigorous
examination, which the consultation initiated on 12 November 2012
is not. In his oral evidence on 15 October
Nick Boles seemed to indicate that the changes might be made permanent
at the end of three years. In addition, when he gave oral evidence
on 12 December, Eric Pickles made "it absolutely clear: we
are not wedded from going from four to eight metres to three to
six metres. We could well consider something a little less than
that."[46] Temporary
changes can cause confusion and create uncertainty both at the
inception of the change and in the period before its conclusion.
Given the indication that the changes may be permanent, and
that the Government would consider an extension less than doubling
the current depth dimensions, we
recommend that the Government complete a comprehensive assessment
of the social, environmental and economic impact as well as a
comprehensive economic assessment, and that it carry out a fresh
and extensive consultation with a range of options for change
should it decide to make a permanent alteration.
24. We conclude
that the case for the changes the Government proposes to permitted
development rights for domestic extensions has not been made.
We therefore do not agree that in non-protected areas the maximum
depth for single-storey rear extensions should be increased to
eight metres for detached houses, and six metres for any other
type of house.
25. If against
our advice the Government should be determined to persist with
change (and we consider that it should not) then a number of adjustments
need to be made.
- First, because
of the potential impact on areas with a significant number of
Houses in Multiple Occupation, there is a strong case for excluding
them from the relaxation at least until a thorough impact assessment
has been carried out.
- Second, if the Article 4 mechanism
is to provide a viable local exemption from permitted development
rights, it will be necessary to remove payment of compensation
and to allow local authorities to charge for planning applications
falling within Article 4 in cases such as domestic extensions.
- Third, we recommend that the
Government carry out a full review of the impact of the changes
at the end of the three year "trial". We recommend (a)
that the review includes an independent study, including commissioned
research on neighbour disputes and the impact on the quality,
design and amenity of the permitted development and on the local
area and (b) an invitation to interested parties to submit evidence
and (c) that the outcome of the review be published.
40 HC (2012-13) 693-ii, Q 205 Back
41
Eighth Report of Session 2010-12, National Planning Policy
Framework, HC 1526, chapter 4 Back
42
DCLG, The National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012,
para 14 Back
43
HC (2010-12) 1526, para 161 Back
44
DCLG, The National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012,
para 7 Back
45
HC (2012-13) 693-ii, Q 195 Back
46
HC (2012-13) 693-ii, Q 201 Back
|
