« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Options For Change
6.0 GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ORDER
6.1 Development within the curtilage of a dwelling
Proposal: Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (SI 1992 No 223) should be rationalised by reducing the number of classes from 6 to 2. The 2 classes should be: 'Alterations and extensions to a dwellinghouse' and 'Other development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse'.
Source: School of Planning & Housing, Edinburgh College of Art/ Heriot-Watt University, Brodies WS and Halliday Fraser Munro Planning, Research on the General Permitted Development Order & Related Mechanisms, SOCRU, 1998, p.20.
Present position: At present Part 1 'Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse' is divided into 6 different classes: (1) The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse; (2) Any alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse; (3) The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling; (4) The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling; (5) The erection or provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a container for the storage of oil or liquefied petroleum gas; (6) The installation, alteration or replacement of a satellite antenna on a dwellinghouse or within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.
Implementation: Part I of the GPDO would require amendment.
Discussion:
- In addition to amalgamating the classes, the research report recommends simplification of the layout and the language of this Part of the GPDO.
- The report suggests that the reduction in the number of classes, coupled with simplification of the layout and language, would streamline Part 1, remove anomalies and confusions, help understanding and reduce the need for article 4 directions.
6.2 Means of enclosure
Proposal: The provision in Class 7(2)(a) should be replaced. The provision states that development is not permitted under Class 7 if it comprises a means of enclosure more than 1 metre high erected within 20 metres of a road. To protect building lines in urban areas and sight lines at junctions, the provision should state that the erection of such a means of enclosure in advance of any building line fronting a road is not permitted.
Source: School of Planning & Housing, Edinburgh College of Art/ Heriot-Watt University, Brodies WS and Halliday Fraser Munro Planning, Research on the General Permitted Development Order & Related Mechanisms, SOCRU, 1998, p.23.
Present position: as above.
Implementation: An amendment to Class 7(2)(a) of Part 1 would be required.
Discussion: The research report states that the 20m rule is widely regarded as problematic by planning officers.
6.3 Prior notification
Proposal: The arrangement whereby planning authorities can control the siting, design and appearance of certain agricultural and forestry development but not the principle of development is confusing and should be clarified by spelling out more clearly the options open to a planning authority.
Source: School of Planning & Housing, Edinburgh College of Art/ Heriot-Watt University, Brodies WS and Halliday Fraser Munro Planning, Research on the General Permitted Development Order & Related Mechanisms, SOCRU, 1998, p.27.
Present position: The prior notification arrangements are to be found in Classes 18(4) and 22(3) of the GPDO. At present they state that the permitted development "shall not be begun before the occurrence of one of the following…" They do not expressly state what the position is if none of the events occur, although it must follow that the development cannot begin and that any which does is unauthorised.
Implementation: It would be helpful to clarify somewhere in these classes that the development may be refused on grounds of siting, design and external appearance (but only on those grounds) and that there is a right of appeal against such a refusal. This could be achieved by some rewording of the provisions of Classes 18(4) and 22(3).
« Previous | Contents | Next »