« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
REVIEW OF THE GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ORDER - STEERING GROUP MEETING 10 am THURSDAY 15 DECEMBER 2005
Venue: Rm 2H-55, Victoria Quay
In Attendance:
Miranda Marshall, City of Glasgow Council
Brian Stalker, East Lothian Council
Mark Wrightham, Scottish Natural Heritage
Hugh Crawford, Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland
Lily Linge, Historic Scotland
Jonathan Astwood, Scottish Building Standards Agency
Alan Prior, Heriot Watt University
Andrew Walters, Scott Wilson
Neil Collar, Brodies LLP
Sally Thomas, Scottish Executive Environment & Rural Affairs Department
Tim Barraclough, Scottish Executive Development Department
Alan Cameron, SEDD
Agenda:
10.00 - Welcome and Introductions. Introductory comments on the context and broad aims of the research project - Alan Cameron
10.15 - Outline of Approach to the Research - Alan Prior
10.45 - General questions on the project - Focussed nature of the project
New PDRe.g. microrenewables
Workshops
Options testing
11.30 - Coffee
11.45 - Householder Developments - Issues
Workshop
Survey of PD inquiries to planning authorities
12.30 - AOB and Date for next meeting
NOTE OF MEETING THURSDAY 15 DECEMBER 2005
Present: Miranda Marshall, City of Glasgow Council
Brian Stalker, East Lothian Council
Mark Wrightham, Scottish Natural Heritage
Hugh Crawford, Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland
Lily Linge, Historic Scotland
Jonathon Astwood, Scottish Building Standards Agency ( SBSA)
Alan Prior, Heriot Watt University
Andrew Walters, Scott Wilson
Sally Thomas, Scottish Executive Environment & Rural Affairs Department
Tim Barraclough, Scottish Executive Development Department ( SEDD)
Alan Cameron, SEDD
Tom Muir, SEDD
Apologies: Neil Collar, Brodies LLP
John McNairney, SEDD
1. Introduction
AC set out position re the finalised general and householder questionnaires. The general questionnaire is ready to issue. Comments from JA at SBSA are still to be fed into Option 4 of the householder questionnaire and it was indicated that this would be discussed separately at the end of the meeting.
TB gave a summary of the forthcoming modernisation proposals for the planning system, illustrating, in particular, how the review of the GPDO fits with planning hierarchy proposals and the associated need to reduce the number of "minor" applications being dealt with by planning authorities. It was made clear that permitted development is an issue that MSPs feel strongly about.
The rough timetable for the Bill was then set out: introduction pre-Christmas 2005, Stage 1 evidence gathering January-Easter 2006, Stage 1 debate April-May 2006, Stage 2 considerations pre and post Summer recess and Royal Assent for the Bill by the end of 2006. Again it was stressed that the review would need to provide robust reasoning to support the Bill and associated proposals through this process. It was clarified that the review of the GPDO was not simply about extending permitted development rights and that consideration would also be given to areas where rights should be "reined in".
On the issue of the structure and format of the new GPDO it was made clear that this would be dependent on the outcome of the review, though in general terms the new GPDO should be clearer and easier to use.
2. Research Approach
AP outlined the approach to be taken by the research team. The first step will be to distribute both the general and householder questionnaires before Christmas, with responses due on both by 31 January 2006. Work which fed into the questionnaire design, including a review of previous work in the field, case law and related literature, is to be submitted shortly to AC.
In terms of the 31 January deadline, some concern was raised that this would not leave sufficient time for Local Authorities and Community Councils, in particular, to give a full response. It was explained that whilst there may be some flexibility with the general questionnaire, this could not be the case for the householder questionnaire, as the report on householder permitted development rights ( PDRs) has a deadline of April 2006. To try and encourage a prompt response, steering group members were asked to go back to their contacts and flag up the questionnaires and the need for a swift response. It was noted that a letter from the Chief Planner would accompany the questionnaires and letters. JA asked for a copy of this letter to inform discussions with building control contacts at local authority level.
Once the responses have been collated for the householder questionnaire, there will be a workshop and a pulling together of related ODPM work. Based on this information the research team will prepare and run a paper/presentation past the steering group to inform preparations for their draft report. The final report is to be produced by April 2006.
Work on the results for the general questionnaire will be ongoing and will include a series of workshops and case studies. A selection of around thirty case studies on a range of issues (including Article 4 directions and prior notification) will be put in front of the steering group for comment to aid the selection of an appropriate mix of case studies for the final report. AP asked for information from the SE database on Article 4 directions, he needs to know, as a starting point, how many Article 4 directions there are in force and where. From this starting point AP will be able to consider appropriate case studies.
On the issue of targeted questionnaires it was indicated that these had been rejected in favour of the general questionnaire. It will be made clear to respondents that if they have views on certain issues and not others, then they need only fill in the relevant sections.
ACTION: AP to send AC research work completed prior to questionnaire design.
ACTION: AC to circulate electronic copy of questionnaires to Steering Group Members.
ACTION: AC to send JA copy of Jim Mackinnon letter.
ACTION: AC to send across information from Article 4 Database to AP.
3. Discussion of Research Approach
Having had the research approach outlined by AP, steering group members went on to discuss the following issues:
- HC asked if the research would include a look at other European Countries' practice. AP highlighted that the system of permitted development rights is not practiced elsewhere in Europe (outside UK & Ireland), but that a look at European mediation models may be included (as in ODPM research).
- Some concern was raised over how the public could be engaged fully in the review. Difficulties discussed of getting across the importance of the review to the general public, who still generally only consider the planning system when making their own application or when affected by a neighbour's.
- The importance of producing a clear and robust set of regulations was raised repeatedly. It was emphasised that the public would appreciate a user-friendly guide to the GPDO, possibly following the example of Ireland's Planning Design Manual or SBSA's small buildings/conservatory guides. Some concern was raised, however, that this approach could see a replication of design rather than the increase in varied and contemporary design desired by SE.
- The potential for introducing Local Development Orders, increasing PDRs in certain areas, was touched upon. BS suggested there may be problems with such Orders, as the implication may be that one area is perceived as "less important" than others. He favoured the traditional approach of having established PDRs in the GPDO with the potential to remove certain rights in particular areas using Article 4 directions. AP outlined that consideration would be given to the use of Article 4 directions and Local Development Orders in the review.
- There was considerable discussion around the question of "amenity" and the concerns of the public over the effect of PDRs on their "amenity". MM indicated the core issues of concern as being the effect on daylight into housing, sunlight into gardens and loss of privacy. Extending PDRs whilst giving consideration to these issues would be one of the challenges of the review.
- The issue of the extent to which the planning system addresses private as well as public interests and the extent to which the two overlap was raised. The scale and number of householder developments undermine any notion that public concerns about their neighbours developments can easily be dismissed as frivolous. Even something as simple as tarmacing can have serious implications for amenity and drainage issues for example. There is also a lot of discussion surrounding human rights legislation in relation to the effect of developments on local people's quality of life.
- The nature of new housing developments and building in rights to extend dwellings was discussed. The use of development plans to set the layouts of estates to prevent the increasing size of houses in smaller garden spaces etc.
- There was a brief discussion around the PDRs granted for Agriculture and Telecommunications where there might be pressure for increased planning controls, which would be controversial within those sectors. The review is not charged with looking at any fundamental review of Telecommunications issues, but would look for any improvements in clarity of the PDR.
- HC indicated his support for Option 6 of the Householder survey. He felt that having "certified verifiers" with a code of conduct would remove some of the burden on Planning Authorities in determining whether or not development constitutes permitted development.
- AP asked for suggestions from steering group members on the stakeholder distribution list. It was indicated that Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland ( HEACS) should be added to the list.
ACTION: AP to add HEACS to stakeholder distribution list.
ACTION: AC to circulate to members the ODPM review of Householder PDR, once published.
4. Further Meetings
It was agreed that the next meeting of the steering group would be provisionally arranged for the end of February 2006, to review the work of the research team prior to their production of a draft report on the householder review. A meeting in mid-March to discuss the draft was also pencilled in.
5. Post-meeting Discussion
At the post-meeting discussion it was agreed that AP would e-mail a revised version of Option 4 to JA for comment, copying in AC. This would allow completion of the householder questionnaire and distribution by Monday 19 December 2005.
ACTION: AP to send updated Option 4 to JA for comment by 12pm Friday 16 December 2005.
Tom Muir
DD: Planning 1
16 December 2005
« Previous | Contents | Next »