The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

DISCUSSION PAPER AND QUESTIONNAIRE

December 2005

Heriot-Watt University + Brodies LLP + Scott Wilson
REVIEW OF GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ORDER 1992
HOUSEHOLDER DEVELOPMENT

1 Background

1.1 As part of the research on the General Permitted Development Order 1992, the consultants to the Scottish Executive are seeking views on alternative approaches to managing householder developments. This paper outlines some broad options for addressing householder developments within the overall objectives for the research which include:

I. consider the potential for deregulation in relation to householder developments under Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the GPDO;
II. explore alternative methods of control that might be applied to those householder developments which may not have permitted development rights, but would not necessarily warrant a full planning application.

1.2 Please complete the short questionnaire at the end and return it:

By mail to:
Professor Alan Prior

By fax to:
Professor Alan Prior
0131 451 4617
By email attachment to: a.prior@hw.ac.uk

1.3 Currently, householders wishing to develop their properties must obtain planning permission prior to undertaking development, unless the development is allowed under the General Permitted Development Order.

1.4 The Executive's priorities for modernization of the Scottish planning system include ways by which the burden of householder development applications might be reduced by, amongst other things, 'achieving a better match between permitted development rights and the aspirations, and obligations of householders' ¹. Extension of permitted development rights for householders, or managing householder developments in other ways, must 'also ensure that adequate controls remain to deal with developments which might unduly affect the environment or amenity of the area' ². The thrust is therefore to:

a) differentiate between those types of householder development that usually raise narrow, private interest issues involving neighbour disputes, and those which raise wider public interest issues because they impact on overall residential amenity;
b) find ways of removing the former from development management without significant detriment to the wider residential amenity.

2 Householder development: key issues

What is "householder development" ?

2.1 Householder development can be defined as those developments covered by Part 1 of the GPDO, ie development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse³, as specified in Schedule 1:

I. The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse;
II. Any alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse including the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of an addition or alteration to its roof;
III. The provision within the curtilage ⁴ of a dwellinghouse of any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure;
IV. The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse;
V. The erection or provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a container for the storage of oil or liquefied petroleum gas;
VI. The installation, alteration or replacement of a satellite antenna on a dwellinghouse or within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.

2.2 And, in relevant circumstances, Class 7 ⁵:

VII. The erection, construction, maintenance or alteration of a gate, fence, wall, or other means of enclosure.

Why is it "development" ?

2.3 It is a building operation within the terms of s26(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Why is it an issue for the planning system?

2.4 A principal concern of planning authorities about householder development is its impact on residential amenity. Some of the amenity considerations relate to avoiding negative impacts of householder developments on the outlook, privacy and overshadowing of neighbouring arising from:

a) raising the overall height of a dwelling;
b) proximity of extensions to common boundaries;
c) proximity of extensions to public roads and footpaths;
d) cumulative erosion of local character by poor designs of extensions and other alterations to dwellings;
e) overdevelopment of the residential curtilage;
f) development on prominent elevations.

3 Householder development: options

3.1 The following is a discussion of a range of possible options, in principle, to reduce or remove the need for an application for planning permission for householder development. It should be emphasised that none of these are proposals, but help to define the potential range of alternative arrangements for managing householder development. Each option is considered against the impacts on:

3.2 development management: the system whereby planning authorities register, consult on, determine and notify decisions on applications for development permission, and the associated enforcement and appeals systems. A key issue for the system of development management is the annual growth in the number of planning applications submitted for householder development, to the point where such applications comprise more than half of all applications for development permission. Additionally, appeals against refusal of permission for householder developments make up a significant proportion of all planning appeals.

3.3 environment/amenity: amenity is hard to define. Thomas ⁶ defines it as "quality of pleasantness"; planning law defines what might be injurious to residential amenity by virtue of the impacts of noise, soot, dust, grit, dirt, litter, vibration, smell, fumes, privacy, vehicle movement, and aesthetics/unsightliness. Amenity also infers access to a high quality residential environment, including open space, public views, privacy, car parking.

3.4 inclusion/participation: 'inclusion' refers to the involvement of groups in society; 'participation' to the scope to have a say and influence decisions, by raising relevant planning issues arising from any development. Planning modernisation aims to achieve more effective inclusion and participation by more effective development plan processes. This suggests refocusing public involvement towards policy making and plan shaping, and away from detailed development proposals that already accord with the development plan ⁷.

Option 1: extend permitted development rights to all householder development

3.5 This would extend the permitted development rights currently enjoyed under Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the GPDO to all development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. This would mean that potentially all alterations, extensions and other building operations within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, and incidental to its enjoyment, would be granted planning permission. In effect, the existing limitations in Part 1 would be removed.

3.6 In order to ensure safeguards in sensitive environments, such developments could be excluded in specified designated areas, and in proximity to Listed Buildings. There would be scope for planning authorities to claw back a level of control considered appropriate in local contexts by seeking a Direction under Article 4 of the GPDO.

3.7 There may need to be standard conditions or other limitations attached to such a wide ranging planning permission, limiting such developments in relation to: existing roof heights; a proportion of the plot area of the existing dwellinghouse; proximity to common boundaries and to roads and footpaths.

3.8 The positive impact of granting a general planning permission to all householder development would be to reduce significantly the volume of planning applications submitted to planning authorities, thus minimising bureaucracy and reducing burdens on planning authorities, enabling them to focus on more significant developments in the public interest, speeding up the planning process for such developments. There would nevertheless continue to be scope for planning authorities to reduce the level of permitted development rights.

3.9 The negative impact of such an extensive planning permission would be to remove neighbour notification rights and hence ability by neighbours, who deem their amenity to have been adversely affected, to challenge or otherwise influence householder developments. This option therefore gives greater weight to addressing the problems of development management, rather than to social inclusion/participation, or to environment/amenity. However, it would give planning authorities the discretion to increase controls over such developments through Article 4 Directions, or justification in an up to date adopted development plan which had been open to effective public consultation and independent scrutiny at a Public Local Inquiry.

3.10 Therefore the characteristic of this option is full deregulation and minimisation of bureaucracy, but with the scope to claw back a level of planning control as deemed appropriate by planning authorities, and justified in the development plan.

Option 2: grant 'deemed approval' to all householder development

3.11 All householder development would be permitted, as in Option 1, but householders would be required to notify neighbours in advance of the start of building work. In the event of valid objections, the planning authority could require a planning application by "call-in". This option acknowledges that the public interest cannot always be identified in advance. It retains current rights of neighbours to be notified, and to make objections. But it remains the discretion of the planning authority to decide whether to require a planning application.

3.12 Whilst all householder development would be permitted, Article 4 Directions could still be applied to restrict permitted development rights, in areas to be specified in the development plan (and thus could apply outside designated Conservation Areas). In this way, any restriction of householder development rights would have to be justified in an adopted development plan, which had been open to public objection and subject to independent scrutiny at a Public Local Inquiry. The period of any Direction would be conterminous with an up to date development plan (ie it would not apply ad infinitum, as at present, and would require further justification in a subsequent development plan review).

3.13 This might be a more balanced approach to deregulation/inclusion/amenity. The likely outcome of this option is that the extent of householder freedom from planning control would vary by Council area (and perhaps geographically within a Council area), and could result in an increase in householder developments where planning authorities enthusiastically deployed the power of call-in. This might be offset by national policy guidance in a revised SPP1, or new dedicated policy guidance for householder development.

3.14 Overall, it leaves the planning authority to balance the level of deregulation of householder development in relation to local planning issues and the deployment of planning resources, within a general framework of deregulated householder development. However, in principle, all householder development would have deemed approval, subject to prior neighbour notification and local authority call-in.

Option 3: relax some or all of the existing limitations on householder permitted development

3.15 Under this option, the present limitations and exclusions in Part 1 of Schedule 1 would be relaxed, by raising thresholds to enable a greater proportion of householder development to proceed without the need for a planning application (but not all, as in Options 1 and 2). The impact of this option on development management workloads would require to be assessed through research. Subject to availability of data, variations in development thresholds could be modelled to determine how far PD thresholds would have to be modified to deliver a given percentage reduction in householder development applications (for example: floor area maxima could be increased from 20% to 40% of the original dwelling, up to 50 sq m (rather than the current 30 sq m); proximity of any extension to a road could be reduced from 20m to 10m; total curtilage cover could be increased from 30% to 50%).

3.16 The positive impact of this option would be to extend permitted development rights and reduce the number of planning applications, but not for all householder developments. It acknowledges the risks inherent in Option 1, and to some extent in Option 2 (which leaves to the discretion of the planning authority whether to call in a proposed householder development). The negative impact would be the reduction in neighbour notification rights and the potential consequences for local residential amenity. There could be scope for local extension of householder development rights through Local Development Orders ⁸, promoted by the planning authority, following justification in the development plan.

3.17 Overall, it would be a cautious, pragmatic solution to reducing the number of applications by raising some of the current thresholds for permitted development, and allowing local authorities to extend further PD rights in accordance with the development plan.

Option 4: bring planning permission for householder development in line with building regulations

3.18 The attraction of this option is the scope to offer the applicant a one-stop-shop for small works. The Building Regulations are enforced through the building standards system established by the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. The system is designed to ensure that new 'buildings' and 'works' achieve the objectives of the Act for health, safety, welfare, convenience, conservation of fuel and power, and sustainable development. The duty to comply with the regulations lies with the owner for the work. Before work begins, a building warrant must be obtained. For simpler works, a warrant is not required, but the regulations still apply. The role of issuing warrants and accepting completion certificates (certifying that the works have been constructed in accordance with the warrant and the regulations) rests with 'verifiers', enforcement is by local authorities, and the system is overseen by the Building Standards Agency, which answers directly to Ministers. Verification does not absolve the owner from the responsibility of ensuring that the required quality of work has been achieved.

3.19 The system is based on functional standards, backed up by detailed guidance (in Technical Handbooks) to provide a flexible system of control. The need for a formal relaxation of standards (as under the superseded Regulations) is reduced because meeting the full details of given solutions is no longer mandatory. The professional judgement of the verifier, assisted by guidance, decides whether a standard is met.

3.20 Regulation 3 and Schedule 1 set out what buildings and work are exempted from the building regulations. This includes buildings or works with so small an impact on the public interest that there is no need to seek to enforce the regulations. In relation to householder development, this includes buildings ancillary to dwellings such as:

(i) A detached single story building ancillary to and within the curtilage of a house, but not exceeding 8 sq m in area, at least 1 m from a boundary of a house, and not containing a flue, fixed combustion appliance or sanitary fitting, nor comprising a wall or fence;
(ii) a porch or conservatory , but with the same limitations as for 1;
(iii) a greenhouse, car port or covered area, not exceeding 30 sq m in area, and other limitations as for 1 and 2
(iv) a paved or hardstanding area not exceeding 200 sq m in area, or forming part of an access.

3.21 Regulation 5 and Schedule 3 specify what work can be done without the need for a warrant, including:

(i) any work to or in a house, unless increasing the floor area, demolition or alteration of a roof, external walls or structural elements, or separating wall, or specific types of work to a house having a storey or creating a storey of more than 4.5m in height;
(ii) any work associated with refillable LPG storage cylinders supplying, via a fixed pipework installation, combustion appliances used
for space heating, water heating or cooking;
(iii) a wall not exceeding 1.2m in height or a fence not exceeding 2m in height;
(iv) any work associated with open raised external decking not exceeding 1.2m in height that does not form part of the accessible entrance to the building;
(v) construction of a ramp not exceeding 5m in length.

3.22 The scope for using these Regulations as a proxy for householder development approval depends on how closely they match Classes 1-5 and Class 7 of the GPDO. In general, the exemptions and limitations within Regulations 3 and 5 fall within the thresholds and limitations of the corresponding PD Classes: in other words, the PD Classes at present permit larger works than do the Building Regulations.

3.23 It follows that changing the PD Classes to match the Building Regulations would reduce PD rights and therefore increase planning applications. This is contrary to the objectives in para 1.4. The alternative alignment, requiring householder development only to require Building Regulations approval would comply with these objectives, but at the loss of any assessment of the amenity impacts caused by some householder developments: the building standards regime is essentially concerned with objective assessment of compliance with technical standards; the planning regime is essentially concerned with more subjective assessment about environmental impacts.

3.24 So, bringing planning permission for householder development in line with building regulations would require specification of some additional "technical standards" for householder developments (eg building height, building line, plot ratio). Assessment of compliance with these standards could be a separate administrative task within the local authority, undertaken in parallel with validation of the warrant application. Thus, building warrant applications that did not comply with any of these "standards" (which could be set nationally or locally) would require a planning application. Effectively such applications would be "screened" for planning permission. The question remains as to who within the local authority should carry out this assessment.

Option 5: delegate to community councils decisions on some or all householder development

3.25 Community councils are statutory consultees on all planning applications within their areas, and Planning Aid Scotland has provided planning training to community councillors. Therefore there may be scope to delegate decision making on some or all householder developments to community councils. It could be left to the decision of planning authorities whether, within the community council scheme for their area, they delegate decisions on all or specified categories of householder development. This might be done in a context of establishing Best Value indicators for community councils operating such delegated power, and extending the local government code of conduct to community councillors.

3.26 The advantages of this option are that it would help free up planning resources of local authorities, and assist the aim of reducing householder development burdens on planning authorities by transferring all or part of this to community councils, while maintaining local involvement in small scale development. Delegation schemes could be prescribed in Regulations and/or require the approval of Ministers.

3.27 The disadvantages are that community councils are not always representative of their local areas, with many councillors returned unopposed, and the risk of a level of parochialism in decision making. Also community councillors would not have ready access to professional expertise, unless held within their ranks. There is therefore a risk that decisions could be made on non-material grounds, resulting in an increase in appeals, or legal challenges on human rights grounds. This option would not reduce the bureaucracy of householder development, but transfer it to another body with: no previous expertise in making planning decisions; no guarantees that decisions would be made speedily and impartially; and the risk of an increase in planning appeals and legal challenges.

3.28 One way of mitigating this would be for each community council to operate a regular Local Development Forum, where householder applications would be deliberated, and at which a planning officer could provide professional guidance. Consequently, there would remain some demand for professional development management input, but to the benefit of locally robust decisions.

Option 6: transfer to 'licensed practitioners' decisions on some or all householder developments

3.29 This would remove the monopoly of the planning authority as the decision maker, by enabling licensed practitioners to certify the appropriateness of all householder developments that do not enjoy permitted development rights. They would include private sector professionals. Whilst there would be no reduction in the number of householder applications, the burden of determining them would be more widely shared.

3.30 The householder would be free to seek certification from a 'licensed practitioner'. Transferring this judgement to professionals in the private sector would be on the basis that such persons subscribed to a professional code of ethics. Additionally, there could be a specified statutory procedure to which such practitioners would be required to conform, or risk court challenge or even prosecution, to ensure that eg neighbours were notified, that issues raised were resolved, that a written judgement was produced, and that appropriate conditions for approval were specified.

3.31 This option would reduce or totally remove householder applications submitted to planning authorities, depending on whether some or all householder developments falling outside permitted development maxima were included within the 'independent verifier' scheme. The role of the licensed practitioner would include mediation in neighbour disputes over householder developments, so they would require mediation skills.

3.32 The licensing scheme could be administered by central or local government. Householder development approvals would not be led by planning authority policies, but instead licensed practitioners would be required to ensure compliance with specified technical and environmental standards, which could be defined centrally and uniformly by government, or left to local authorities to define, reflecting local circumstances. There could be a requirement for advance neighbour notification (as in Option 2), but it would be for the independent licensed practitioner to seek to resolve neighbour disputes or other objections. There would thus continue to be a right of neighbours to be notified, and to raise objections, but not to a publicly accountable body, thought there could be a right of administrative and/or legal challenge to a verifier's judgement.

4 Summary

4.1 Householder developments impose a significant burden on the planning system, stretching a system of scarce professional resources to deal efficiently with the need for up to date development plans and the speedy determination of major development proposals that have much wider social and economic impacts. The vast majority of such developments are granted planning permission.

4.2 There is wide scope for innovative reform of the way householder development is managed, with different emphases. These seek to streamline development management whilst safeguarding amenity and participation. The options discussed are not exhaustive, but help to map out some of the territory for reform. These options encompass:

a) partial or complete deregulation of householder permitted development rights (options 1, 2 and 3);
b) transfer of regulation to a substitute compliance regime (option 4);
c) delegation of regulation to other bodies (options 5 and 6).

Please assist us in developing ideas for alternative treatment of householder development by completing and returning the following short questionnaire.

REVIEW OF GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ORDER HOUSEHOLDER DEVELOPMENT KEY QUESTIONS

If you would prefer to complete an e-version of this questionnaire, please contacta.prior@hw.ac.uk

5. For each of the 6 options discussed in section 3, and listed below, please state whether you broadly support or do not support, and why.

Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 ⁹

SCHEDULE 1

CLASSES OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT

PART 1: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF A DWELLINGHOUSE

Class 1.-(1) The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse.

(2) Development is not permitted by this class if-

(a) the floor area of the resulting building would exceed the floor area of the original dwellinghouse-

(i) in the case of a terrace house or of a dwellinghouse in a conservation area or within the curtilage of a listed building by more than 16 square metres or 10%, whichever is the greater;
(ii) in any other case, by more than 24 square metres or 20%, whichever is the greater;
(iii) in any case by more than 30 square metres;

(b) the height of the resulting building would exceed the height of the highest part of the roof of the original dwellinghouse;
(c) (i) in the case of a dwellinghouse within a conservation area any part of that development would extend beyond the building line of the original dwellinghouse on any side of the house where its curtilage is bounded by a road;

(ii) in any other case any part of that development would be both less than 20 metres from any road which bounds its curtilage and would be nearer to the road than the part of the original dwellinghouse nearest to it;

(d) any part of the development which would be within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse-

(i) would be increased in height as a result of the development; and
(ii) would exceed 4 metres in height;

(e) the total area of ground covered by buildings within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 30% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse);
(f) it would consist of or include the installation, alteration or replacement of a satellite antenna;
(g) it would consist of or include the erection of a building within the curtilage of a listed building;
(h) it would consist of or include any alteration to the roof of the original dwellinghouse; or
(i) in the case of a dwellinghouse in a conservation area the development would consist of or include the cladding of any part of the exterior with stone, artificial stone, timber, plastic or tiles or any other material.

(3) For the purposes of this class-

(a) the erection within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of any building with a floor area greater than 4 square metres and within 5 metres of any part of the dwellinghouse shall be treated as the enlargement of the dwellinghouse for all purposes;
(b) where any part of the dwellinghouse would be within 5 metres of an existing building within the same curtilage, that building shall be treated as forming part of the resulting building for the purpose of calculating the floor area;
(c) "resulting building" means the dwellinghouse as enlarged, improved or altered, taking into account any previous enlargement, improvement or alteration to the original dwellinghouse, whether permitted by classes 1 to 6 or not;

"terrace house" means a dwellinghouse-

(i) situated in a row of three or more buildings used, or designed for use, as single dwellinghouses; and
(ii) having a mutual wall with, or having a main wall adjoining the main wall of, the dwelling house (or building designed for use as a dwellinghouse) on either side of it,

but includes the dwellinghouses at each end of such a row of buildings as is referred to.

Class 2.-(1) Any alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse including the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of an addition or alteration to its roof.

(2) Development is not permitted by this class if-

(a) any part of the dwellinghouse would as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof;
(b) any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend 10 centimetres beyond the plane of any existing roof slope;
(c) the roof area of the enlargement exceeds 10% of the roof area of the dwelling house before development;
(d) any roofing material used would materially affect the external appearance of the dwellinghouse;
(e) the dwelling house is in a conservation area.

Class 3.-(1) 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 dwellinghouse, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure.

(2) Development is not permitted by this class if-

(a) it consists of a dwelling or a satellite antenna;
(b) it consists of the provision, improvement or other alteration of a building or enclosure where as a result any part of such building or enclosure which is to be provided, improved or otherwise altered would be both less than 20 metres from any road which bounds the curtilage and nearer to the road than the part of the original dwellinghouse nearest to it;
(c) it consists of the provision, improvement or other alteration of a building where the building to be provided, improved or otherwise altered would have a floor area greater than 4 square metres and any part of it would be within 5 metres of any part of the dwellinghouse;
(d) the height of that building or enclosure would exceed-

(i) 4 metres, in the case of a building with a ridged roof; or
(ii) 3 metres, in any other case;

(e) the total area of ground covered by buildings or enclosures within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 30% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse); or
(f) in the case of any land in a conservation area or land within the curtilage of a listed building, it would consist of the provision, alteration or improvement of a building with a floor area greater than 4 square metres.

(3) For the purposes of this class "purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse" includes the keeping of poultry, bees, pet animals, birds or other livestock for the domestic needs or personal enjoyment of the occupants of the dwellinghouse.

Class 4.-(1) The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.

(2) Development is not permitted by this class within a conservation area or within the curtilage of a listed building.

Class 5. - (1) The erection or provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a container for the storage of oil or liquified petroleum gas.

(2) Development is not permitted by this class if-

(a) it would be within a conservation area or within the curtilage of a listed building;
(b) the capacity of the container would exceed 3500 litres;
(c) any part of the container would be more than 3 metres above ground level;
(d) any part of the container would be both less than 20 metres from any road which bounds its curtilage and would be nearer to the road than the part of the original dwellinghouse nearest to it;
(e) it would result in more than one container within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.

Class 6.-(1) The installation, alteration or replacement of a satellite antenna on a dwellinghouse or within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse.

(2) Development is not permitted by this class if it would result in-

(a) more than one satellite antenna on the dwellinghouse or within its curtilage;
(b) the size of the satellite antenna (excluding any projecting feed element) when measured in any dimension exceeding 90 centimetres;
(c) the highest part of any antenna to be installed on a dwellinghouse being higher than the highest part of the roof on which it would be installed; or
(d) the satellite antenna being installed in a conservation area or national scenic area on any part of a dwellinghouse which faces on to a road.

(3) Development is permitted by this class subject to the condition that the antenna shall, so far as practicable, be sited so as to minimise its effect on the external appearance of the building or structure on which it is installed.

PART 2: SUNDRY MINOR OPERATIONS

Class 7. - (1) The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure.

(2) Development is not permitted by this class if-

(a) the height of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure to be erected or constructed within 20 metres of a road would, after the carrying out of the development, exceed one metre above ground level;
(b) the height of any other gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure to be erected or constructed would exceed two metres above ground level;
(c) the height of any existing gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure maintained, improved or altered would, as a result of the development, exceed its former height or the height referred to in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) as the height appropriate to it if erected or constructed, whichever is the greater; or
(d) it would involve development within the curtilage of, or in respect of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure surrounding, a listed building.

REVIEW OF THE GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ORDER 1992

The Modernising the Planning System White Paper included a commitment to review the 1992 GPDO. The School of the Built Environment at Heriot-Watt University, in association with Brodies LLP and Scott Wilson Consulting, have been commissioned by the Scottish Executive to review the appropriateness of the planning permissions set out in the Order, to recommend changes to simplify it and bring it up to date.

The purpose of this questionnaire is to elicit views on the operation and effectiveness of the GPDO as presently framed, and to identify need for any reduced or additional planning controls for specific developments.

Please complete those sections of the questionnaire that are relevant to your concerns, and return itby 31 January 2006.

If you would prefer to complete an e-version of this questionnaire, please contact a.prior@hw.ac.uk

Please return your completed questionnaire to:

Professor Alan Prior
School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
Email a.prior@hw.ac.uk
Tel 0131 451 4404
Fax 0131 451 4617

SECTION A: KEY PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS REQUIRING REVIEW

This section identifies those parts of the GPDO which previous research indicates are problematic, and seeks your suggestions on how they might be tackled. If necessary, please refer to the actual wording of the GPDO, which can be accessed at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19920223_en_1.htm. Section B deals with other parts of the GPDO which are generally regarded as being less problematic.

SECTION B: OTHER PARTS OF THE GPDO

Section A has sought views on the scope for change to address those parts of the GPDO which previous research has indicated raise significant issues. This section lists the other Parts of the Order that have not raised significant issues. Please add any comments you might wish to make. Please note that the research specifically excludes Part 3 (changes of use), which would be covered by research on the Use Classes order

SECTION C: DEVELOPMENTS CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THE GPDO THAT SHOULD REQUIRE A PLANNING APPLICATION

Please list below in the left hand column those Permitted Developments that you consider should be the subject of a formal application for planning permission. Please give reasons for each category of development in the right hand column.

For at least one of the Classes of development that you list above, please give an example to illustrate what the current problem is and what the benefits would be of removal of PD rights. Try to be as specific as possible, as we may wish to select this example for detailed follow-up.

SECTION D: DEVELOPMENTS NOT PERMITTED THAT SHOULD BE

Other recent suggestions for new permitted development rights include the following. Please indicate whether you see any problems with introducing PD for any of these types of development.

Please list below, in the left hand column, any other developments that you consider should have permitted development rights, and explain why.

Please give at least one example of a development you have listed above as meriting permitted development rights, explaining briefly what the current problem is and what the benefits would be of making it permitted development. Try to be as specific as possible, as we may wish to follow this up in more detail later.

SECTION E: INTERPRETATION

Listed below are the terms explained in Article 2 of the General Permitted Development Order.

aerodrome
aqueduct
associated apparatus
building
caravan
caravan site
category A listed building
classified road
conservation area
contravention of previous planning control
cubic content
dwellinghouse
electronic communication
European site
flat
floor area
historic garden or designed landscape
industrial process
licensed premises
listed building
local authority
microwave antenna
mine
minerals
mining operations
National Park
national scenic area
notifiable pipe-line
Notification Regulations
original
plant or machinery
private way
Procedure Order
road
satellite antenna
scheduled monument
sewerage authority
site of archaeological interest
site of special scientific interest
statutory undertaker
terrestrial antenna
trunk road
Use Classes Order

Identify in the box below any terms used in the Order which you find problematic, and explain why.

SECTION F: DESIGNATED AREAS

In some classes of permitted development, rights are removed or restricted within designated areas. Listed below are the designations referred to in the General Permitted Development Order. Please identify in the right hand column any classes of permitted development that you consider are problematic for safeguarding these designations, and please explain why.

Please give at least one example illustrating why a particular class of PD (or limitation) is problematic within a specific designated area, and how the problem might be addressed. Try to be as specific as possible, as we may wish to follow this up in more detail later

SECTION G: BAD NEIGHBOUR DEVELOPMENTS

Consider the following "bad neighbour" uses listed in Schedule 2 of the Order. Which of these terms might need updating, and how?

Please list any other uses that you consider should be included in Schedule 2, with a brief explanation of why

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

Please use this page to raise any other issues about the GPDO that are of concern to you.

Please return your completed questionnaire by 31 January 2006

By mail to:

Professor Alan Prior

By fax to:
Professor Alan Prior
0131 451 4617
By email attachment to: a.prior@hw.ac.uk

« Previous | Contents | Next »