The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

APPENDIX 4 - Note of Workshop on 27 ^th September 2007

SCOPING DESIGN CODES FOR THE EXTENSION OF HOUSEHOLDER PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT - WORKSHOP ON 27^THSEPTEMBER 2007

NOTES FROM WORKSHOP SESSIONS

This is a note of the key points discussed in the workshop. The main focus is on the breakout session which took place in the afternoon. Key points made in the other sessions are also included.

1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1.1 The starting point is the 2006 Heriot Watt Study. However, Alan Cameron made it clear that the Scottish Government are not a slave to those recommendations. While they wish to see matters being taken forward as closely aligned to these recommendations as possible, if it is considered important to refine or alter the direction, then this can be accepted.

There will be a formal consultation on both the revised PD rules and the proposed code. This will be at the next stage of the project.

1.2 The key reference points for the day were the terms of the current 1992 GPDO, the 2006 HWU Study, and the Background Paper and Discussion Paper which had already been circulated. In addition, illustrations played an important part. Illustrations of current PD rights which tend to display best practice plus a number of illustrations produced by Michael laird and Partners - illustrations of full PD rights under current GPDO, illustrations of possible new PD rights in line with 2006 study, and additional sketches to tease out and consider issues.

1.3 The key issues to be considered in the course of the workshops were highlighted as the proposals to base PD limits on 40% of curtilage, in total, or in addition to original footprint - would this be appropriate. The question of whether or not a user code can encourage 'good design' but at the same time be legally accurate was another theme, including the issue of how to address local character sensitivities. Being a user code, the issue of the distinction drawn between 'not development' and PD should also be considered along with any necessary procedures to accompany a User Code.

1.4 The remit of the current study is of course to provide a picture of an enforceable and accurate Code - its scope and definition of parameters; not to come up with the code itself. That will be a later project.

2. SESSION 1 - PLANNING AND DESIGN ISSUES FOR PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 The purpose of this session was to identify the main issues of contention arising from householder development, and anticipating the likely impact of extending PD. Aspects such as avoiding overdevelopment, avoiding overlooking, thinking about impacts on the street scene and townscape, impact on boundaries and hardstandings were discussed.

2.2 A few points were raised as follows

• Is the "street scene" always worth protecting - should we loosen up on development at the front of properties? Nevertheless there is public interest in the street scene.
• There has been much tinkering with provisions over the years. Better design and better legislation should now be sought.
• The difference between advice notes and interactive tools was noted. Stirling has a useful drawing giving a visual interpretation of what is PD. This has not reduced the number of enquiries about PD - however, it helps to ensure consistency of response. The drawing is probably used as much by planners as it is by potential applicants. Dundee on the other hand has an interactive web-based tool and this appears to have reduced the number of PD enquiries fielded by staff. Perhaps potential applicants are satisfied if they get an answer which is tailored to their particular enquiry.
• Can a national code address every eventuality? This will depend on the level of detail of guidance given.
• Building on a boundary is problematic. This gives rise to a significant number of Planning Aid cases.
• A householder development can give rise to the need to obtain up to 5 different permissions (including neighbour's consent). This context should be borne in mind.
• Consideration should be given to constraints imposed by an original grant of permission - especially for new development. How can this be factored in?
• Rural houses - these are often seen in the round. Footprint, mass and scale are key issues.
• Curtilage issue - The original building should always remain dominant. Curtilage is not a good measure of this. Relationship of an extension to the original building would be a better criterion.
• Dundee's review findings - reasons for refusal are equally split between (a) design, (b) overlooking/loss of privacy and (c) diverse reasons.
• Is delivering improvement to design quality implicit in the changes to the planning system? Perhaps a 2-stage PD system is needed - basic PD rights which are uncontrolled and a second tier requiring some input or control from a registered architect and possibly consent from neighbours. Such a system would be likely to give rise to enforcement issues. PD is in any case capable of further control through Article 4s and conditions. A+DS would favour the involvement of architects and designers in the process to deliver design quality. On the other hand, there does not appear to be a strong body of evidence that existing PD causes adverse environmental quality impacts - generally the standard of design is high quality and there is plenty of scope to extend rights.
• Integration with building control parameters would be helpful. This should still be considered even although it was ruled out by the 2006 HWU Study.

3. SESSION 2 - TERMS USED IN DEFINING ASPECTS OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT

3.1 This was an optional session, and because more time was taken on Session 1, it was brief. The key terms - curtilage, building line, and fronting a road - were quickly discussed. No other key terms were identified.

4. SESSION 3 - OPTIONS FOR DESIGN CODES - GROUP A

4.1 This group was led by Graham U'ren and Brendan Diamond. The group was to apply the morning's general discussion of principles and concerns (privacy, overlooking, definitional problems etc) to different types of development. The need for certainty and clarity in the code was highlighted and 4 questions against which to consider each development type were suggested.

1. Can the development type be easily included / drawn in a code? - the document must be accessible to the public.

2. Can good quality design be ensured?

3. the local design context - can this be incorporated?

4. is it enforceable?

Extensions / Curtilage

4.2 This was identified as the most significant class of developments. The draft proposal for PD up to 40% of the curtilage was discussed, and various difficulties with this approach were identified:

• should the PD provisions also include an upper limit ( e.g. 50 square metres)?
• should the PD upper limit also relate to the size of the garden ground (perhaps retaining a minimum area of the garden)?
• concern was expressed at the potential for very large extensions to existing buildings, and the impact of neighbours and neighbourhoods. The original building should dominate.
• problem with the definition of curtilage - the draft proposal is dependent upon knowing the area of the curtilage. This could be a particular issue in rural areas.

4.3 The group expressed general concern regarding the proposal based on percentage of curtilage, and support for an alternative proposal based upon the footprint of the house. The PD could be expressed as a percentage of the footprint (not the floor area) and could be made subject to a maximum area. This proposal would permit an extension of PD rights, depending upon the percentage and maximum figures adopted, whilst maintaining the existing house as the principal element.

4.4 Graham suggested that the S Government may be amenable to alternatives to the 40% curtilage threshold - this would have to be taken forward as a recommendation from the workshop. However, as a major driver of the process is the removal of applications from the planning system, any alternative parameters which may be proposed would probably have to be demonstrably capable of doing this.

Building on or close to the Boundary

4.5 Brendan highlighted the idea that any extensions should be at least 1 metre from a common boundary even although this is more restricted than the present position. Brendan highlighted the range of neighbour disputes arising from boundary development, and the discussion of privacy and overlooking in the morning session.

4.6 It was noted that of course this relates solely to PD, and boundary building would remain possible through applying for planning permission. The 1 metre constraint was generally supported by the group. Furthermore the group supported a system of neighbour notification or even consent in cases of proposed building on the boundary.

Two Storey Extensions

4.7 Graham and Brendan noted the particular problems surrounding 2-storey extensions: mass, overlooking, privacy, light. There was general support that 2-storey extensions should not be PD (this was particularly emphasised in respect of mid-terrace dwelling-houses), but should always require planning permission.

4.8 Again this would be more restricted than the current position, where 2-storey extensions can be PD (subject to restrictions on total floor space and height). However, it was noted that the loosening of restrictions on the size of extensions (by whatever mechanism adopted - curtilage, current footprint etc) could have resulted in overly large 2-storey extensions than under the current GPDO, thus giving rise to concerns about material impacts on residential amenity.

Dormers

4.9 There was widespread support for the introduction of some form of PD for dormer windows. However, it was noted that dormers come in many forms and establishing the parameters of PD may not be easy.

4.10 Existing codes have incorporated dormers and there is potential to employ objective criteria (percentage of existing roof, defined distances from sides, ridge etc).

There was general support for limiting PD to proposals on the rear of houses. Concerns were expressed at the definition of "front" and "rear" particularly in relation to rural properties. The issue could be better addressed by reference to "a side not facing a public way".

4.11 The group also considered whether some front-side dormer development could be PD if the house was set sufficiently far back from a public way, this principle also being applicable to development such as porches. Providing a degree of control is established there is no reason why front dormers should not be PD.

Porches

4.12 It was considered that there was scope for small porches, up to a defined maximum floor space to be included in the code (as currently permitted simply to give storm shelter under PD in England). It was noted that the 8 sq m limit for a building warrant might be appropriate. However, concern was expressed that even small porches, individually or cumulatively, can have a negative impact on streetscapes. Such PD should therefore perhaps not extend to terraced houses.

Decking

4.13 There is some uncertainty as to whether decking currently constitutes PD. Some planning authorities consider that it is (at least if not elevated above the ground), and this appears to have judicial support. Edinburgh, for instance, regard decking at a height of 1m as requiring planning permission as it then requires a 1m handrail under Building Standards, making this effectively a 2m high enclosure. The S Government was reported as considering decking to be PD.

Other observations / concerns expressed:

4.14 Several planners observed that the contention that 97% of householder applications were allowed (and therefore there was considerable scope for extending PD without significant risk) was flawed. However, they noted a very high percentage of re-negotiation with householders, and that applications as approved may have been significantly amended by this process (in size, height, position, materials etc). It was therefore incorrect to state that these applications need not be subject to control within the planning system (albeit the control at present may be exerted more informally at a pre-application stage).

4.15 The difficulties in using the code to enforce design practice were highlighted. Graham and Brendan emphasised that to be effective the code must be objective and enforceable. As such it could not directly tackle subjective notions of design, although ideally the code would link with other mechanisms to encourage good design practice.

Some concerns were expressed at the difficulties of enforcing any design component to the code. There may be a danger that a codification of minimum acceptable standards of PD will lead to developers and householders adopting only these lowest common denominator standards.

4.16 Graham emphasised that the code should incorporate clear explanatory guidance and principles. This would include reference to design standards and encouragement to adopt good design, perhaps related to more locally-produced design characteristics (although the code itself must be national in scope).

4.17 The complexity of the issues under discussion was highlighted. Some participants questioned whether a single code could address all the required elements across all types of property, although it was recognised that the code must be accessible and relatively short.

One participant noted, as an example, of complexity the situation of upper flats with rights over front garden space. Should the upper flat be permitted to convert the garden into car parking, with all the implications of noise and light disturbance for the downstairs flat?

4.18 Brendan suggested that overlooking should be addressed in the code, although recognising the inherent difficulty in accommodating all circumstances ( e.g. houses on sloping ground). Various options were discussed, including requiring a 2-metre high fence to be erected or prohibiting windows on the side elevations of PD extensions. No conclusions were reached, but Brendan advocated as a guiding principle that, so far as is possible, the code should seek to contain the impacts of PD within the property concerned

5. SESSION 3 - OPTIONS FOR DESIGN CODES - GROUP B

5.1 This session was led by Aileen Grant and Dave Edwards. The initial focus was also on house extensions, but then discussed PD for flats and sundry minor works. This session also drew on the earlier discussion points from the morning session.

The key points arising through the discussion are summarised here.

ALL EXTENSIONS

(a) Front, side and rear

5.2 The group were comfortable with extended PD rights to the rear and sides of a property. However, no extensions to the front of a building should be PD - no porches in front of the building line. Concerns expressed related to the impact on street rhythm - especially for terraced houses/cottages.

5.3 The group discussed the relationship of extensions to the front building line - there was general agreement that side extensions should be set back behind the front building - 1m and 500mm were suggested as possibilities.

5.4 With regard to the relationship to side boundaries - there was general agreement that new build should not be closer than 1 metre to the boundary. Anything closer should require permission.

5.5 Some restriction on roof design would be welcome - the form of roof should match existing roof form. Other restrictions were discussed as follows.

• Height limit - required, but dimensions not discussed. Best approach would allow this to relate to existing wallhead height of dwelling.
• Footprint limit - suggested, but dimensions not discussed. Best approach would allow this to relate to original footprint of dwelling. Percentage plus maximum cut off? An alternative to this would be a volume limit.
• Volume limit - suggestion of upper limit cu m as a check. But this would be an alternative to footprint limit.

5.6 The relationship of an extension to garden/rear boundary was discussed. Although there was no support for a limit relating to the size of the curtilage, it was considered that a degree of control should be exercised over the size of garden area. This would be good practice in terms of sustainability, SUDS and residential amenity. Two options were suggested.

• Option (a) requires a minimum rear garden area to be retained as garden space.
• Option (b) requires a certain length of garden to be retained (based on Parker Morris standard of 18m between facing windows and hence 9m rear garden length). Midlothian has a standard of 12m rear garden length for new-build (to allow for PD rights).

It was noted that Option (b) would be problematic where gardens are wider than they are long and hence may be overly restrictive.

5.7 Conclusion: In terms of design, it is considered more important to keep in check the size of the extension in relation to the size of the original house rather than the size of the curtilage. An extension should always be subservient to the original house. However, some minimum standards for garden size (either area or length) should be built in as a further safeguard. There was no real support for a curtilage percentage restriction.

(b) Outbuildings

5.8 The group considered that these should be handled in a similar manner to extensions. There was discussion about the desirability of preventing habitable rooms being formed, but this was not generally accepted - in any case it would be difficult to enforce. On the one hand, does there need to be a definition of what constitutes an "incidental" building? On the other hand, given the underlying restriction/definition that such development cannot be for a new dwellinghouse, there are no material grounds for such a restriction.

5.9 Conclusion : General support for PD rights for such buildings. Not sure about changes from current PD. On reflection, not sure what the relationship is between these and house extensions. Perhaps the code should differentiate between extensions which are "joined on" to a house and those which are separate buildings.

(c) Dormers

5.10 There was no support from the group for allowing dormers to be PD. On the front and sides they cause visual amenity concerns. On the side and rear they cause residential amenity concerns due to loss of privacy. However, we were not able to clarify how many/what proportion of rear dormers are refused on the grounds of loss of privacy.

5.11 On a positive note, other minor roof alterations should be permissible - particularly "raggling in" an extension into a pitched roof.

5.12 Conclusion : The general desire to control all dormers is noted. If it is recommended that dormers be PD, this will need to be strictly limited to avoid material adverse impacts on either visual or residential amenity.

(d) Extensions To Flats/Outbuildings for flats

5.13 The main difference discussed was between situations where ground is directly attached to a flat and where ground is remote from a flat (vertically or horizontally).

Through discussion it was agreed that there does not need to be any distinction drawn between ground owned solely by flat owner and communally-owned ground. In the latter case, the consent of all joint owners will need to be obtained before an extension can be built. Ownership is not therefore considered to be material.

5.14 The group advised that the most common type of application currently relating to flats is for proposed outbuildings rather than extensions.

5.15 Conclusion : Through discussion the following was generally agreed.

• Extensions should be PD if ground is attached directly to the property.
• If ground is not directly attached, other issues are raised and hence extensions should need planning permission.
• For outbuildings, it may be less important for the ground to be attached. Hence PD rights could be the same as for dwellings. Only concern was erecting an outbuilding directly in front of someone else's window. Although this would be covered by the 1m rule, this may not be sufficient safeguard.

e) Alterations to Flats

5.16 There was much discussion but no consensus on this. There is a variety of interpretations about what is and is not "material" and hence what type of alterations constitute development. For instance, there is on the one hand a strong desire to continue to have control over inserting new window frames, but this was strongly countered by the view that "it's too late": so many window frames have been changed that there is no longer any point in seeking to control these.

5.17 On the positive side, if the code can give clarity on this, the group agreed that this will be extremely useful for planning officers and applicants and this in itself will bring efficiencies. There was also a feeling that tenements are more sensitive than other types of flats. One way out of this would be to define the replacement of window frames as "development". This would be PD for flats and controllable in conservation areas (if PD did not apply in such areas). However, this will require further consideration.

5.18 Conclusion : There was no consensus on this, and this will require further consideration/justification going forward.

VEHICLE RUN-INS

5.19 This was considered to be straightforward by the group.

5.20 Conclusion : These should be PD unless they are formed within 2m and directly in front of a window in a different ownership. The concerns expressed by the group are really is if this is a parking space. However, a driveway can be used for parking, so maybe this should be a standard constraint/condition.

ACCESS RAMPS

5.21 This was considered to be straightforward by the group.

5.22 Conclusion : Large, complex ramps at the front should be controlled. Otherwise ramps should be PD for flats and houses. Ramp length and height are the critical factors - maxima should be given and if these can somehow relate to building control standards, all the better.

MATERIALS

5.23 The group discussed the desirability of incorporating a requirement "to match existing" - e.g. in a standard condition. Whilst such a standard would be generally desirable, it would be difficult to enforce. In any case it is not always desirable to have materials exactly matching existing (there are quality, durability and sustainability issues). Hence such a requirement would not necessarily be in the interests of good design.

There was some discussion about painting and cladding, but rested on the fact that painting is already PD and no change is envisaged.

5.24 Conclusion : it was agreed that if an enforceable standard / code / condition can be devised requiring materials to match existing ( e.g. refer to form of words in the Building Standards), then there would be support for this. Otherwise ignore this.

DECKING

5.25 The group agreed that there is a need to differentiate between

a) Ground level decking

b) Decking which creates a platform.

In the case of a) - this should be PD. Need to define what constitutes ground level decking.

5.26 A straw poll of the group revealed current limits applied by planning authorities of

• up to 300mm above ground level,
• up to 500mm above ground level
• up to 600mm above ground level.

The 600mm was defined in relation to building standards/control restrictions, but no justification could be given for the other limits. In the case of b), there was a desire to have a degree of control, but not too much.

5.27 There is a need to consider further and decide what would be excessive/cause adverse impact on neighbours (noise or overlooking). Some examples were presented by group members ( e.g. photos of an enforcement case from Midlothian). The group considered that the key concern is overlooking. Control over height and distance from boundaries will be the most important factors. Perhaps this type of decking should be treated similarly to house extensions or outbuildings.

5.28 Conclusion : "Ground level" decking should be defined and be PD. Creating a raised platform should be controlled, but nevertheless some PD limits should be defined and tested.

GENERAL

5.29 The group displayed contradictions in discussion. Sometimes the desire to continue to control minor matters of design overcame the aim of opening up wider PD rights. There was some talk about tailoring PD rights to different urban typologies, or identifying "nice" of "high quality" areas - i.e. areas which are not quite conservation areas where less freedom should be permitted - but the group was split on this and the counter view tended to prevail - the greatest need is for clarity. There was no support from planners for introducing further complexities into procedures. Controls should focus on conservation areas and listed buildings. In such areas there should be no PD. Everywhere else full PD rights should be able to be exercised.

5.30 It was generally agreed that applicants tend to approach design on an "inside-out" basis. They see the designs from the inside (the extra accommodation which they will obtain) and tend not to consider the outward appearance. The desire to raise design standards should focus on this and seek to educate and excite people about good design - as a way of encouraging good design whether or not a proposal is PD. Two options were discussed.

• The national code could tackle improving design quality in an advisory section.
• Design quality aspirations may be a local aspect of the code, which is already addressed in planning authorities' current design guidance and local plan policies. Perhaps it can be made clear that such guidance should also be followed for PD as a way of delivering good quality design.

5.31 Despite this general agreement, certain parties in the Group have concerns about the impact of more extensive PD rights. On reflection, "rights" as a concept are beginning to go out of fashion. In other policy spheres there is now more talk about "rights" going hand in hand with "responsibilities". Perhaps the code can somehow bring out the responsibilities which we all have in improving the quality of our environment and focus on the cumulative effect of good quality design which can result from PD etc.

6. SESSION 4 - DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURAL ISSUES

6.1 Why are current PD limits as they are? There is no justification or explanation. Arguably any new PD limits should seek to include such an explanation. However, discussion turned back to the issue of design quality which some participants view as being in direct conflict with PD freedoms.

6.2 Several participants favoured the inclusion of advice and guidance about good quality development. Discussion started to tease out the different parts to a "Code". There will be a legislative part, a national code (could this include "dos and don'ts"?), and local design guidance.

6.3 Protection of conservation areas and listed buildings had already been addressed in one of the breakout session. But what about good quality environments which are not covered by such designations? Some participants thought that there is a need to identify such areas and protect them from too much PD freedom. However other participants resisted such an idea. There are no criteria for identifying such areas and such "in-between" controls can be difficult to operate and enforce. Edinburgh, for example, had a few special designations ( e.g. "Areas of Window Control" and "Areas of Special Control") but then abandoned them or converted them into conservation areas. What about identifying certain urban typologies and devising more detailed control for these? E.g. bungalow areas, villa areas, stone-built tenement areas etc? Again other participants resisted the idea of additional complexity associated with PD. What the code should strive for is the baseline for PD and that this be captured clearly and simply so that it is capable of being understood, applied and enforced.

6.4 There was support from participants for a national code rather than localized provisions, and there was also support for visuals. The visual information would be extremely helpful for all parties - particularly for householders and neighbours - to understand what is allowed under PD.

6.5 With regard to the question of some kind of neighbour information procedure, there was little support for this. What would be the reason for doing this? Would this just raise objections which could then not be dealt with? Or undermine the fundamental concept of PD? Neighbour procedures are already complicated enough, and the forthcoming changes are likely to cause confusion. Nevertheless, protecting neighbours from adverse forms of development - and demonstrating this - needs to be borne in mind.

6.6 The link between PD provisions and the "Expert System" project (which will provide an interactive tool for people to use to determine if a development is PD) was highlighted. The two projects sit alongside each other and the Expert Systems project has been delayed to allow for this work to go ahead. The recommendations from this study are expected to be taken forward in devising the Expert System as an interactive tool to give advice on Householder PD.

6.7 In the course of this discussion, it became clear that the two earlier breakout groups were not entirely consistent in their views. Also that there are contradictory views about the degree of control/degree of freedom. The Study team will therefore have to take a considered view on how to progress with matters effectively.

AMG Dundas & Wilson CSLLP 8 Oct 2007

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AT WORKSHOP

Alan Cameron - Scottish Government
Aileen Grant - Dundas & Wilson
Graham Uren - Dundas & Wilson
Jacqueline Denholm - Dundas & Wilson
Keith Campbell - Dundas & Wilson
Brendan Diamond - Michael Laird Architects
David Edwards - Michael Laird Architects
Jim MacDonald - Historic Scotland
David Suttie - RTPI
Dakers Fleming - RIAS
Debbie Robertson - Planning Aid Scotland
Jonathan Astwood - SBSA
Eric Dawson - ADS
Ed Taylor - Princes Foundation
Alan Gueldner - Scottish Planning Enforcement Forum/Scottish Borders Council
Iain Ross - SSDP/Dundee City Council
Martin Dean - North Lanarkshire Council
John MacIver - City of Edinburgh Council
Erika Pryde - Midlothian Council
Jamie Mcvie - Orkney Council
Gordon MacFarlane - Perth & Kinross Council
Kirsty McManus - Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park
Karen Major - Cairngorms National Park
Pamela Reid - East Renfrewshire Council
Bob Stewart - Moray Council
Jay Dawson - Stirling Council

« Previous | Contents | Next »