« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
2. STARTING POINT FOR THE STUDY
2.1 The starting point for this work is founded on two key documents.
- First, the current statutory instrument which sets out householder permitted development provisions - The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Order 1992 (the GPDO) (see Appendix 1).
- Second, a Research Study carried out for the then Scottish Executive in 2006 - The "Review of the General Permitted Development Order 1992: Householder Development" (the 2006 Study)(Extract contained in Appendix 2).
It is important that this starting point is fully understood at the outset. This chapter provides a summary of the key findings of the 2006 Study and therefore the PD context to be assumed for this study.
The 2006 Study
2.2 The 2006 Study was founded upon the research objectives of the GPDO Review. These were as follows:
- To identify any issues which arise from the way the GPDO operates in practice.
- To evaluate the impact, effect and effectiveness of the GPDO regime.
- To assess the existing permitted development rights to see if they are in line with current Government policy (in the widest sense) and up-to-date in their expression.
- To assess the existing conditions, qualifications and restrictions attached to the permitted development rights in the GPDO to see if they are in line with current Government policy and up to date in their expression.
- To consider whether any additional permitted development rights should be introduced or existing rights removed.
- To consider whether any additional conditions, qualifications and restrictions should be introduced.
- To consider the potential for increasing PDR for householder developments.
- To consider whether there is a need for greater consistency across the GPDO.
- To consider how the GPDO provisions, including the Articles, could be made clearer and more comprehensible.
- To consider the operation of the Articles (and in particular Article 4) to see if they are fully effective.
- Specific recommendations on any changes will be required. We want to develop a GPDO which is easy to understand for planning authorities and developers, balances the needs of developers and the policy aims of government with the need to respect local communities and the amenity and environment of their areas.
- To analyse and report on how the exemptions in Regulations 3 and 5 of the B(S)R coincide, or do not coincide, with PDR for householder development as they currently exist and to recommend any necessary amendments to either regime.
2.3 The 2006 Study identified a number of options available to retain some control over extended permitted development. These were as follows:
(i) Extend permitted development to all forms of householder development - this might lead to unacceptable extremes and to extensive applications for Article 4 directions by planning authorities.
(ii) Grant deemed approval to all householder developments - this would entail a prior notification procedure with call in for prior approval by the planning authority, most likely triggered by neighbour objection, which could be abused and would divert attention from development quality issues.
(iii) Relax some or all of the existing limitations on householder permitted development - this was the preferred option of consultees and formed the basis on which the study's recommendations were made.
(iv) Bring planning permission for householder development in line with building regulations - despite the long held attraction of a one stop shop approach to householder consents, this option was ruled out in view of the different nature of the criteria to be applied under the two systems.
(v) Delegate to community councils decisions on some or all householder development - while community councils became statutory consultees in 1995, they are not resourced, nor is there full geographical coverage of community councils.
(vi) Transfer to licensed practitioners decisions on some or all householder developments - this was not favoured in view of a number of uncertainties about the security of operation and also the loss of connection with local planning policy.
2.4 The recommendations were based on the third option subject to the:
- removal of all judgmental criteria ( e.g. in class 2(2)(d) "materially affect the external appearance")
- extended PD subject to comply with a "local design code"
The latter criterion was altered in the brief for this current Study into a requirement for compliance with a "national user/design code".
The Executive Summary of the 2006 Study is included in Appendix 2, and the recommendations are summarised in Table 1 (below).
Table 1: Summary Recommendations of the 2006 Study |
|---|
- Extending the scope of PD Classes 1 to 3, noting that there are risks to residential amenity inherent within this. Clear, objective and measurable limits are required.
- Possibly extending the scope of PD Classes 4 to 8, however, as the impact on application numbers is likely to be marginal, resources need not be focused on this. Class 7 parameters should be the main focus.
- Setting out new PD rights for flats, as distinct from dwellings. The main focus should be on window alterations/replacement and roof alterations, but other aspects may also be appropriate, especially if flats have a curtilage.
- Part 1 of the GPDO should be combined into a single class.
|
2.5 The 2006 Study set out detailed recommendations for how the current PD classes should be streamlined and extended. These detailed provisions are therefore to be taken forward in this Study but Scottish Government has made it clear these recommendations are not absolutes. It is one of the purposes of the current study to test these for robustness. The proposal is that there should be two classes of householder permitted development, as follows.
(a) Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for incidental purposes, provided:
1. It is not for a [new/additional] dwelling.
2. It does not increase the overall height of the existing building.
3. It does not exceed 4metres in height within 2 metres of a common boundary or 10 metres of a public road or way, or closer than the building line fronting a road.
4. It does not reduce the distance between any building line and a classified road.
5. It does not result in the total built area occupying more than 40% of the dwelling curtilage in the case of a detached, semi-detached or end-terrace dwellinghouse; or 40% of the rear garden in the case of a ground floor flat or mid-terrace dwellinghouse.
6. Where the development involves alterations to a roof, the maximum enlargement of the existing roof area shall not exceed 40%, shall not raise the ridge height of the existing roof, and a projection from the plane of a side facing roof shall not exceed 10 cm.
7. External finishes match existing.
8. It does not include a raised terrace or balcony within 4 metres of a common boundary.
9. It does not exceed 10 sq metres in area within the curtilage of a listed building.
10. It complies with a local design or development code for householder development.
11. There are no unimplemented planning permissions affecting the property.
(b) Other Householder Development
12. A maximum of one container for the storage of oil or liquefied petroleum gas can be erected or provided, except where this would be within 10 metres of a road, or in a conservation area, or within the curtilage of a listed building.
13. Any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure of the curtilage of a dwellinghouse is (a) a maximum of 1 metre in height within 10 metres of a road or footpath; (b) 2 metres in all other circumstances; (c) excluding within the curtilage or surrounding a listed building.
Concerns expressed about extending PD rights
2.6 In the course of that Study, concerns were expressed by planning authorities and others as a result of the survey which was carried out. These are noted here to ensure they are addressed in the course of the current study.
- Amenity considerations related to avoiding negative impacts of householder developments.
- Raising the overall height of a dwelling.
- Proximity of extensions to common boundaries.
- Proximity of extensions to public roads and footpaths.
- Cumulative erosion of local character by poor design of extensions and other alterations to dwellings.
- Overdevelopment of residential curtilage.
- Development on prominent elevations.
- Design and use of materials.
- Impact on safety - affecting road visibility, impinging on feelings of space and safety on footpaths and open space.
- Loss of in-curtilage parking and resultant increase in on-street parking.
- Blocking access to rear gardens for waste collection etc.
- Disproportionate overlooking of adjacent gardens and habitable rooms.
- Loss of sunlight/daylight.
- Height of boundary fences.
- Loss of mature landscaping and/or trees - visual and wildlife impact plus impact on urban drainage.
- Intensification of use/activity arising from developments in the garden.
- A degree of caution with regard to heritage-related proposals
2.7 Other concerns were raised specifically on the option which was selected. There are useful pointers for aspects to be addressed in the current study. These are as follows:
- PD thresholds must be expressed in clear guidelines.
- Neighbour notification.
- Effect on amenity.
- How to address design issues.
« Previous | Contents | Next »