« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
8. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 In the preceding chapters we have set out the results of our research, the various strands of consultation and brought these together in a suggested format for a code. There are a number of key findings which it is worth highlighting, particularly those which should be given further consideration going forward. We shall also refer back to our original objectives to check that they have been met.
Overall conclusions
8.2 The results of the research found that there can only be a limited role to be played by a PD code in promoting good design. If design guidance is to be effective, it needs to be linked to a consent procedure. While some codes rely on self assessment, these are complex and deal with low level design issues only and are a rigid tool; they would not be appropriate for use within the UK planning system.
8.3 With regard to the local design dimension, it was noted that a Scottish building style is discernable for basic building proportions only. If one of the priority aims in rolling out extended PD limits is to achieve improved design quality, local design guidance will be necessary to convey appropriate design objectives, fit for context. The key design issue identified for householder development is in the impact on streetscape and the public environment, and the majority of existing design guides/codes emphasise the need to maintain not only consistency of established character but also sympathy with architectural style in the streetscape. The key issue in terms of standards of development is neighbour overshadowing/ overlooking. While privacy is ill-defined as a material planning issue, there is an underpinning in existing design guidance that development should meet standards of good neighbourliness, avoiding overlooking and overshadowing.
8.4 With regard to the more strategic design dimensions, sustainability issues are not inherent in most householder design guides/codes but are addressed effectively through the building regulation system and in discretionary advice to householders. Despite the policy focus on improving design and place-making as exemplified in the publication "Designing Places", there is no national framework for householder guidance in Scotland. Our findings suggest that the use and quality of local design guidance are patchy for householder development in Scotland. A national code therefore could not only deliver government policy but also help to overcome some significant resources issues at the local level. Where local design guidance exists in Scotland, there are good examples which can contribute to a PD code. Despite these limitations, the research would support the view that some form of code is key to the significant extension of PD. Without a code, there can be no channel to develop a common understanding of good design principles and good neighbourliness that will need to be part of the culture change in planning reform in Scotland.
8.5 The aspiration which has emerged is to combine codification of PD with design guidance and procedural advice in a single integrated document. As such, it would not strictly speaking be a "code" in the manner of existing codes but would be breaking new ground. The title for this document should reflect this, and the document itself will need to be clear about its relationship to the GPDO and national and local policy. Illustration 25 has been prepared to help clarify this.
Illustration 25: Relationship of new code to planning legislation and policy
8.6 With regard to the consultations completed, a number of important outcomes have been achieved. The Study has given an opportunity for more widespread publicity for the forthcoming change to the GPDO, and has allowed planning authority representatives to express concerns and raise issues to be addressed going forward. It is hoped that the workshop in particular has also engendered a degree of ownership and acceptance of the changes. Nevertheless, there is evidence from the workshop that these changes will be difficult for some planning professionals to accept because a perception remains that the loss of control over minor householder developments will have a cumulative effect of degrading the built environment. It will therefore be important to encourage continuing engagement with planning authorities during the work to take the code forward, taking forward the dialogue which has already commenced.
8.7 There is widespread support for a document which will describe and amplify the new PD provisions in the revision of the GPDO. Graphics to explain PD envelopes and constraints were welcomed by workshop participants. Opportunities to link such a document to guidance about what is and is not PD would be supported, as would a "code" which will give general guidance as well as the strict mandatory description of PD.
8.8 With regard to the role of the code relating to different urban typologies and sensitive areas, there is support for a clear-cut distinction to be made for conservation areas and listed buildings. Development relating to such sensitive environments should be more strictly controlled in the simplest and most easily understood approach. This is to rule out the application of PD and the code in such circumstances. There was no support expressed by consultees for such additional control within other areas such as National Parks and so the code should be expected to apply in these areas. Sensitive areas which are already exempt from PD arrangements should continue to be so protected.
8.9 While concerns were expressed about protecting other high quality urban townscape or semi-rural environments from full PD rights, it is not considered feasible to identify such areas, nor is it considered sufficiently clear to introduce such a degree of sophistication into a coded approach. If certain local areas have a sensitivity which may be endangered, consideration should be given to designating these as conservation areas.
8.10 The proposed structure or framework for the Householder Development Code is described in full in Chapter 7. This is recommended to comprise 3 separate parts.
- Part 1 - the explanatory part - general advice about the use of the "Code", explaining planning procedures in the context of other necessary permissions and consents;
- Part 2 - the statutory part - Purpose, Detailed Limits in relation to specific Building Elements, Justification and Definitions; and
- Part 3 - the discretionary part - Design Responsibilities (short section to make cross reference to local design guidance).
8.11 It should also include a clear vision and purpose of what the code is seeking to achieve, and general principles. The suggestions we have made should now be taken forward to the next stage.
8.12 Suggestions have also been made about the detail of how the code might be structured. No firm recommendations are made about these details because feedback has been limited. Nevertheless it is recommended as a good starting point for the next stage.
Recommendations for future consideration
8.13 Within the report there are a number of issues raised which have implications for the detailed design of the PD rules and the drafting of a new statutory instrument. It is recommended that these should be considered in the course of that future work. For instance, the avoidance of using curtilage as the basis for the size of a PD extension is a key recommendation for both design and enforcement reasons. Another issue has been how to handle window alterations - we are suggesting that these should be defined as development, and included as permitted development.
8.14 There is a challenge for the next stage of work and that is to ensure that the text and graphics are not written in obscure legal language or planning jargon. The document must be accessible to householders and those coming to the planning system for the first time. Accordingly, the graphics and visual descriptions which are to be included must not be overly complicated to ensure that they are clear and capable of being understood by non-professionals. This can only be addressed in the detailed work which will follow. It will be a challenge to the code writers to achieve clarity and avoid ambiguity, both in the text and the diagrams. The Welsh Planning Officers' Guidance included in Appendix 5 is considered one good example of such clarity, although this is guidance rather than a code.
8.15 In order to address this point, it will be important to test out as fully as possible the draft code as it emerges. Legal testing and testing by householders, developers, architects, planning officers and enforcement officers are recommended to ensure the code will work in practice. Views of members of the public and community groups should be sought. This will be vital given that this document will be the first of its kind. In addition, it will be important to keep planning authorities engaged in the work going forward. They will be able to provide invaluable help and their support for the final form of the document will be necessary to make the new system work.
8.16 In addition, as a new tool within the planning system, we would recommend that the code's introduction should be monitored. There was evidence during the workshop that planning authorities seek to negotiate improvements to a significant number of householder proposals, resulting in a proportion of these being amended to fall within the scope of current PD limits. A clearer and more accessible definition of PD will potentially be of greater practical use by householders and their advisors: this may encourage more people to opt for a PD solution in the first place. Monitoring the effectiveness of the code will be able to confirm this and should therefore, if possible, be accompanied by provisions for review after it has been in operation for, say, three years. This would allow for a revision of code elements and related visuals to ensure maximum effectiveness of the code providing the revisions do not impact on the terms of the rules contained within the Statutory Instrument.
8.17 In addition to working together with planning authorities on the statutory part of the code itself, it should also be recognised that they have a role to play in the discretionary part of the code. Many authorities have their own guidance which takes account of regional building styles and local issues. They are best placed to give such advice. They should be encouraged to update and improve upon their local guidance to coincide with and reinforce the new PD provisions. It is recommended that consideration be given to the resourcing of such work, and to the manner of its integration with the national code/design guidance as suggested in "Part3" for the code.
8.18 Finally, attention is drawn to the fact that these findings and recommendations have not slavishly followed the 2006 Study recommendations; there are a number of refinements. That study noted that the impact of their recommendations would be to reduce the number of householder applications per year by 38%. It is accepted that our findings may affect this, and that this has not been quantified.
Meeting the Study objectives
8.19 These objectives identified at the outset of this Study have been met in the following manner.
Through research and testing establish the most effective "pitch" and degree of complexity for a User/Design code - we have completed a programme of research and consultation, including a workshop. Through this we have formulated a framework for the code which addresses views expressed.
To identify the necessary descriptors and parameters which will avoid or minimise ambiguity - we have identified building elements and broken these down to define the key limits or thresholds where control should be exercised. These have been shared with consultees and adjustments made to avoid ambiguity.
To encourage good quality design to be achieved and ensure that creativity or innovative design solutions are not constrained by PD - We have found that while this aspect cannot be handled within a code which must have statutory force, it can be addressed through a separate part of the code which should be discretionary.
To seek to encourage sustainable forms of development within PD - we have agreed with expert advisors that such aspects are more effectively handled through building regulation standards.
To consider the role to be played by local architectural and geographical context and urban typology - we have found that through the discretionary part of the code there should be linkages to planning authorities' own guidance. Planning authorities are best placed to evolve such detailed guidance.
To consider enforceability, in particular the need for straightforward and transparent procedures - we have agreed through the workshop that neighbour notification or information procedures should not accompany PD provisions. The code elements which we have identified seek to avoid limits which will be difficult to enforce. It will be important to take this further at the next stage.
To involve users and experts in the Study, factoring in their views and encouraging a degree of buy-in to the forthcoming changes - we have carried out a programme of consultation with planning authority representatives and received feedback from many of them. This should continue at the next stage.
8.20 It was also noted at the outset that the Code itself should seek to ensure that a householder exercising PD rights should give rise to no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbours and the wider public interest vis a vis residential amenity generally and visual amenity. We have sought to address these aspects by, for instance, restricting development within 1m of a boundary and accepting that there should be further restrictions to control two-storey extensions. While we consider that the overall public interest is fully addressed, further work will be needed with regard to neighbourliness and avoiding overshadowing and overlooking. However, the real test for this can only happen in the detailed writing and drawing of the code at the next stage. We would therefore recommend that this be a key aspect of the brief for future work.
« Previous | Contents | Next »