The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3 Analysis of householder developments

This Section reviews statistical data on householder development in Scotland.

Analysis was conducted of bi-annual planning statistical returns made by Scottish planning authorities to the Scottish Executive for the period to 2004/05, this being the latest full year for which data are available. As part of this return, planning authorities are required to differentiate planning decisions by prescribed categories of development, including householder development.

Figure 1 shows that the number of householder consents increased year on year to 2003/4, but fell slightly in 2004/5, when they comprised 47% of a total of 50,000 consents. The annual number of householder consents grew at a faster rate than non-householder ones.

Figure 1: growth in householder and all planning etc decisions, 2000/01 to 2004/05

Source: compiled from Scottish Executive statistical returns by planning authorities.

Applicants for planning permission who are refused or granted conditional consent, may appeal to the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit ( SEIRU) within six months of the decision of the local authority. Figure 2 shows that, whilst non-householder planning appeals have remained fairly constant at around 600 per annum over the last 7 years, the number of householder appeals has more than doubled over this period.

Figure 2: householder planning appeals, 1998/9 to 2004/5

Source: compiled from SEIRU Annual Reviews 1999 to 2005

Planning authorities have a range of powers to take enforcement action against alleged unauthorized development ⁸. Figure 3 shows that enforcement activity against unauthorized householder development comprises more than 50% of all planning enforcement activity. Indeed, since 2002/03 it has increased by 40%, compared with 12% for all other planning enforcement activity. This is likely to be due to a combination of factors including: uncertainty about permitted development thresholds, arising from the complex wording of the GPDO, and the greater likelihood of unauthorized householder development being brought to the attention of planning authorities through neighbour complaints.

Figure 3: Enforcement activity 2000/01 to 2004/05

Source: compiled from Scottish Executive statistical returns by planning authorities

One impact of simplifying and clarifying householder permitted development rights would be a reduction in enforcement activity against unauthorized developments arising from misunderstanding of the permitted development thresholds.

Figure 4 shows that, whilst there has been a significant growth in householder development in recent years, the likelihood of gaining planning permission for such development has remained consistently high. Over the six year period to 2003/04, the volume of householder development decisions in Scotland has increased by half, whilst the percentage approved has remained remarkably constant within half a percentage point of 97%.

Figure 4 Householder development approval rates 1998/99 to 2003/04

Source: compiled from Scottish Executive statistical returns by planning authorities

Figure 5 shows the distribution of householder development decisions, as a proportion of all planning decisions, for each Scottish planning authority for the most recent full year of statistical data, noting that this is also the latest high point in the rising trend of householder development activity. The total column height for each authority corresponds to the total number of consents issued in 2003/04. The black shaded section of each column represents the number of householder development decisions. Whilst Figure 1 shows that householder development decisions comprise almost half of all consents determined by Scottish planning authorities, Figure 5 shows that this global figure conceals wide variations. In fact, the percentage of householder decisions within a local authority's workload ranges from 24% to 85% of all decisions, although it should be noted that, in authorities making the largest number of householder decisions, the range is between 60% and 70%. The Islands authorities, which make fewer decisions, also have low proportions of householder decisions relative to all planning decisions; indeed, the only authority with a proportion below 30% in 2003/04 is Western Isles Council. Thus, the burden of householder development decisions varies widely between planning authorities. Accordingly, universal changes to householder permitted development rights will have differential impacts on the workloads of planning authorities, depending on the number and proportion of householder decisions that they have to make.

Figure 5: Householder development decisions as a proportion of all development decisions 2003/04

Source: compiled from Scottish Executive statistical returns by planning authorities

Further analysis was undertaken on the categories of householder developments in four case study planning authorities: East Lothian, West Lothian, East Renfrewshire and Dundee Councils. East Renfrewshire (1000 consents per annum, 85% householder), East Lothian (1300 consents per annum, 62% householder), West Lothian (1300 consents per annum, 54% householder) and Dundee (800 consents per annum, 39% householder) represent the whole range of the distribution of householder development activity shown in Figure 5. East Renfrewshire is almost exclusively a suburban area with the highest proportion of householder decisions. East Lothian has many conservation areas subject to Article 4 Directions, affecting householder permitted development rights. West Lothian has a mix of new and older housing within a range of towns and villages. Dundee is a city authority with a relatively low proportion of suburban housing and high proportion of flatted housing (which does not enjoy permitted development rights).

Figure 6 shows the actual number of householder decisions across each of the eight householder development categories for each of these authorities. This confirms the high number of householder development decisions by East Renfrewshire, the low number by Dundee, with East and West Lothian lying in between this range. Despite these wide numerical variations, Figure 7 shows that around 70% of all householder decisions by each authority are for alterations (enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse). Thereafter, East Renfrewshire makes a relatively high volume and proportion of decisions about roof alterations, whilst West Lothian makes a relatively high proportion of decisions on buildings within the curtilage. In contrast, the volume and proportion of decisions for the other categories of householder development are relatively insignificant across all four planning authorities. If we assume that the impact of a given development does not vary widely between categories, we can conclude from these data that: increasing permitted development for Classes 4 to 8 would create the least environmental risk; increasing permitted development for Classes 1 to 3, but particularly Class 1, would most reduce the number of householder applications.

Figure 6: Householder decisions by class of householder development 2003/04 (actual numbers)

Source: compiled from data supplied by E Lothian, W Lothian ⁹, E Renfrewshire and Dundee Councils

Figure 7: Householder decisions by class of householder development 2003/04 (proportions)

Source: compiled from data supplied by E Lothian, W Lothian ¹⁰, E Renfrewshire and Dundee Councils

Householder data is further refined in Figure 8, which shows the distribution of householder development decisions in East Lothian in 2003/04, reflecting the average of 97% of all applications granted, and the high proportion of applications granted unconditionally. East Lothian was selected for more detailed analysis because of its "average" performance, and because the detailed nature of the data available enabled more fine-grained analysis.

Figure 8: Householder development decisions, East Lothian, 2003/04 (total numbers)

Source: data supplied by E Lothian Council

The detailed data for East Lothian enabled analysis of those applications approved with conditions by type of condition. This shows that planning conditions imposed on householder development consents are overwhelmingly concerned with protecting residential privacy, ensuring conformity of external finishes, and design (Figure 9). This suggests that: increasing permitted development for considerations other than these would carry little environmental risk; there may be scope to minimise impact on residential amenity resulting from extension of householder permitted development by selective expansion of permitted development thresholds.

Figure 9: Conditions of approval for householder development, E Lothian, 2003/04

Source: data supplied by E Lothian Council

However, it cannot be concluded from the data summarised above that all householder applications granted unconditional planning permission merited this decision at the point of submission. Since the planning application process enables a negotiated improvement in a householder development proposal, the extent of the scope for deregulation of householder development whilst minimising risk to amenity will in part depend on an assessment of the influence of this negotiation process. Consequently, a random sample of recent householder development applications and decisions for East Lothian and East Renfrewshire Councils was undertaken.

Fifty householder development decisions were sampled by content analysis of the planning officer reports and approved application plans in each case. These comprised 32 cases for East Lothian determined in 2003/04, and 18 cases for East Renfrewshire determined in 2005/06. They included 5 applications for alterations and extensions to flats. Unlike East Lothian, archival data for 2003/04 was not accessible for East Renfrewshire, so the 18 cases were accessed from the online planning register for 2005/06. Of the 50 householder decisions scrutinised, 34 were approved and 15 refused (plus one part approved and part refused). Most of the refusal cases were in East Renfrewshire, where decisions were taken by the relevant committee of the Council following referral by the local councillor. Figure 10 shows that the cases scrutinised (excluding flats) covered 63 examples of householder development. This is because some of the cases covered more than one of the eight householder development categories. The distribution of cases is broadly in line with the general distribution of householder development across the eight development categories (see Figure 7).

This enables closer inspection of the range of material planning issues raised by householder developments and summarised in Figure 9. Scrutiny of these typical individual cases, both for conditional approval and refusal, also assists in determining the general boundary between conditional approval and refusal (in the latter case, the circumstances that give rise to those factors which could not be mitigated by a conditional approval).

Figure 10: Distribution of case studies in relation to householder development categories

Source: compiled from analysis of online planning registers for E Lothian and E Renfrewshire Councils

In all cases, the reasons for imposition of conditions of approval, or refusal, related to issues of residential amenity, involving one or more of the following:

• Proximity to boundaries (especially for applications involving terraced dwellings or corner plots);
• Overshadowing of neighbouring properties, in terms of impact on daylight or sunlight;
• Overlooking of adjacent properties, especially in relation to window openings in elevations on or close to common boundaries;
• The ratio of building footprint to curtilage, and associated concerns about overdevelopment.

In cases where representations were made by neighbours, most of the issues raised were not regarded by planning officers as material (this is confirmed by responses to the household development questionnaire summarised in section 4). Most cases of refusal arose where the applicant did not accept suggested amendments to the application, or where the application was substantially the same as a previously refused application for the same dwellinghouse. There was limited evidence of amendments to householder development proposals arising from negotiation with the planning authority.

It can be concluded from this detailed analysis that, in most cases, the process of determining a planning application for householder development has a very limited influence on the actual development proposal as submitted. However, in a significant minority of cases, the planning authority impose conditions on approval in order to ensure that such development does not, at some future date, cause adverse impact on residential amenity through take up of permitted development rights, eg in requiring:

• Windows or other openings in elevations on or close to common boundaries to be opaque;
• In elevations close to common boundaries and without window or other openings, to require submission of a planning application prior to introducing such openings;
• The maintenance of screen walls and fences;
• Outbuildings approved within the residential curtilage to remain in use for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling;
• Maintenance of external finishes as approved (or to match existing finishes if not specified).

In summary, the planning application process provides an opportunity for the planning authority to consider the impact of householder development on local residential amenity, to impose conditions on a permission in order to safeguard future amenity, and to refuse permission on the rare occasions where such amenity is seen as being adversely affected by a householder development to an extent that it cannot be mitigated by conditions. Despite the 97% approval rate, it is generally not a process through which the planning authority "improves" the original application.

3.1 Householder development guidance

A further potential impact on householder development is local design and development guidance. A review of local authority websites in Scotland identified eight planning authorities which provided such guidance. This included guidance on householder permitted development rights, and on planning authority policies on householder development that required planning permission. The householder guidance focused on:

A review of the limitations specified in the GPDO classes, and the above householder guidance, confirms that amenity considerations relate principally to altering or extending dwellings. Negative impacts on the outlook, privacy and overshadowing of neighbouring property may result from:

• an increase in the overall height of the development;
• the proximity of development to common boundaries; and
• the proximity of development to public roads and footpaths.

Other concerns in the guidance relate to:

• ensuring high quality design/architectural compatibility, and thus avoiding cumulative erosion of local character;
• avoiding curtilage overdevelopment ;
• avoiding development on conspicuous elevations; and
• promoting energy conservation (eg by construction materials that minimise energy usage).

Figure 11 shows some extracts from householder development guidance provided by three planning authorities. These illustrations are part of more extensive written guidance, but illustrate the scope for explaining technical and design criteria in graphical form. There is considerable potential to deploy such guidance among all planning authorities in parallel with a relaxation of householder permitted development.

Figure 11: Examples of householder development guidance:

Dormer windows and attic conversions, East Ayrshire ¹²

Car parking in front gardens: Angus Council ¹³

House extensions, Edinburgh ¹⁴

The amenity concerns of planning authorities, as reflected in decisions on householder developments and the production of development guidance, mirror those of neighbours, as identified in a MORI survey for the ODPM Householder Development Consents Review, as shown in Figure 12. MORI interviewed 320 neighbours about their experiences of the householder development consents regime in England (from 15,500 planning application records in 2004), selected by random stratified sampling across eight case study planning authorities. Results indicate that the main concerns of neighbours were in relation to: extensions on or close to property boundaries and the installation of wind generators. However, they appeared to be less concerned about basement extensions, enclosures, roof balconies, garages or summerhouses, and much less concerned about dormer windows, solar panels or garden sheds.

Figure 12: Priorities for consultation on householder developments

Source: Householder Development Consents Review, 'Survey of Applicants and Neighbours', MORI, ODPM, November 2005 ¹⁵.

3.2 Key findings from this section

1. Householder developments comprise almost half of all planning and related permissions, one third of all appeals, and more than half of all enforcement cases.

2. Most householder developments are for alterations and extensions.

3. The rate of approval of householder consents has remained constant at around 97%.

4. Most householder development decisions by planning authorities are either unconditional, reflecting the straightforward and uncontentious nature of most applications, or seek to avoid potential future impacts through imposition of conditions. Such conditions focus almost exclusively on amenity considerations.

5. The distribution of householder developments between planning authorities varies widely. Universal measures to reduce householder developments requiring planning permission would have differential impacts on the workloads of planning authorities.

6. Neighbours are most concerned about alterations and extensions close to common boundaries, but tend to raise non-material issues in representations on householder development applications.

7. The planning application process is not significant in stimulating changes to householder development proposals submitted by applicants.

8. Permitted development could be increased in Classes 4 to 8 with lowest risk to residential amenity, but marginal impact on the volume of householder applications.

9. Permitted development could be increased in Classes 1 to 3, which would result in a significant reduction in volume of householder applications, but a greater risk to residential amenity.

10. There may be scope to combine extension of householder permitted development, with simpler, clearer language in a revised GPDO and wider use of local design codes as supplementary guidance to the development plan.

« Previous | Contents | Next »