The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4 Findings from the Householder Development Questionnaire

This section summarises findings from the householder development questionnaire.

Views were sought on alternative approaches to managing householder developments by means of a questionnaire sent to all 33 planning authorities and a sample of 20 community councils and other stakeholders. A total of 33 responses (62% response rate) were received and analysed. Appendix 3 lists the respondent organisations. It should be noted that local authority respondents were senior planning officers responding in a personal capacity based on their experience.

Defining householder development

Respondents were invited to agree or disagree with the definition that householder development comprised development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse including:

• The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse;
• Any alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse including the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of an addition or alteration to its roof;
• 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;
• The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse;
• The erection or provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a container for the storage of oil or liquefied petroleum gas;
• The installation, alteration or replacement of a satellite antenna on a dwellinghouse or within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse;
• The erection, construction, maintenance or alteration of a gate, fence, wall, or other means of enclosure.

Table 1 shows the responses.

Table 1: Responses to the question ' do you agree with the definition of householder development set out in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2?'

The majority of respondents agreed with the definition of householder development provided. However, a significant group disagreed with the definition, most of whom were local authority planning officers.

There was no consensus in the suggested amendments to the definition of householder development. Two respondents suggested that other classes of permitted development (classes 8 and 9) can also include householder developments. Five respondents suggested that householder development should be 'updated' to reflect new issues such as decking (over a certain height); micro-renewables; CCTV and security lights. Decking is already covered by the definition of householder development, whilst the other issues raised are being considered as part of the wider review of the GPDO, since their impact is not exclusive to householder development.

Householder development concerns

Respondents were asked about their main concerns regarding householder development. The discussion paper accompanying the questionnaire noted: ' a principal concern of planning authorities about householder development is its impact on residential amenity. Some of the amenity considerations related to avoiding negative impacts of householder developments on the outlook, privacy and overshadowing of neighbouring properties 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.

Respondents were asked whether they agreed with this list of concerns, and were asked to list any additional concerns raised by householder development. Table 2 summarises the results.

Table 2: Responses to the question ' do you agree that para 2.4 (a-f) identifies the main concerns about householder development?'

The majority of respondents agreed with the list of concerns about householder development provided. However, a significant group disagreed, most of whom were local authority planning officers.

There was no consensus about the additional concerns identified. Respondents who disagreed with the above question presented a long list of additional points. There were very few overlaps between respondents, with most observations occurring only once. These comprised:

• impact on designated areas;
• design and use of materials;
• developments affecting safety, such as causing road visibility problems and impinging on feelings of space and safety on public footpaths and open space;
• developments which cause recycling/wheelie bins to be stored in front gardens (by blocking access to the side/rear of a property);
• developments which increase on-street parking (through the conversion of integral garages);
• disproportionate overlooking of adjacent private garden ground and windows of habitable rooms;
• loss of sunlight and daylight to adjacent dwellings;
• height of boundary fences;
• impact of paving on urban drainage;
• the loss of mature landscaping and/or trees;
• impacts on the enjoyment of house and garden as a consequence of householder development e.g. decking may result in an intensification of activity that results in increased noise and activity.

Most of these are in fact covered by (a) to (f) above. Whilst storage of recycling/wheelie bins is not development, there is a visual impact from this kind of domestic clutter in front gardens, as a result of the development which is permitted. Where house extensions block existing side or rear access to a property, the consequence may be the storage of wheelie bins etc in the front garden, although this visual impact of this is not recognized and considered within the process. Loss of mature landscaping and/or trees would relate to landscape features within a residential curtilage, where the property is not located within a Conservation Area (since trees are protected by virtue of such designation) nor protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The impact of paving (or other hardstanding) on urban drainage can be addressed with clear design guidance.

Respondents also raised some broader concerns about householder development. These included observations about the balance between impacts on neighbouring properties and wider impacts. For one respondent the current emphasis on the amenity of neighbouring properties is at the expense of the impact on wider community, and the erosion of overall residential amenity through the cumulative impact on character and appearance of an area. This was echoed by another respondent who suggested that the overall impact on the streetscene - resulting in particular from front/side extensions - was also a concern. This respondent also alleged that the aspirations of householders frequently take little or no account of obligations to neighbours or the wider interest. A point which was reiterated by another respondent who alleged that householders generally attach more weight to the size and functionality of their proposed extension compared to the impact on neighbouring property and public amenity. Cumulative impact is a factor in householder development and is considered elsewhere in this Report.

An additional area of concern highlighted by one respondent relates to the use of incidental buildings for activities such as the keeping of domestic pets (especially pigeons), noisy hobbies or things which can be regarded as anti-social. While the 1997 Act section 26(2)(d) makes it clear that these uses are not development (where they are incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse, erecting buildings for such uses is permitted development within the limits specified in Class 3) it is not so clear how this applies in the case of flats. The Act does not define "dwellinghouse", so it is open to debate whether flats might be included. If flats are not included within section 26(2)(d), such uses to huts/garages associated with flats may create a situation where the planning authority is expected to take action against the use rather than the structure. The respondent asks specifically for some clarification of this if PD rights are to be extended to flats (although nuisance issues would be addressed under other legislation).

Finally, one respondent suggests that the current GPDO does not address the issue of impact on archaeological sites or the setting of scheduled monuments (in contrast to Listed Buildings), although it is acknowledged that it is difficult to quantify the scale of this issue given the generally small scale nature of householder developments; much will depend upon their locations, but in principle classes 1,3,4,5 and 7 could raise issues.

Summary

Overall, there was general agreement on the scope of householder development and the main issues arising from it. There was no consensus among respondents who disagreed, but rather a list of additional suggestions and concerns, some of which reflect misunderstandings on the part of respondents.

A consequence of these responses was the inclusion of an eighth category of householder development in the analysis, namely means of vehicular access. This aspect is included in the statistical analysis in the preceding section of this Report.

Householder development options:

Six options for householder development were suggested in the householder development questionnaire circulated in December 2005. These options were as follows:

1. extend permitted development rights to all householder development;

2. grant 'deemed approval' to all householder development;

3. relax some or all of the existing limitations on householder permitted development;

4. bring planning permission for householder development in line with building regulations;

5. delegate to community councils decisions on some or all householder development; and

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

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they broadly supported each option. Figure 12 shows respectively the level of positive and negative response to each of the options, subdivided by the three main stakeholder groups: planning authority officers, community councillors, and others. It should be noted that only direct views were recorded; as a result the number of responses shown in the tables varies considerably.

Figure 13 shows that the most positive views were for option 3 ( relax some or all of the existing limitations on householder permitted development), especially from local authority planning officers. Support from the other two consultation groups was spread across the other options, except for option 5 ( delegate to community councils decisions on some or all householder development), for which there was no support. The strongest negative views were expressed in relation to options 1 ( extend permitted development rights to all householder development), 5 and 6 ( transfer to 'licensed practitioners' decisions on some or all householder developments). This indicates that, overall, the main preferences lay between options 2 ( grant 'deemed approval' to all householder development) and 3, but leaning strongly to option 3.

Figure 13: positive and negative responses to householder development options

Each option is now outlined and the responses considered in detail.

Option 1: extend permitted development rights to all householder development

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 of Schedule 1 would be removed.

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.

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.

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 within specified locations, principally Conservation Areas.

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.

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.

There was little support for this option. The main concerns raised by respondents were:

• loss of neighbour notification;
• the administrative burden and complication of Article 4 directions;
• reduced fee income to local authorities;
• additional environmental impacts from extending householder permitted development rights;
• the scope for variability in the clawback of planning control by local authorities through the use of Article 4 Directions; and
• the difficulty of devising standard conditions to meet the broad range of householder developments.

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

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", in response to objections from neighbours. 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 would be at the discretion of the planning authority to decide whether to require a planning application on the basis of the objections made.

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).

This option extends permitted development rights, but conditional upon neighbour notification and local authority call-in. 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 applications 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.

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.

Although there was little overall support for this option, there was a less negative response than to option 1. The main concerns raised by respondents were:

• call-in could only be effected in response to objections by neighbours;
• no objection by neighbours does not mean there is no environmental impact from a development;
• the administrative burden and complication of Article 4 directions;
• the scope for variability of approach between local authorities in deploying powers under Article 4 and call-in;
• the exclusion of non-neighbours from the process; and
• the additional burden on development plans.

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

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. 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%).

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 (but not total removal) of 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 ¹⁶, promoted by the planning authority, following justification in the development plan.

Overall, this option offers 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.

This option received a much larger level of support. The main concerns raised by respondents were:

• the need for clear guidance in establishing PD thresholds;
• neighbour notification;
• effects on amenity;
• how to address design issues; and
• the scope for inconsistency of approaches to householder development between planning authorities applying different LDOs.

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

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 independent 'verifiers', whilst 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 to ensure that the required quality of work has been achieved.

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.

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:

1. a detached single storey 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;

2. a porch or conservatory, but with the same limitations as for 1;

3. a greenhouse, car port or covered area, not exceeding 30 sq m in area, and other limitations as for 1 and 2;

4. a paved or hardstanding area not exceeding 200 sq m in area, or forming part of an access.

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

1. 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;

2. any work associated with refillable LPG storage cylinders supplying, via a fixed pipework installation, combustion appliances used for space heating, water heating or cooking;

3. a wall not exceeding 1.2m in height or a fence not exceeding 2m in height;

4. 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;

5. construction of a ramp not exceeding 5m in length.

The scope for using these regulations as a proxy for householder development approval is dependent upon the extent to which there is coincidence with the householder permitted development classes of the GPDO. In general, the exemptions and limitations within Regulations 3 and 5 fall within the thresholds and limitations of the corresponding GPDO Classes: in other words, the GPDO classes at present permit larger works than do the relevant Building Regulations.

Bringing the GPDO classes in line with the Building Regulations would, overall, reduce permitted development rights and therefore increase planning applications. Alternatively, requiring householder development only to require Building Regulations approval would significantly reduce planning applications, but at the loss of any assessment of the amenity impacts caused by such developments. The building standards regime is essentially concerned with objective assessment of compliance with technical standards, whilst the planning regime is essentially concerned with more subjective assessment about environmental impacts.

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.

Although there was a lot of support in principle for this option among the respondents, this did not translate very well into actual support, and positive responses were significantly outnumbered by negative responses. The main concerns raised by respondents were:

• loss of fee income to local authorities;
• increased number of applications (contrary to objectives of the "Modernising the Planning System" White Paper);
• difficulty of aligning two very different systems;
• complication presented by National Park authorities (which are planning, but not building, authorities);
• loss of assessment of amenity; and
• does not reduce burdens, but merely moves/shares them with another part of local government.

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

Community councils are statutory consultees on all planning applications within their areas. Planning Advice Note 47 states that "their function is to ascertain, coordinate and express the views of the local community to local authorities and other public bodies operating in their area, and to take any lawful action they think fit in pursuit of the residents' interests" ¹⁷. Therefore there may be scope to build on their established consultative role in the planning system by delegating to community councils decision making on some or all householder developments. 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.

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

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 burden 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 at the risk of an increase in planning appeals and legal challenges.

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.

The overwhelming response among all stakeholders (including Community Councils) to this option was negative. The main concerns raised by respondents were:

• incomplete national coverage of community councils;
• lack of inherent professional skills or access to advice;
• contrary to Scottish Executive guidance about involvement of Community Councils with householder developments;
• infrequent meetings may delay decisions on applications;
• does not address the problem - just shifts the burden to a level with little or no capacity to deliver; and
• diverts Community Councils away from their more useful involvement in larger applications.

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

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. Whilst there would be no reduction in the number of householder applications, the burden of determining them would be more widely shared, and householders would be able to exercise choice, by being free to seek certification from a 'licensed practitioner'. Transferring this judgement to professionals in the private sector would require safeguards, including that such persons subscribed to a professional code of conduct to which they could be held accountable. Additionally, there could be a specified statutory procedure to which such licensed practitioners would be required to conform, or risk court challenge or even prosecution, to ensure that: neighbours were notified; issues raised were resolved; a written judgement was produced; appropriate conditions for approval were specified (if appropriate).

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 "licensed practitioner" scheme. The role of the licensed practitioner would include mediation in neighbour disputes over householder developments, so they would require mediation skills.

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 would continue to be a right of neighbours to be notified, and to raise objections, but it would be for the independent licensed practitioner to seek to resolve these, not the local authority (though there could be a right of administrative and/or legal challenge to a licensed practitioner's judgement).

This option was not strongly favoured. The main concerns raised were:

• costs - both to the client and in setting up a licensing system;
• competence of practitioners;
• need for local knowledge;
• unclear of the process by which disputes would be resolved;
• reduced role of elected local authorities;
• risks of corruption;
• risks of inconsistency in decisions;
• privatisation of a public service;
• potential conflict of interest for consultants working as licensed practitioners; and
• no guarantee about supply of licensed practitioners in rural areas.

Notwithstanding these concerns, if simple, clear technical limits for householder permitted development could be specified, and if judgement was limited to compliance with these limits (paralleling the Building Standards model outlined in option 4), then some of the above concerns would be removed.

Other options

Respondents were invited to identify other options for householder development. In outline, these were broadly as follows (with commentary in italics):

1. Variation to Option 2 (deemed approval) i.e. applications/submissions still required with appropriate fee, and development can proceed if there is no intervention from the planning authority within a prescribed period. This is a variation on prior notification, but requiring positive Council intervention within a prescribed period prior to taking up permitted development rights. This is not substantially different from what is discussed in option 2.

2. Combination of options 5 and 6, involving the judicial use of Forums, thus avoiding the lack of an accountable public body, and addressing the expertise that would be lacking within Community Councils. This largely repeats the suggested safeguard discussed at the end of option 5.

3. Combination of options 4 and 6 with links to option 5. There would be control through regulations, which should be well publicised and available at libraries etc., an official to consult at the planning authority, plus supervising control by licensed practitioners. A very detailed standard pro forma than currently used could be submitted along with a basic site plan and neighbour notification certificate. This could be vetted by a local authority officer and, on the basis of the information received, permission could be given subject to building regulations compliance. For lesser development without the need for site inspections/discussion this could be in addition to some relaxation of the GPDO. This suggestion would not appear to offer any significant reduction in administrative burdens on local authorities.

4. Re-examination of the existing permitted development order. Certain development ( not identified) which is currently not permitted development but which has little impact on quality, amenity etc could become permitted development. As part of this, the status of flatted properties should be considered, since currently they have no permitted development rights. Replacement windows, driveways, minor alterations, balcony infill etc might be included as permitted development for flats. This combined with Option 2 could significantly reduce planning authority workloads. There may be scope to marginally reduce the number of planning applications by extending some permitted development rights to flats (eg roof alterations, window replacements and other minor alterations) without raising new environmental risks.

5. Matching the requirements for planning permission and building warrant to remove anomalies ( not specified) and to make the application process more consistent. This would be of benefit to both planning authorities and prospective developers. The issue of daylight/sunlight/privacy might usefully be returned to building regulations. This merely shifts the burden rather than reducing or removing it.

6. The preparation of Supplementary Planning Guidance on householder developments could be made mandatory, and certain standards could be specified at a national level. It might be possible to introduce some form of deemed approval after a specified period. Plans should be sufficiently detailed to judge compliance with design guidance and the impact of the development on the surrounding area. If the planning authority deems that a submission does not comply with its design guidance, the applicant should be advised within 28 days that planning permission would be required. This would provide an incentive for speedy processing. There could be a simple prior notification process including a letter/plan of proposals ensuring that the proposals comply with design guidance, approved by the local planning authority. This is a variation of option 2, incorporating a requirement for conformity to a local design code as well as technical limits. Such an approach may help offset concerns about visual impact, including cumulative impact. It would require clear and straightforward design guidance, perhaps similar to examples provided in Figure 11.

4.1 Key Findings from this section

The most positive responses were for option 3. There was very limited support for the others, and none for option 5.

There was some level of opposition to all options, but particularly strong against options 1, 2, 5 and 6, especially from planning officers.

There are a number of key elements which respondents seem to consider important in relation to householder development:

• Some level of neighbour notification/participation;
• Consideration of amenity/design within the process for dealing with householder applications, reflected in local design guidance, and some balance between neighbour amenity and wider residential amenity;
• The importance of accountability and consistency within the process;
• Clarity about the scope for appeals and other challenges, especially in relation to relevant aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights, which would include:
  • Article 8 - right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence; and
  • Article 1 of Protocol 1 - right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property.

There appears to be little support for proposals which might make development plans more complex. Local authority respondents were most concerned about this, and some responses pointed out that LDOs/Article 4 directions which link with the development plan could work against the Executive's desire for shorter, clearer and more effective plans.

There may be scope to extend some permitted development rights to flats, which would assist reduction in burdens of planning applications in predominantly urban authorities, including the four main cities.

There was widespread support for the GPDO to be updated to include relevant issues such as renewable energy, security lights and CCTV, which are more appropriately addressed in the associated review of the GPDO as a whole.

There was a lot of support for proposals which make things simpler, provide clear guidance and generally give the householder clear advice about what is and isn't acceptable, more user friendly and perhaps with illustrations. Many respondents commented that the current system(s) of planning and building control are understood and accepted by the public. Proposals which complicated or confused the current system(s) were not favoured.

The way in which local authorities deal with householder applications was mentioned in a number of responses. Both Glasgow and Dumfries & Galloway set out their approaches (which they think are effective). Glasgow has a dedicated team of planning officers to deal with householder applications. Dumfries & Galloway deploy graduate planners on householder applications, and use this as a means of developing their staff. There may be some merit in recommending some kind of good practice guidance on this to complement changes to the GPDO itself.

« Previous | Contents | Next »