The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

5 Previous Research on Householder Development

This section reviews previous research and recommendations for reform of householder development in the GPDO and its equivalents in constituent parts of the UK and Ireland.

5.1 Review of Permitted Development and Related Mechanisms 1998¹⁸

The main focus of the 1998 research was to identify the scope for reducing the complexity of the GPDO and improve procedures. At the time, there was a general satisfaction with the extent and scope of the GPDO, so the focus was on improving the user-friendliness of the Order and removing anomalies between classes. Structural change was not required.

The research revealed that there was little support for extending householder permitted development, including to flatted properties. The main concerns about Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Order were:

• the upper limit on increasing the floor area of an existing dwelling by 30% could result in very large structures;
• the wording of Class 2 encourages flat roofed extensions;
• the scope of Class 3 in relation to the keeping of animals;
• height limit anomalies between Classes 4 and 7;
• the excessive limitation on height of structures within 20 metres of a road;
• class 6 (satellite antennae) is vague and unworkable in relation to minimising the impact on the external appearance of a building;
• lack of a clear definition of "curtilage"; and
• the need for more user-friendly language and format.

Recommendations included rationalising Part 1 of Schedule 1 from six classes to two, and expressing descriptions, conditions and limitations in simpler language that could potentially be translated into a user guide for householder development. The recommended two classes of householder permitted development are reproduced below.

Source: School of Planning and Housing et al (1998) op. cit.

At the same time as attempting to express permitted development rights in simpler, clearer language, these proposals would extend some permitted development rights, particularly for extensions and gates/walls/fences (in terms of proximity to a road), but also reduce permitted development rights for hard surfaces (by specifying an upper limit) and satellite antennae (by reducing the dimensions limit). So these proposals may provide a basis for simplifying and clarifying the GPDO.

5.2 Review of Permitted Development Rights for England¹⁹and Northern Ireland²⁰, 2003

ODPM and DOE Northern Ireland separately commissioned Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, with others, to undertake reviews on the operation and effectiveness of the 1995 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) and the 1993 Planning (General Development)(Northern Ireland) Order. Both reviews utilised similar research methods and drew similar conclusions which informed broadly equivalent recommendations. However, the research briefs excluded any significant changes to householder permitted development rights, except for addressing anomalies, inconsistencies, or over-complexity. Consequently, the approach was to build on the current system of permitted development provided by the GPDO, but to subject it to comprehensive review. This approach reflected consultation responses, the nature of the problems identified, experience from similar reviews elsewhere, and "the risk that to move to a radically different system would introduce new problems and make worse a well-tried system that works reasonably well" ²¹. A basic problem of the GPDO was seen as "applying set thresholds to too wide a range of situations, so causing inconsistency and lack of even-handedness" ²².

The priorities of the Lichfield reviews were therefore to improve efficiency and ease of understanding, reduce complexity, and achieve a positive balance with government policy aims (for sustainable development in particular). It was not an objective to extend permitted development rights, and hence deregulation, per se. In relation to householder permitted development, the main changes proposed were concerned with controlling development that affects the streetscape, simplifying permitted development rights, and removing loopholes that cause problems and adverse effects on amenity.

The ODPM review drew on the 1998 Scottish Office Review (see above) and recommended a similar restructuring of Part 1 of the GPDO into two classes, the replacement of present volume limits on extensions with floorspace limits and distance from boundaries, and reduction of the proportion of the residential curtilage which could be covered by buildings from 50% to 25%. This latter change was seen as necessary because the current 50% limit applied to the whole curtilage, allowing buildings to cover all of a small rear garden where a large front garden exists. Additionally, there were concerns about the scope for permitted developments to proceed in advance of unimplemented development consents, resulting in very large residential extensions and site coverage. It was also recommended that Part 1 should be made consistent with the Building Regulations.

The general effect of these recommendations would be a reduction in householder permitted development and a consequential increase in householder development applications. The recommendations for householder development reflected the general thrust of the recommendations for the reform of the respective Orders.

5.3 Republic of Ireland

In the Irish Republic, a framework of exempted development applies to eight classes of householder development, under Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the 2001 Planning and Development Regulations. These classes are paraphrased as follows:

There are significant differences between the Irish Republic's exempted development classes and the equivalent GPDO classes of householder permitted development:

• The language in the Irish Schedule is generally simpler.
• Dimension restrictions are more generous (40 square metres in Ireland, as opposed to 30 square metres maximum in the GPDO).
• Dimension increases are expressed in absolute, and not proportional, terms.
• There are different floorspace restrictions for single storey and two storey extensions.
• A requirement of minimum of 25 square metres retention of rear private open space.
• There are some specified exclusions (eg roof garden or balcony) which have been problematic in interpreting the GPDO.
• Exemptions apply only to developments at the side or rear, and are restricted within 2 metres of a party boundary; there is no reference to proximity to a road.
• Class 3 is only to a limited extent equivalent to Class 2 of the GPDO, in that it specifies the types of buildings that can be erected (rather than "any building or enclosure" in the GPDO).
• Class 8 permits restricted extensions forward of the front building line for porches only.

No research evaluating the impact of the 2001 Regulations on the efficiency or effectiveness of the Irish planning system has been identified. Consequently it is not possible to assess the impact of these provisions. However, there may be some lessons for the use of simpler language and specification of dimensions that could apply to householder development in the GPDO.

5.4 ODPM Householder Development Consents Review ( HDCR)

This section considers the review of householder development consents ( HDCR) currently being undertaken by the ODPM, drawing on unpublished research reports commissioned to inform the HDCR. This allows some assessment of the extent to which the overall analysis of householder development in Scotland is informed by the English review, and thereby whether recommendations for reform to householder consents in England may be relevant to Scotland.

As in Scotland, Figure 14 shows that the number of planning applications for householder development in England has been growing at a faster rate than for all other types of consent (appeals against refusal of householder development have doubled since 2000).

Figure 14: trends in planning decisions, England, 1993/94 to 2003/04

Source: HDCR Presentation to the LGA Environment Board meeting, 20 September 2005

HDCR was announced in January 2005, and is part of ODPM's reform agenda that is seeking to speed up, simplify and change the culture of planning. It is a root and branch review of the regulations facing householders wanting to improve their homes. HDCR is examining ways to streamline application processes and minimise bureaucracy while protecting neighbours' interests and the local environment by considering:

• Ways to streamline application processes and minimise bureaucracy while protecting neighbours' interests and the local environment.
• Options for introducing more proportionate, customer-focused consent regimes for householders that can free up local authority resources while retaining necessary environmental controls.
• New approaches such as involving neighbours at an earlier stage in the planning process and for resolving disagreements by mediation. ²³
• Increasing the range of permitted development rights for householder applications and alternative routes to obtaining planning permission.
• Avoiding interference in householders wishing to make improvements to their homes where there are no strong environmental or public interest issues involved.
• Improving processes in a way that delivers efficiencies and benefits for the customer.

Specific research for the ODPMHDCR sought 'to define the range of impacts of different householder developments on neighbours and the wider public' (p5) ²⁴. This research was also required to consider the scope for:

• Combining consent regimes and how this might best be implemented.
• Changing processes and procedures, to enable LPAs to make better use of their resources.
• Mediation between neighbours.
• Making consent regimes easier to use by applicants and parties affected by development.
• Making greater use of other service providers in processing applications and the extent to which this would free up public sector resources.
• Transferring functions to more local bodies, in the spirit of 'New Localism' ²⁵.

Analysis was based upon a range of different housing types, reflecting the characteristics and distribution of England's housing stock and, in this context, typical householder applications were sampled from 8 planning authorities ²⁶, together with an examination of Planning Inspectorate decisions on 185 householder development appeals in the sample local authority areas, all for the calendar year 2004.

Key findings from this review of householder development decisions included:

• Approval rates for householder applications were 'high' in the range 80% to 93% (but lower than the Scottish average of 97%);
• Areas of high housing demand exhibited greater pressures for house extensions, because house prices meant that often the only way for households to obtain more accommodation was to extend their existing dwelling;
• Changes of level within a plot or between adjoining plots can significantly increase neighbour impacts;
• The impact of householder development was related to its context, size and position within a curtilage, particularly its relationship to boundaries and adjacent dwellings;
• Neighbour concerns about overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, overbearing impact, encroachment, disruption and loss of value, are all directly related to the proximity and visibility of an extension;
• Different types of extensions have different impacts , eg:
  • Single storey rear extensions will generally only affect (due to loss of light) one or two neighbours;
  • Two storey rear extensions and rear dormers may affect additional adjoining properties due to increased overlooking;
  • Roadways at the rear of a dwelling could result in unusually prominent extensions, exacerbated by changes in level;
  • Two storey side extensions may affect an immediate neighbour (loss of light and/or overlooking) and have an impact on the street scene, perhaps due to potential terracing effects.

The research identifies four distinct levels of impact that can arise from householder developments, as follows:

This impact framework is also regarded as allowing for the recognition of cumulative impacts arising 'when a small number of small developments have a collective effect well beyond their individual consequence' (p21). For example: the impact on storm water drainage capacity arising from the conversion of gardens to concrete hardstandings for car parking; reduction in availability of smaller properties for first-time buyers arising from frequent house extensions to create larger properties. The study then classifies householder developments into five broad categories and a number of sub-categories, and identifies generic impacts of each, as summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Impacts of categories of householder development

Source: compiled from 'Making the System More Proportionate', ODPM, 2006.

On the basis of this analysis of impacts by type of householder development, the research suggests a corresponding set of consent regimes:

The research therefore proposes a new system of householder development regulation based on the analysis of impacts, as follows:

1. Universal householder permitted development is restricted to Level 1 works. This would significantly reduce the current householder permitted development rights.

2. Local Development Orders, drawn up by local planning authorities, in conjunction with design codes and residential design guides, to regulate Level 2 (immediate neighbour) and Level 3 (street scene) impacts, and supplementing universal permitted development by local extension. Formal written 'neighbour agreements' with adjoining owners, to confirm they have examined the plans and have no objections. Where a householder development proposal complied with the advice in a residential guide and the LDO, it would be classed as permitted development.

3. Householder Development Certificates ( HDCs) that would endorse householder developments as compliant with the GPDO or LDO, thus removing any risk of challenge or enforcement action.

4. New national policy guidance 'Better Regulation for Householder Development' to explain the revised system and advise on the introduction and use of LDOs and HDCs.

The revised GPDO would be drawn up around the definition of a Level 1 impact, defining the limits for permitted development that would have no impact, or minimal impact on adjoining neighbours and the street scene. Key criteria would relate to the height of proposed development and its proximity to the plot boundary, mainly single storey rear extensions, rear dormers, and freestanding structures in rear gardens. It would also include apparatus for energy generation and communications, including wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, passive flat plate collectors, and satellite dishes.

Since the new GPDO would be more limited and restrictive than at present, it would only apply in conjunction with LDOs. Until such time as a local planning authority has drawn up its own LDOs, it would have to apply the existing GPDO. Where the householder development is not covered by the revised GPDO or LDO, then planning permission would be required. There would be no permitted development rights for developments affecting Listed Buildings, Green Belts, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Conservation Areas.

While the revised GPDO would be more permissive in some respects (eg it would allow for larger rear extensions and free-standing structures in rear gardens) it would introduce far more control in other situations, particularly where proposals would be visible form the street or fall within designated areas

Since the new system would be based on clear technical criteria which permitted development would have to satisfy (Figure 15), there could be scope for private certification by registered individuals or small businesses, which could be approved and registered by the local authority to certify that proposals comply with the LDO and local design code. Provisions could also be made for Parish or Town Councils to issue HDCs.

The system could also encourage the use of mediation to secure neighbour agreements, drawing on the resources of private sector mediators.

Figure 15 Principles of a revised GPDO (England)

Source: compiled from 'Making the System More Proportionate', ODPM, 2006

The key stages in this process are:

1. The householder needs to know whether the proposal constitutes 'development' and, if so, whether it is permitted development under the terms of the GPDO. If it is, then the development can proceed.

2. If the proposal exceeds the GPDO limits, the householder then needs to establish whether it complies with an LDO and associated design codes and guidance.

3. If the proposal lies outside the GPDO and LDO, then it requires planning permission.

4. If the proposal conforms to the LDO, then the householder will need to undertake the level of consultation required (neighbour agreement and/or wider publicity).

5. If a neighbour objects or fails to respond within a specified consultation period (say 14 days), the householder submits the proposal to the local planning authority together with the appropriate fee, for adjudication. If the planning authority is satisfied that the proposal conforms to the LDO and that objections are unfounded, it issues an HDC. If the planning authority rejects the HDC application, the householder can either amend the proposals to comply with the LDO, or submit a planning application. There would be no right of appeal to refusal to issue an HDC because the certificate would be based on a clear technical assessment (based on the indicative criteria in Figure 14).

6. A householder may always seek planning permission for a proposal that is ineligible for HDC under the LDO, or if the HDC has been refused by the planning authority. If planning permission is refused, normal appeal rights apply.

The general implications of this approach are:

• A shift to a narrower GPDO plus locally determined LDOs, hence the scope for wide variations in permitted development between planning authorities.
• Some works presently covered by permitted development would no longer qualify, whilst others which could comply with an LDO would no longer require planning permission.
• The requirement of householders to notify neighbours and seek their agreement to proposed householder development.
• The introduction of Householder Development Certificates, and their approval based on clear technical criteria, and the scope to delegate such technical assessments to private sector individuals.
• The associated importance of supplementary planning guidance in the form of development and design guidance to underpin the LDO.

Testing of these proposals with 125 typical householder applications from a limited sample of three planning authorities indicated that the proposals could potentially reduce the number of householder applications by around 50% (after accounting for some additional planning applications for works currently approved under the present GPDO being captured by the new arrangements).

5.5 Key findings from this section

1. Previous research on the GPDO in Scotland and England was undertaken in a context of general satisfaction with the scope of permitted development, and therefore has limited relevance for the current research.

2. There may be lessons for a revised approach to householder permitted development and consent procedures from the operation of exempted development in Ireland and the recommendations for a new householder development consent framework in England.

3. There may be scope to draw on the simpler language and framework of the Irish Republic's categories of exempted householder development.

4. The ODPMHDCR research has assisted in identifying the level of impacts of different categories of householder development. This targets the private/public interest boundary, and Level 3 shows that this boundary is not definitive.

5. The emphasis is on a framework that removes from the planning system householder developments that cause no impact beyond the host site.

6. A key component of this framework is the power to designate Local Development Orders that would supplement more restricted universal householder permitted development rights.

7. Since the scope of deregulation beyond national norms would vary by Council, reflecting local development and other priorities, this could result in a more complex, confusing and potentially unfair system.

8. The procedure for householder development consent, incorporating neighbour agreements, and redefining the assessment of householder permitted development as a technical exercise, may be worth further exploration.

9. The heart of the HDCR is the four level typology. Even without LDOs, Scotland could adopt this, but to maintain the equivalent protection versus environmental risk of deregulation in the absence of LDOs, it may only be possible to make smaller changes to the GPDO.

10. LDOs are not currently proposed in Scotland. Whilst they were recommended in the 1998 SODD research ²⁷, they risk suffering the same unenthusiastic take-up by planning authorities as Simplified Planning Zones, whose value was seen in inverse proportion to the effort required to prepare, communicate and police them. There was resistance from planning officers in the responses to the householder questionnaire to any arrangements that might undermine simple, clear and effective development plans. In contrast, there was general support for permitted development arrangements that are clear in their expression and universally applied, ensuring consistency and equity for developers and neighbours.

« Previous | Contents | Next »