« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
6 Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions
The preceding sections of this Report have identified recurring messages that inform our conclusions and recommendations.
First, householder development is approaching 50% of all applications. There has been a long established surge in householder development proposals that is anticipated to continue to impact on the capacity of the statutory planning system. That system has responded by deploying professional and administrative resources to managing that surge in order to meet the Executive's targets for speedy determination of applications. This has diverted professional planning capacity from other areas of the planning service. At the same time, there has been a general failure to establish and thereafter maintain an up to date development plan framework and to match the achievement of targets on householder development with parallel targets for more significant development proposals. Underlying the Modernising the Planning System White Paper and the subsequent Planning (Scotland) Bill is the need for a strategic re-orientation of the planning framework away from the focus on small-scale regulation towards delivering a plan-led system, strategic spatial planning, and a new development management hierarchy.
Second, there have been no significant calls for reducing householder permitted development rights, except in circumstances where such rights impact on heritage assets. Accordingly, we have not given serious weight to reducing householder permitted development rights, but instead have looked for ways of extending such rights without incurring additional environmental risks. However, we detect a certain ambivalence, especially among local authority planning officers, towards de-regulating householder development. We note that some planning authorities devote significant planning capability towards the efficient management of householder development activity - particularly where they deal with a large number of householder applications each year. But, in general, the level of scrutiny of the planning system of such development is disproportionate to the environmental risks involved, when taken in relation to the risks from outdated development plans and delayed decisions on major development proposals.
Third, we note the strong message in the responses to the householder questionnaire that the principal purpose of the current research should not be to merely reduce the volume of householder planning applications, but instead to remove those householder developments that do not require the mediation of the planning application process, given the nature of the issues (if any) that such developments raise. Accordingly, we have explored the scope for extending permitted development in Classes 4 to 8, where the risk to residential amenity is lowest, but acknowledging that impact on the volume of householder applications is marginal. We have also explored the scope for extending permitted development in Classes 1 to 3, where the impact on the volume of householder applications would be significant, but where the risks to residential amenity would be greater. We also conclude that extending permitted development rights to flats would help reduce the volume of householder applications in predominantly urban authorities, but without increasing environmental risks.
Fourth, the concerns of both planning authorities and neighbours about householder development are primarily concerns about the impact on residential amenity. This can be measured by:
- proximity to common boundaries and consequential overlooking or overshadowing, which is a concern of immediate neighbours;
- development in prominent locations, ie the impact on the general street scene, which is a concern of the wider community;
- the extent of curtilage development, and worries about "overdevelopment", which is a concern about site density and open space, and thus impacts on the general built-up nature of the locality; and
- the protection of heritage assets, principally Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and archaeological remains.
This suggests that householder permitted development should continue to be restricted in the most sensitive environments.
Fifth, there has been a consistently high approval rate for householder development. A very small proportion of householder developments (3% across all planning authorities) raise irresolvable issues, usually relating to one or more of the foregoing. The majority of householder developments do not raise issues significant enough to warrant restrictive conditions on a planning permission. In most cases, the planning application process operates as a precautionary process, largely confirming that the development is uncontentious. Yet all consume time and resources of applicants, neighbours and planning authorities. Issues raised by neighbours tend to be about matters of privacy and overshadowing, which can be addressed through clear development standards. It should not be the purpose of the planning system to get embroiled in neighbour disputes.
Sixth, 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; and
- clarity about the scope for appeals and other challenges.
In seeking to prescribe clear, unambiguous new permitted development limits, we recognize that there is a consequential reduction in neighbour notification. We have considered offsetting this reduction by introducing some form of prior notification to neighbours or planning authorities, but we considered that this was unnecessary. At the same time, we wished to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens on planning authorities and householders by requiring some precautionary notification process that would merely have the effect of re-introducing with one hand an administrative burden that we had sought to remove with the other. It would create unnecessary bureaucracy, continue the existing situation where planning authorities require to do processing work (but leave them worse off because the initial processing would be on a no-fee basis), and stimulate unjustified expectations of neighbours. We consider that our revised permitted development limits redefine minor development, obviating the need for any other process.
Finally, the clear message from the householder questionnaire responses is for a reform of householder development based on appropriate extension of permitted development rights, but not for more radical solutions based on delegation to other bodies or rationalisation with Building Regulations. Accordingly, the thrust of our recommendations is in accordance with these general messages.
We have taken into account the findings to date from the HDCR in England. We agree with the conclusions from the research report 'Making the System More Proportionate' ODPM (2006) that there is scope to specify clearer technical criteria to inform householder permitted development, and we find the impact based approach helpful to clarifying where the boundary lies between the public and private interest, as a guide to redefining the level of regulation appropriate to householder development. However, we do not support the view that such permitted development should be aligned with a level 1 impact.
It is not sufficient merely to align householder permitted development with those developments that cause no environmental impacts beyond the host site. This would significantly reduce the permitted development rights of householders and significantly increase the burdens on applicants and planning authorities, with consequent impacts on appeals and enforcement. Supplementing a reduced GPDO with Local Development Orders, again as suggested in the HDCR for England, merely leaves to planning authorities the difficult decisions about the scope of permitted development, would generate potentially wide variations in permitted development regimes and lead to high levels of uncertainty among householders as to the scope of their permitted development rights, as well as inequities between Council areas. At the present time there is no suggestion that LDOs will be introduced in Scotland and we are not recommending that they should be as part of the review of the GPDO.
The key reform to householder permitted development that we propose is a change from expressing permitted development limits as a proportion of the original dwelling to a proportion of the dwelling curtilage. We consider that the ratio of built development to associated garden ground is a more effective and appropriate means of communicating development limits, and removes the uncertainties and ambiguities generated by the historic approach which has unnecessarily restricted extensions to dwellings and generated unnecessary planning applications.
We are sensitive to issues of overlooking and overshadowing by dwelling extensions on neighbouring properties. However, the current GPDO permits development on a common boundary, and allows for buildings up to 30 square metres in area and up to 4 metres in height, irrespective of these issues. The issue arises primarily from the height of development in proximity to common boundaries, and we have sought to address this in our recommendations.
Accordingly, taking into account the findings from this research, we are proposing a multilateral approach to reforming householder permitted development arrangements, as set out below.
Recommendations
The principal elements to our reform proposals are as follows:
1. Given the very low incidence of householder development beyond the thresholds in Classes 4-8, this suggests that the current limits within these Classes remain appropriate. The exception is Class 7, where we have taken the opportunity to address the long term concern about the generally perceived unreasonableness of the requirement that restricts to 1 metre within 20 metres of a road the height of walls, fences, gates and other enclosures. We are of the view that reducing the 20 metre limit by 50% would not raise environmental risks significantly. We note that this was also recommended in the 1998 Research on the Permitted Development Order and related Mechanisms.
2. We consider that flats should be included within the definition of a "dwellinghouse" and benefit from some permitted development rights Accordingly, the following developments, up to the limits specified below, should be permitted for flats:
- alterations to a roof; and
- alterations comprising window replacements.
Where flats benefit from a curtilage, they should also enjoy additional permitted development rights enjoyed by other types of dwellinghouse.
As well as introducing an element of equity among occupants of different types of dwellinghouses, this will contribute to a significant reduction in planning applications in urban areas (four-in-a-block flats comprise 11% of dwellings in Scotland, whilst tenements comprise 23%). We consider the associated environmental risks are small, given that any interference with communal rights is a property, not a planning, issue.
3. A combination and rationalization of Classes 1-3, proposing extended, clear, objective and measurable limits for permitted development. This acknowledges one of the messages from the research: the concerns about extensive loss of neighbour notification as a consequence of extending householder permitted development. The planning issues raised by householder developments relate to residential amenity. There are two levels:
(i) the impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbours, principally from overlooking or overshadowing; and
(ii) the impact on the wider residential environment from visual intrusion.
We have reflected these aspects in our proposed new limits.
4. As well as reducing the number of householder developments that require a planning permission, the increased thresholds, expression of these in straightforward language, and the removal of discretionary judgement, these changes should reduce the need for:
(i) permitted development enquiries to planning authorities;
(ii) unauthorized development due to misunderstanding; and
(iii) professional planning officer involvement in permitted development judgements.
The proposed new permitted development limits are set out below.
Permitted Development
Part 1 of the GPDO should be combined into one class.
Development attached to or within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for incidental purposes is permitted provided:
1. it is not a dwelling;
2. it does not increase the overall height of the existing building;
3. it does not exceed 4 metres in height within 2 metres of a common boundary or 10 metres of a public road or way, or closer than the building line fronting a road;
4. it does not reduce the distance between any building line and a classified road;
5. it does not result in the total built area occupying more than 40% of the dwelling curtilage, in the case of a detached, semi-detached or end-terrace dwellinghouse; or 40% of the rear garden in the case of a ground floor flat or mid-terrace dwellinghouse;
6. where the development involves alterations to a roof, the maximum enlargement of the existing roof area shall not exceed 40%, shall not raise the ridge height of the existing roof, and a projection from the plane of a side facing roof shall not exceed 10cm;
7. external finishes match existing;
8. it does not include a raised terrace or balcony within 4 metres of a common boundary;
9. it does not exceed 10 square metres in area within the curtilage of a Listed Building;
10. it complies with a local design or development code for householder development;
11. there are no unimplemented planning permissions affecting the property;
Other householder development
12. a maximum of one container for the storage of oil or liquefied petroleum gas can be erected or provided, except where this would be within 10 metres of a road, or in a Conservation Area, or within the curtilage of a Listed Building;
13. any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure of the curtilage of a dwellinghouse is:
a) a maximum of 1 metre in height within 10 metres of a road or footpath;
b) 2 metres in all other circumstances;
c) excluding within the curtilage or surrounding a Listed Building.
A package of reform
We consider that these recommendations should achieve the three principal objectives of the reforms:
1. they reduce the burden of householder developments on the planning system;
2. they achieve a better match between permitted development rights and the aspirations, and obligations of householders;
3. they ensure that adequate controls remain to deal with developments which might unduly affect the environment or amenity of the area.
Taken as a package, these recommendations will provide:
- a clearer, simpler unambiguous expression of permitted development rights;
- a significant reduction in the annual number of planning applications;
- an associated reduction in planning appeals;
- a significant reduction in development enquiries to planning authorities; and
- a significant reduction in enforcement activity by planning authorities.
Such a framework should be implemented nationally to ensure consistency and equity.
The impact on householder development proposals
We have audited our proposed revised permitted development thresholds against the 50 case study householder applications referred to in section 3, in order to estimate their likely impact on the volume of householder applications. The case studies are summarised in Appendix 4.
Analysis of the 50 cases shows that, if the above recommendations had been applied, 19 of the 50 applications would not have needed approval. Of these cases, 2 had been refused. In both cases they involved large extensions to large houses set within substantial garden ground. None of the other 13 cases of refusal would have been captured by our recommended permitted development limits. This indicates that the risk of the extended permitted development limits we propose is primarily to this category of development.
The cases of alterations and extensions to mid-terrace houses justify applying more restricted limits for curtilage development to these than to other types of dwelling.
From this sample, we estimate that our recommendations would result in a reduction of 38% in the annual number of householder applications submitted to planning authorities each year. A total of 24,424 householder applications were decided by all Scottish planning authorities in 2004/05. So we estimate that these proposals would reduce this figure to around 15,000 in future years. On average, this would be a reduction of around 288 householder applications per year for each Scottish planning authority. However, as we show in Figure 5, there is likely to be wide variation around this average reduction, depending upon the characteristics of the housing stock in each Council area and pressures on the local housing market.
The extension of permitted development rights to some flats will also reduce the overall number of applications received by (urban) authorities. This will increase the impact of the changes, together with the efficiencies that will flow from fewer enquiries and fewer enforcement actions.
« Previous | Contents | Next »