5.1.5: Minor Developments
Local Authorities
Angus Council: With regard to minor developments Angus Council would welcome removing the burden and simplifying matters for many householders by removing the need for planning consent. It is important however that adequate controls do remain in place to ensure that one householder does not adversely affect the amenity of another householder by an inappropriate form of development
Argyll & Bute Council: Whilst this move is to be welcomed, careful consideration needs to be given to protect existing amenity levels and to ensure adequate environmental protection particularly if minerals and other classes of permitted development are to be included. It should also be noted that there should also be consideration of the removal of permitted development for works currently having major land use and environmental issues e.g. Scottish Water Infrastructure Projects.
Dundee City Council: Agreed that there is scope for introducing greater freedoms from the need for planning permission in the domestic environment in particular. However the Council does not agree that the promotion of a rash of Article 4 Directions (setting out the scope of instances where pp is required in a given area) is appropriate. Local Development Orders (setting out the scope of instances where pp is not required in a given area) should be explored as an alternative. The challenge for Councils in consultation with local communities will be which categories of application should continue to require planning permission. The definition of localised or city-wide Design Codes (again subject to stakeholder consultation may be worthy of consideration.
East Ayrshire Council: The proposal to review the General Permitted Development Order to remove some small scale developments from the planning system is supported by the Council. It will reduce pressure on staff involved in the development management process.
Falkirk Council: To reduce the number of applications for minor developments, in addition to considering a review of the General Permitted Development Order ( GPDO), other mechanisms could be used which would allow local authorities to retain some control over these developments, while not burdening officers and support staff with the registration, consideration, preparation and issuing of planning consents. For example, there could be a "prior notification" or "type approval" process to enable exemptions for certain types of development which meet agreed design standards or quality guidelines. These could be agreed at the detailed application stage e.g. to enable householders to extend their properties at a later stage with for example conservatories and front porches. It is considered that a review of the GPDO could make a considerable difference to staff time and resources. It would therefore seem logical to try to carry out this review and implement any outcomes as soon as possible. It is therefore requested that the Scottish Executive consider prioritising this research at an early stage. This is particularly important because this is one of the few proposals which could result in less work for local planning authorities and their staff.
Glasgow City Council: Careful consideration should be given to the categories included in any extension of permitted development rights to ensure members of the public retain the right to have a say on developments which may adversely impact on them. SE should consider whether the speeding up of the planning process could be achieved by introducing an expedited procedure for dealing with minor applications, rather than widening permitted development rights.
Inverclyde Council: Much of the bread and butter of development control is dealing with minor works and resolving neighbour disputes over minor development. There are two levels of expectation - many of those wishing to undertake works are aggrieved at having to apply for planning permission, while those opposed to development often expect us to be able to intervene in even the smallest of things. I understand that the review will use the B&Q test - if you can buy it there and it's for your back garden then you shouldn't require planning permission for it. This merits support. On the issue of enforcement, this may also be a time saver. By extending permitted development there could be an increase in requests for Certificates of Lawfulness. There would, however, be concerns if changes related to advertisement applications.
Moray Council: The proposals are no more than an intention to review those applications. Whilst supporting the review of the GDPO and the introduction of additional guidance, the impact on the service cannot be identified until the outcome of the review is known. Any review of the planning system needs to be comprehensive and not done on a selective or piecemeal basis and the review should be completed before not after any new bill. Greater use of Article 4 mechanisms would introduce more not less applications into the system and these provisions are not without enforcement and other difficulties. An extension of permitted development rights is welcomed and if implemented, may allow resources to be re-deployed elsewhere in the system. If little of no changes result from the review, a large number of applications will remain in the system and their impact on officer time and resources will continue unchanged. Overall, this may not make the system more efficient.
North Lanarkshire Council: The White Paper is not entirely clear on the role of the Planning Authority as decision-maker and that of the Court regarding appeals. If this relates only to decisions on whether permission is required, this should be more explicit.
Scottish Borders Council: It is considered that this proposal is fundamentally flawed. It erroneously assumes that such applications are straightforward. It fails to acknowledge the added value that is often achieved as a result of the application of the planning system and input of panning officers. It fails to recognise the broad public demand for a level of control over developments that directly affect their local environment.
South Lanarkshire Council: The extension of permitted development is generally supported as it would remove a disproportionate burden from the planning system and free up resources that can be focused on more significant matters.
West Dunbartonshire Council: Changes to permitted development to reduce the number of planning applications of a minor nature will undoubtedly lead to fewer planning applications being received by local authorities. However, there will not be a reduction - and may in fact be an increase - in number of telephone and personal enquiries concerning whether or not planning permission is required.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: While there is clearly further work to be undertaken to determine the extent to which certain developments should benefit from permitted development status, this should allow planning authorities to focus resources on those developments with more significant implications.
Scottish Water: We appreciate that planning authorities currently prioritise applications to a varying degree, thereby affecting the number of applications that are sent to us for consultation, but we believe this could be improved to deliver greater efficiency in the system.
Other Businesses
Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce: We welcome the principle of the creation of a hierarchy within the planning system to simplify minor applications, and speed up process. We also trust that the extension of permitted developments will aid this easing of process, although without any detail being given we cannot at this stage comment on the appropriateness of any putative extensions.
Electrical Contractors' Association of Scotland (Select): The proposals relating to removing the majority of "Minor Developments" from the planning process are sensible and will be beneficial to rural construction industry activity. Householder developments provide valuable work to very many small local businesses, including electrical contractors, and to remove most from the vagaries of the planning system is likely to encourage valuable additional development without impinging unduly on the environment.
Scottish Chambers of Commerce: Removing minor and small-scale developments from the process should free up staff time, allowing a greater focus on more important developments to a local economy.
Tesco Stores Ltd: Scottish Ministers and local authorities already possess the power to attach appropriate conditions to planning permissions to restrict permitted development rights. We would encourage the use of existing powers before considering new legislation to amend the permitted development order.
Professional Organisations
The Faculty of Advocates: Obviously a value judgement is required between removing unnecessary controls on individuals relating, for example, to householder developments, and adequate controls on proposals which might unduly affect the environment or amenity of an area. The challenge here is in the detail. We note that a general review is being undertaken for updating permitted development rights. We believe that what may or may not be seen to be a 'minor development' is somewhat subjective. In our experience a relatively small development may be of major concern to individuals involved. So we would be concerned if rights of appeal were to be abolished in cases in which genuine amenity issues were involved.
RICS Scotland:RICS Scotland would welcome the introduction of a standard template for the handbook for householder applications which should be made available to all local authority planning departments.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Roberts, GM: Welcome less control over householder developments. However it is often only when a householder's privacy/amenity might be affected, by for example a conservatory, that the majority of people get involved in planning, seeking to protect their home environment, and probably their biggest investment. You would be surprised how many people decide to move home, after a neighbour has obtained planning consent for a relatively minor domestic application. Welcome review of PD Rights, particularly in respect of hopefully controlling inappropriate development at airports and some agricultural exemptions.
Warren Consultants: Contrary to the White Paper, we feel that there is a case to amend the Use Classes Order. The failure of the current Order is apparent in its application to, for example, the issue of vitality and viability in shopping centres. Class 1 includes uses which are very often not vital and viable from a retail point of view e.g. post offices, laundries, hairdressers, whereas other uses can be very beneficial to a shopping centre e.g. cafes, restaurants etc. We feel there is a particular need to look at the definitions and in particular re-examine the definitions of Class 1, 2 and 3.
Academic Bodies and Individuals
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: The review of permitted development rights is welcome but it is important to note that minor developments need interventions in some cases. In particular, there is a need for an urgent update with respect to tests of functionality and viability of essential dwellings. We would recommend a new test of SD for all developments in the countryside.
Community Councils
Broughty Ferry Community Council: Any development involving listed buildings or conservation areas should not be considered as minor and there should be an enhanced call-in mechanism (or preferably appeal) which can be triggered by third parties. An example would be applications contravening the development plan where a specious "material consideration" is put forward to justify approval. Such "material considerations" (loopholes) should be subject to independent assessment by a planning expert.
Culter Community Council: We had some initial concerns even opposition to removing minor developments such as house extensions and other improvements to houses and garden grounds from the full planning process. We were somewhat reassured that 'adequate controls will remain', 'a handbook will be produced to assist householders in interpreting what is permitted development and to assist in enforcement in planning control'. However having been involved in the past with contentious minor developments
at the request of neighbours the members of CCC have some remaining concerns and questions on which they need clarification and reassurance before fully accepting the proposals: Will plans still be lodged with the planning department? Will control of minor developments still be robust, including enforcement, through Planning Department Officers? Will neighbours be notified by Local Authorities' Planning Departments and be given 21 days to respond to their neighbour's intentions especially if they have legitimate objections? We feel this is even more crucial under the changes proposed. Will the Minor Developments still be listed on the Weekly Planning Lists so that community councils will be aware of house improvements imminent in their area, that they are 'legitimate' and if necessary they can scrutinise the proposals/plans? We consider all of the above points vital not only to ease the work of community councils but also in the interests of transparency, fairness and building public confidence in the new system. It is proposed that appeals for minor developments should be through the courts only. For some 'permitted developments' this may be the best route but for small scale single house or flat or garden ground appeals could this not be dealt with at the local level in a manner similar to that proposed for Local Developments before an expensive and costly court appeal is necessary?
Currie Community Council: We would prefer to see these reduced in scope with certain developments (additional habitable rooms, but not small porches, for example) made subject to planning approval. Once again, the only recourse an individual would have to objecting to a "Minor Development" would be through the Courts. This seems intended to allow a planning authority/planning officials to decide what is appropriate without reference to the Local Community. This would be unjust. It is not clear what will happen when "fewer small-scale developments such as home improvements [ e.g. window replacement in a flat in a multi-occupancy building?] will be subject to development management scrutiny". Some controls are required. The extension of permitted development rights is not something we would regard favourably without seeing the proposals.
Edrom, Allanton & Whitsome Community Council: We are supportive, as we often wonder why our views are sought on some planning applications.
Fortrose & Rosemarkie Community Council: It seems somewhat unfair that objectors to a Minor development decision should be forced to incur the cost of an appeal to the Court,
Foulden, Mordington & Lamberton Community Council: The intention to "take out of planning" most minor developments, especially those that relate to single homesteads (unless in a conservation area or a listed building) was encouraging for local residents.
Garioch Area Forum of Community Councils: The definition of 'Minor Developments' gives cause for concern. It is proposed to remove many of these from the planning system, but there is a serious risk of inappropriate work being done to private houses. Possible problems include such items as unsuitable replacement windows or poorly sited conservatories. We foresee considerable potential for disputes between neighbours, and the problem of enforcing reinstatement, if required, could be a major headache.
Kinghorn Community Council: Removal of restriction would need to be carefully balanced against what development is permissible and to what standard the design and material used are acceptable. Whilst the aesthetic value may not be seen as a consideration in planning, perhaps an example might be the defacing nature of satellite dishes that sprout like mushrooms.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: This community council tentatively welcomes, with reservation, the removal of certain householder developments from the planning application process and the extension of Permitted Development Rights, subject to the contents of the general review. The community council are concerned, however that such things as electronic communications and mobile phone developments, mineral developments, industrial developments and development at airports are to be subject to review, given the current drive towards the liberalisation of planning legislation. We hope that the review will look at the case for the removal of certain permitted development rights, as well as their potential extension.
Merchiston Community Council: Taking householder applications out of the planning application process could be dangerous, although guidance in the proposed handbook (if mandatory) could help to set higher standards of design. The insistence on a much more active role for the Community Council should also be extended to the preparation of the handbook for householder developments - as doing so might go a long way towards assuaging some of the worries associated with the removal of householder applications from the planning application process.
Milngavie Community Council: The boundary between 'local developments' and 'small-scale developments' may be difficult to define. If 'small-scale' developments are to be taken out of the scope of the planning system are they still to be subject to 'neighbour notification' by the planning authority? As a Community Council we cannot, and do not, look at such applications generally but realise that they can cause considerable friction and do sometimes have wider implications. Essentially, however, they must be left to neighbours for comment.
Pitlochry & Moulin Community Council: Would this proposal require an objector to have to go through a court procedure incurring possible high costs because a neighbour is possibly causing problems by a development not now requiring planning permission. If this is the case we wish to object strongly to this proposal. But, whatever we still need clarification on this point.
Portobello Community Council (and Amenity Society): If there is to be an extension of permitted development rights to allow minor developments to avoid the planning system there will need to be safeguards or a monitoring system to pick up abuse of the new system. There will also have to be improvements to planning enforcement.
Voluntary Organisations
Cockburn Association: At the lower end of the scale minor modifications to buildings can have a significant impact on the quality of historic properties. In addition, we have over the years seen numerous examples of 'minor modifications' to approved planning applications which have had a serious impact on the overall design of a property. The Association wishes to see planning departments reject minor modifications which are quite clearly major alterations from the original planning consent.
Ferryhill Heritage Society: We must express great concern regarding these proposals. There has been no indication what is considered "minor". We feel that to adopt this issue will cause undue distress for neighbours and the wider community.
Garden History Society: The establishment of permitted development rights for certain householder developments and removal of the need for a planning application also causes us some concerns. This could have serious implications for designed landscapes in which the principal building has been converted to housing units, and, or enabling development has been permitted in the landscape. Individual small changes undertaken by the various owners could, collectively, have a major detrimental impact on the landscape.
Helensburgh Study Group: Getting minor decisions out of the main planning system seems in principle, sensible. Much will depend on practice and what items are in the Permitted Development category and the handbook. Some form of neighbour involvement and locaI appeal may be needed.
Planning Aid Scotland: The principle of removing minor developments from the planning system is supported. It would be important that any changes to an already complicated GPDG were as simple to understand as possible.
Scottish Council for National Parks: Minor developments can often be of great concern between neighbours, for example and SCNP is concerned that the only redress for an aggrieved party would be through the courts. This seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut and most people would be unable to pursue such a course.
Scottish Health Impact Assessment Network: Development management is an area where health concerns should be considered. We note the white paper's reference to the balance that needs to be struck between unnecessary and adequate controls about householder developments. A more streamlined process for minor development should not preclude the opportunity to engage with the planning process as an objector as well as applicant. For example, neighbourhood and neighbour disputes have many health impacts including, but not limited to, the sense of control and security people feel about their own lives and their sense of involvement and empowerment in relation to civic and public organisations.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: There is insufficient detail in the white paper to provide useful comment. SWT's main concern is that any streamlined system of control could potentially undermine the role that planning authorities can play in protecting species, such as nesting birds and roosting bats that could be affected by minor developments or changes to buildings.
Society of Antiquaries of Scotland: Removal of minor developments from the development management system - we would have some concerns about this being brought through with no exceptions. There are instances where even minor development could be damaging to the site or setting of archaeological monuments, and we would urge that provision be made for retaining the need for development management in areas of known archaeological sensitivity. For example, to use the Antonine Wall as an example again, there are existing farm buildings and housing developments which lie directly over parts of the Wall and its forts, where further ground disturbance could be damaging to the archaeological remains still surviving.
West Kilbride Amenity Society: We welcome the review of the extent to which very small developments can be removed from the scope of the Planning System
Private Individuals
Anonymous: I would also welcome an attempt to remove from the planning system certain types of minor developments by householders, as long as the amenity of others and the environment is not compromised.
Armstrong, Pam: If the Scottish Executive is genuinely committed to an, "environmentally responsible Scotland", then small-scale development should be of equal concern as larger ones. 50,000 small scale applications can have a huge impact on the environment. As the environment is crucial to our survival and that of wildlife, i would suggest that a site visit is vital in every application. How else can an informed decision be made?
Wall, J Mrs: I do not support the removal of minor developments from the planning system. This could be open to awful abuse by Council, Councillors and applicants. There are so many loopholes for wily applicants these need to be tightened up not made easier.
Wolff, Sula Dr: Minor developments of listed buildings and of buildings in conservation areas should still require planning permission
Politicians and Political Groups
Kennedy, Margaret Councillor: I would expect that there will be extensive consultation with LAs regarding those categories of development which will not require planning permission. Great care needs to be taken in identifying applications falling within this category as there is the potential for increased neighbour disputes.