Scottish Government

5.0 KEY FINDINGS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS

This section outlines the main findings from the questionnaire surveys.

A questionnaire was distributed to all Scottish planning authorities and 102 other organizations, seeking views on the main issues arising from the operation of each Part of the GPDO, and inviting suggestions for improvement.

Figure 2 shows the number of responses received to each part of the GPDO. This gives an indication of the level of concern by local authority planning officers and others about specific PDR. Responses of LA planning officers were differentiated from others because the former deal with all aspects of the GPDO. However it should be emphasized that the 'other organizations' is not a homogeneous grouping, since it includes organizations which benefit from PDR (and in the main wish to see these retained or extended) and organizations which have concerns about built and natural heritage (and wish to see some reduction in PDR for some Classes of permitted development).

Figure 2 shows that more than half of Local Authority planning officers had various concerns about Parts 1 (development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse), 2 (sundry minor operations), 4 (temporary buildings and uses), 5 (caravan sites), 6 (agricultural buildings and operations), 7 (forestry buildings and operations), 8 (industrial and warehouse development), 12 (development by local authorities), 13 (development by statutory undertakers), 20 (development by telecommunication code systems operators) and 23 (demolition of buildings).

For other organizations, more than half of respondents had various concerns about Parts 4, 6 and 9 (repairs to private roads and private ways). For both planning officers and other organizations, these concerns reflected a variety of different issues, ranging from the need to reduce or extend PDR, to clarifying terminology.

There were very few or no concerns about Parts 10 (repairs to services), 14 (aviation development) ³⁰, 15 (mineral exploration), 16 (development ancillary to mining operations), 17 (coal mining development by the Coal Authority and its licensees), 18 (waste tipping at a mine), 19 (removal of material from mineral working deposits), 21 (other telecommunications development), 22 (development at amusement parks) and 24 (toll road facilities).

Figure 2: Frequency of response by GPDO Part

Specific concerns were as follows.

Part 4: Temporary Buildings and Uses (Classes 14-15)

Concerns were expressed about the definition of 'temporary' and the operation of the 28 day limit.

Part 5: Caravan Sites (Classes 16-17)

Concerns were expressed about the definition of a 'caravan' and 'caravan site', and that the relationship between this part of the GPDO and the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 should be reviewed.

Part 6: Agricultural Buildings and Operations (Classes 18-21)

Principal concerns were: the visual and other environmental impacts of hill tracks; the need to clarify and simplify the wording across all three Classes; the review/removal of prior notification and the consequent bringing of all such development under planning control; suggestions that Class 20 (Land Drainage Works) should be independent from this Part, given concerns about the impact of such works unassociated with agricultural operations.

Part 7: Forestry Buildings and Operations (Class 22)

Concerns about the impact of hill tracks, the review/removal of prior notification and the consequent requirement for a planning application for such works, and the need to review the relationship between PDR for forestry tracks and the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements for forestry developments.

Part 8: Industrial and warehouse Development (Classes 23-26)

Main concerns were: a review/relaxation of permitted development limits; clarification of definitions such as 'materially affect external appearance'.

Part 9: Repairs to Private Roads and Private Ways (Class 27)

There were concerns about: definitions - 'road', 'repairs', 'maintenance' and 'improvement'; the scope for constructing hill tracks under this Class (in light of concerns expressed about Classes 18 and 22); the reduction/removal of PDR within designated areas.

Part 10: Repairs to Services (Classes 28-29)

The very limited response to this Part of the GPDO generally sought restrictions of PDR within designated areas.

Part 11: Development Under Local or Private Acts or Orders (Class 29)

Main concerns were: the need to clarify the interpretation/relevance of this Class in relation to other legislation.

Part12: Development by Local Authorities (Classes 30-33)

Main concerns were: the need to review the present £100k financial limit for works by local authorities; scope for rationalization into a single Class.

Part 13: Development by Statutory Undertakers (Classes 34-43)

Views here were polarized depending on whether the respondent was a statutory undertaker (in which case rights should remain or be extended) or LA planning officer or conservation body (in which cases rights should be restricted or removed). Main concerns of LA planning officers were: generally reduce rights within designated areas, and specifically remove rights for ground based radio masts for railway undertakers; statutory undertakers were forthright in their claim that such rights were essential to enable them to carry out their statutory duties. Otherwise, there were concerns about the definition of 'operational land', and the scope for simplification/clarification/rationalization in order to remove the need for Article 4 Directions.

Part 14: Aviation Development (Classes 44-52)

There were concerns about anomalies between the GPDO and Aerodrome Safeguarding requirements, particularly concerning the scope for permitted developments within airport safeguarding zones, and the need to update the GPDO in relation to the provisions of the Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2001 Part III. This was raised by both the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services.

Part 15: Mineral Exploration (Classes 53-54)

There were only three responses to this aspect, which suggested scope for rationalization into one Class.

Part 16: Development Ancillary to Mining Operations (Classes 55-57)

There were only two responses to this aspect, suggesting rationalization/simplification.

Part 17: Coal Mining Development by the Coal Authority etc (Classes 58-62)

There was one response, raising concerns about potential risks to archaeological deposits.

Part 18: Waste Tipping at a Mine (Classes 63-64)

There was one response, raising concerns about potential risks to archaeological deposits.

Part 19: Removal of Material from Mineral Working Deposits (Classes 65-66)

There were 3 responses, two of which suggested need for simplification of these Classes and including one which questioned the continuing validity of this Class.

Part 20: Development by Telecommunication Code Systems Operators

Telecommunications Code System Operators were strongly of the view that, in the light of recent reform to this Class, further amendment was unnecessary. However, concerns were expressed by local authority planning officers about: the need to simplify language; explain technical terms such as 'apparatus' and 'supporting apparatus'; the need to review PDR within designated areas; review the scope for mast sharing. Operators argued that the provisions of this Class discourage, rather than encourage mast sharing. National Grid Wireless made detailed recommendations for amendments to this Class.

Part 21: Other Telecommunications Development (Class 68)

Main concerns were: define 'building'; extend PDR for satellite antennae on flats; extend rights to facilitate sharing of ground based masts.

Part 22: Development at Amusement Parks (Class 69)

There were no responses to this Class.

Part 23: Demolition of Buildings (Class 70)

There were general concerns about the interpretation of whether demolition needs permission and, if so, when it is permitted, suggesting need for a review of this Class in relation to the 'Demolition Which Is Not Development' Direction.

Part 24: Toll Road Facilities (Class 71)

There were no responses to this Class.

Part 25: CCTV Cameras (Class 72)

There were two main concerns: the need to review development thresholds; clarify/simplify the terms of this Class.

Figure 3 shows more detail on responses calling for the reduction or removal of rights. Principal concerns related to hill tracks under Class 18 farm tracks (Part 6), Class 22 forest tracks (Part 7), and Class 27 repairs to private roads and ways (Part 9), which some felt was being distorted in order to justify new, extensive tracks. Main concerns about these Classes were expressed by conservation bodies and access groups.

The main concerns of LA planning officers related to development by Statutory Undertakers, principally Class 34 railway undertakings (Part 13). However, it should be noted that, overall, a minority of LA planning officers and other organizations made suggestions for reduction or removal of existing PDR.

Hazardous substances

It was noted that the Health and Safety Executive expressed concern about the relationship of permitted development to consultation zones established as a consequence of a Hazardous Substances Consent, and arising from the Seveso Directive (Council Directive 96/82/ EC as amended by Council Directive 2003/105/ EC). HSE advises that, in order to comply with the Directive, all development within such zones should be subject to HSE consultation. This has implications for the GPDO as a whole.

Figure 3: Permitted Development Recommended for removal (responses from the questionnaire survey)

From this initial analysis, we identified those parts of the GPDO that required major and minor reform, as summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Indicative Need for GPDO Reform

Overall, this part of the research indicated that, in relation to Schedule 1 of the GPDO:

There was scope to extend PDR for:

• Part 1: Development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse (addressed in the companion research report on Householder Development)
• Part 8: Industrial and warehouse development
• Part12: Development by Local Authorities
• Part 21: Other telecommunications development
• Part 25: CCTV cameras

PDR might be reduced or removed for:

• Part 6: Agricultural buildings and operations
• Part 7: Forestry buildings and operations
• Part 10: Repairs to services

There is no clear call for change to PDR for:

• Part 3: Changes of use (but note that responses were not invited on this Part)
• Part 17: Coal mining development by the Coal Authority
• Part 18: Waste tipping at a mine
• Part 22: Development at amusement parks
• Part 24: Toll road facilities

In contrast, there was significant polarization of views about whether PDR should be reduced, left unchanged or extended for:

• Part 2: Sundry minor operations
• Part 13: Development by statutory undertakers
• Part 20: Development by telecommunication code systems operators
• Part 23: Demolition of buildings.

Follow-up interviews and workshops sought to further explore the scope and justification for reducing, retaining or extending permitted development, where the need for reform so indicated.

Possible new PDR

The questionnaire invited views on three areas where PDR might be introduced: microrenewables ³¹, minor modifications to waste management operations, and developments required as a consequence of variations to Waste Management Licences.

Figure 4 shows that there was very strong support for introducing PDR for micro-renewable equipment, for both domestic and non-domestic properties, subject to specification of limits on height and noise, and exclusions within Conservation Areas and on Listed Buildings. Both local authority planning officers and other organizations showed such support.

In contrast, there was very limited support, especially among local authority planning officers, for introducing PDR for development associated with a variation to a Waste Management License. This proposal arises out of the Environmental Resources Management Report which considered the interaction between land use planning and environmental regulation. ³² The general concern of those opposed to both types of development was that waste management should be considered through the normal application process due to its potentially significant environmental impacts.

Figure 4: Additional Permitted Development: responses from the questionnaire survey.

These responses indicate that further research and consultation was required on these aspects. This is plainly so in the case of developments associated with waste management operations, because of the conflicting views among industry representatives, local authority planning officers, and other organizations. In the case of micro-renewables, although the support extends to all types of respondent, there was a need to identify potential permitted development limits, and whether there should be any limits and exclusions within designated areas.

Further research on these aspects comprised follow-up interviews and workshops with planning officers from 12 local authorities and representatives of 34 other organizations with strong views and/or expertise on these aspects, by means of specific research questions discussed and agreed with the Research Steering Group. Responses to these key questions are summarized in the section of this report where we discuss our recommendations and their underpinning rationale.