Changes to Permitted Development – Changes to Householder Permitted Development Rights 14 Section 4 Recommendations on Types of Householder Permitted Development 51. WYG considered the permitted development rights currently enjoyed by householders in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. Part 1 sets out a range of permitted development rights for dwellinghouses. Part 2 sets out rights in relation to boundaries, new accesses and exterior painting; it applies to all classes of development as well as residential. The WYG report provides a thorough assessment of the current system and how that should be developed to deliver a more permissive system whilst properly controlling impacts on others. 52. Only a very brief summary of the contents of that report are outlined in this section and consultees are advised to refer to that document to understand how the detailed limits described below have been arrived at. Parts of the text in this section have been drawn directly from the WYG report. 53. In summary, no significant change is proposed to the permitted development rights already contained in Part 2 of the GPDO. Substantial amendment is proposed, however, for those types of development contained in Part 1 with the exception of development in relation to porches and microwave antennas. 54. WYG suggest that Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO should be replaced with a new development order covering just householder development – a “Householder Permitted Development Order” (HPDO). Question 10 – Would there be benefit in having a separate development order containing just permitted development rights for householders? 55. The limits proposed for the various categories of development in this section are also framed with reference to a number of new definitions proposed by WYG. It is expected that these revised definitions will address some of the current problems and anomalies that the existing GPDO throws up. The new proposed definitions are for “original dwellinghouse”, “original rear wall”, “principal elevation” and “side wall”. More information on these proposals is contained at paragraphs 4.14 – 4.18 and 7.24 of the WYG report. Question 11 – Do you have any comments on the proposed definitions? Extensions Current Situation 56. The permitted development rights for extensions are currently set out in Class A of Part 1 of the GPDO. The GPDO deals with extensions by setting limits in terms of volume. It sets a cumulative limit depending on the type of house and where it is located. WYG highlighted two particular problems with the current approach. First, it places an artificial limit on the enlargement of larger properties even though cumulative extensions beyond the 70m3 may not give rise to any problems. Secondly, if the rear of a property faces a highway any rear extension within 20m of the rear boundary would require an application for planning permission. 15 Proposal 57. Extensions are the most common type of householder development both in terms of what is permitted development and development which requires a planning application. Chapter 4 of WYG’s report shows the considerable work done by them to draw up the limits of permitted development for this class of development. This led to the limits proposed below: 1. No extension to come forward of the principal elevation of a dwellinghouse or side elevation facing a highway (where the principal or side elevations are stepped, the rearmost part of that elevation is taken to be the principal or side elevation) 2. The maximum depth of single storey extension behind the original main rear wall of the house to be 4m for attached dwellinghouses and 5m for detached dwellinghouses (if the rear wall is stepped, the limitation on the depth of extension will similarly be stepped) 3. The maximum depth of an extension more than 1 storey (or 4m high) behind the original main rear wall of the house to be 3m for attached dwellinghouses and 4m for detached dwellinghouses 4. Within 2m of any boundary, the maximum eaves height of an extension to be 3m, and the maximum overall height to be 3m with a flat roof and 4m with a pitched roof 5. The maximum eaves and ridge height of an extension to be no higher than the existing dwellinghouse 6. To the sides of a dwellinghouse, extensions to be single storey only and no higher than 4m high, and no wider than half the width of the original dwellinghouse 7. 2 storey extensions to be located no closer than 7m to the rear boundary, or no closer than the existing rear wall of the dwellinghouse if this is closer than 7m to the rear boundary 8. The roof pitch of extensions higher than 1 storey (4m) to match that of the existing house 9. Any side-facing windows on extensions higher than 1 storey to be obscure- glazed and non-opening 10. Materials to match those of the existing dwellinghouse 11. No raised terraces, verandahs or balconies, including railings, walls or balustrades to be added to the dwellinghouse 12. Maximum 50% coverage (including outbuildings) of the private garden area • in designated areas, side extensions should require planning permission Section 4 – Recommendations on Types of Householder Permitted Development Changes to Permitted Development – Changes to Householder Permitted Development Rights 16 • in designated areas, all forms of cladding should require planning permission Question 12 – Do you agree with the proposed limits for extensions? Roof Extensions Current Situation 58. As WYG recognised in their report, roof extensions are dealt with differently in the GPDO (Class B of Part 1) from other extensions. Roof extensions are the second most common type of householder development and are particularly prevalent in urban areas. As with other extensions, WYG’s approach suggests a move away from the current volume-based approach. However, evidence provided by the Local Government Ombudsman showed that overlarge dormers were responsible for a significant number of their complaints – suggesting, at least, that the current rights may allow development with an unacceptably high impact. Proposal 59. Chapter 5 of WYG’s report again shows the significant work undertaken to assess acceptable limits for this class of development. The final proposals seek to address the potential impacts of overlarge box dormers on neighbours by requiring that they are set back from the roof edges, which reduces their visual impact whilst still permitting householders to install dormers. As such, impact is properly limited whilst still providing an acceptable level of permissiveness for householders. The proposed limits are: 1. No roof extension to come forward of any roof plane of the principal elevation of a dwellinghouse or any side elevation (where the principal or side elevations is stepped, the rearmost part of that elevation is taken to be the principal or side elevation) 2. Roof extensions to be a minimum of 1m above eaves, 1m below ridge, 1m from the side verge and where applicable 1m from the party wall. Where the roof of a dwellinghouse is hipped, a roof extension may be a minimum of 0.5m from the hipped roof. Where a terraced property has a two storey rear outrigger, the roof extension may intersect with the roof of the outrigger 3. Materials to match those of the existing dwellinghouse 4. No raised terraces, verandahs or balconies, including railings, walls or balustrades added to the dwellinghouse 5. Any side-facing windows to be obscure-glazed and non-opening • in designated areas, all roof extensions should require planning permission Question 13 – Do you agree with the proposed limits for roof extensions? 17 Roof Alterations 60. WYG did not focus on roof alterations in the same way as other types of householder development. This was because they were aware of the work undertaken by Entec on householder microgeneration that, because of the need to consider the installation of solar panels on roofs, had already sought to use an impact-based approach to determine what roof alterations should be permitted. 61. Entec’s work recommended that solar panels should be permitted on roofs subject to them projecting no more than 150mm from the existing roof plane. Entec reason that while there would be a visual impact by allowing this degree of flexibility, it would be acceptable. Proposal 62. In terms of restrictions for the coverage of a surface, Entec proposed that development should be limited so that coverage would not exceed 60% of a roof or wall. However, the Government considers that it is arguable as to whether there is necessarily a correlation between the extent of the coverage of panels and their visual impact in the way the report suggests. We propose that there should be no such limit. The proposals therefore are: 1. Maximum upstand of 150mm 2. No maximum % roof coverage • in designated areas, no alteration to the roof plane of a principal elevation Question 14 – Do you agree with the proposed limits for roof alterations? Curtilage Developments Current Situation 63. These developments include all freestanding structures or works within the boundaries of a property, including outbuildings, garages and swimming pools. Current limitations on outbuildings rely on volume calculations. Evidence gained from the Local Government Ombudsman suggests there is disquiet from neighbours in relation to large outbuildings near to neighbouring properties. Proposal 64. WYG’s approach was to seek to address curtilage developments by reference to height, floor area and proximity to the boundary. Thorough testing and further refinement of the preferred option led to the proposals below. Section 4 – Recommendations on Types of Householder Permitted Development Changes to Permitted Development – Changes to Householder Permitted Development Rights 18 65. Some concern has been expressed about the inappropriate use of outbuildings as living accommodation. Local planning authorities are already able to address any misuse of permitted development rights by using the enforcement powers at their disposal. Local authorities also have powers, under housing legislation, to prohibit the use of accommodation if that use is unsuitable because it poses a risk to the health and safety of occupiers. 1. No outbuilding, garage or swimming pool to come forward of the principal elevation of a dwellinghouse or a side elevation facing a highway (where the principal elevation is stepped, the rearmost part of that elevation is taken to be the principal elevation) 2. Outbuildings and garages to be single storey only 3. The maximum eaves height of outbuildings and garages to be 2.5m, and the maximum overall height to be 4m with a dual pitched roof, or 3m with a monopitched roof 4. Within 2m of a boundary the maximum overall height to be 2.5m 5. The maximum combined ground coverage of all garages and outbuildings to be 30 sq m if the private garden area exceeds 100 sq m, or 20 sq m if the private garden area is less than 100 sq m 6. No raised terraces, verandahs or balconies, including railings, walls or balustrades added to the dwellinghouse 7. Maximum 50% coverage (including extensions) of the private garden area 8. Maximum height of decking to be 0.3m • in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and World Heritage Sites, the maximum area to be covered by outbuildings, garages and swimming pools located more than 20 metres from the host dwellinghouse to be limited to 10 sq m • in designated areas, outbuildings at the side of properties should require planning permission • within the curtilage of listed buildings, any outbuilding greater than 3 sq m should require planning permission Question 15 – Do you agree with the proposed limits for curtilage developments?