committee report General Permitted Development Order SPT response to consultation

Transcription

1 committee report General Permitted Development Order SPT response to consultation Committee Strategy and Programmes Date of meeting 24 June 2011 Date of report 1 June 2011 Report by Assistant Chief Executive (Business Support) 1. Object of report To seek Committee approval for SPT s response to the consultation by the Scottish Government on potential revisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). SPT s draft response is attached at Appendix 1 and the consultation period closes on 1 July Background The Scottish Government is seeking views on its proposals to amend Permitted Development Rights (PDR). The consultation relates to planning legislation which exempts certain development from the need for an application for planning permission, often referred to as permitted development rights. The Scottish Government is seeking views on the GPDO with the aim of: establishing a clear purpose for permitted development rights and making the provisions of the GPDO more proportionate, streamlined, clearer and easier to use; reducing bureaucracy and the need for planning applications where scrutiny adds little or no value individually or cumulatively; updating and assessing the continuing relevance of the various classes; and aligning the GPDO with the planning reform agenda, in particular with current legislation and planning policy. 3. Outline of proposals SPT s draft response has sought to highlight: The need for clarification of PDR, equivalent to those available to the heavy rail industry, for the Glasgow Subway; The need for PDR for SPT and equivalent public transport authorities to alter and expand bus stations; S&P/24 JUNE 11/6036 Page 1 of 2

2 The need for PDR for SPT and equivalent public transport authorities to provide bus infrastructure such as bus stances and small passenger facilities (currently only available to roads authorities); and The need for restrictions on PDR for new building work above the Glasgow Subway tunnels. The need for SPT to be designated as a statutory consultee for consultation on planning applications in the vicinity of the Subway SPT s response letter confirms our willingness to continue to engage in discussions with the Scottish Government about the options for PDR for public transport facilities as noted above. 4. Conclusion Unlike statutory rail, airport and roads authorities, SPT does not enjoy PDR for its Subway, bus station and other public transport buildings and facilities. SPT s response to the Scottish Government s consultation seeks an alteration to the existing order to extend PDR to cover these buildings and facilities and, if appropriate, to otherwise clarify rights for the Subway. 5. Committee action The Committee is recommended to approve the response attached at Appendix 1 and to note SPT s request to the Scottish Government that PDR be extended to public transport facilities for Subway and bus. 6. Consequences Policy consequences Legal consequences Financial consequences Personnel consequences Social inclusion consequences Risk consequences In line with the Regional Transport Strategy. Changes to the current GPDO would enable SPT to take forward certain limited development without the need to seek planning permission. Name Valerie Davidson Name Gordon Maclennan Title Assistant Chief Executive (Business Support) S&P/24 JUNE 11/6036 Page 2 of 2 Title Chief Executive For further information, please contact Carol Gilbert on

3 8 June 2011 Mr David Reekie Scottish Government Planning Legislation and Performance 2J (South) Victoria Quay EDINBURGH EH6 6QQ Our ref: Your ref: Direct Dial Direct fax: PRJ0102/6036RCAG APPENDIX carol.gilbert@spt.co.uk Dear Sirs SPT Response: Consultation on Non-Domestic Elements of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this Consultation. This is relevant to SPT as the owner and operator of a range of public transport services and facilities in the west of Scotland. SPT is the statutory Regional Transport Partnership covering twelve councils in the west of Scotland. In addition to transport planning functions, SPT is the owner and operator of the Glasgow Subway carrying around fourteen million passengers each year, provides bus stations including Scotland s largest, Buchanan and provides demand responsive transport and school bus services. SPT is a public transport authority in terms of responsibilities for bus provided under Transport Scotland Acts. Unlike statutory rail, airport and roads authorities, SPT does not enjoy any Permitted Development Rights (PDR) for its subway, bus station and other public transport buildings and facilities. In answering the questions below, I would particularly wish to highlight: The need for PDR, equivalent to those for rail, for the Glasgow Subway or clarification that the existing PDR classes for rail also relate to the Subway The need for PDR for SPT and equivalent public transport authorities to alter and expand bus stations The need for PDR for SPT and equivalent public transport authorities to provide other bus infrastructure such as bus stances and small passenger facilities (currently only available to roads authorities) The need for restrictions on PDR for new building work above the Subway tunnels The need for SPT to be designated as a statutory consultee for consultation on planning applications in the vicinity of the Subway Response to Question 1: SPT cannot identify specific costs and benefits. Generic costs for planning applications for subway and bus stations equate to less than one per cent of overall major project costs taking account of the preparation of applications, timescales and compliance with planning conditions. However, for minor developments the costs of applications and compliance with planning conditions may be proportionately higher. sp240611_agenda12- app1 Page 1 of 5

4 Response to Question 2: For the most part, the scale of relaxations to planning control is limited and unlikely to result in significant environmental disbenefits. SPT would like to see PDR for existing public transport facilities; namely the Subway, bus stations and other bus interchanges. PDR for these facilities is likely to have a positive environmental effect as it will make it easier to provide enhanced public transport facilities encouraging more people to travel by public transport rather than car and lead to a reduction in emissions associated with modal shift to public transport. In addition, cities would benefit from a reduction in emissions related to congestion and from a reduction in the demand for car parking, allowing land in town centres to be available for different purposes. Response to Question 3: SPT has carried out an equality impact assessment of its regional transport strategy and this is available if required. It is suggested that this supports our request for PDR on the basis that public transport is of greater benefit to the various identified equality groups than the general population. Response to Question 4: SPT would support the basis of the recent research into PDR for minor operations to improve disability access points subject to there being no adverse third party impacts. It is recognised that alterations will be required to all public buildings and facilities to improve access by people with a disability. At present, such works would require planning applications at bus stations. In addressing the challenges of climate change, SPT considers that sustainable transport including active travel and public transport can help to meet travel needs with less environmental impact and hence less CO2 emissions with related adverse impacts on climate change. Providing PDR to public transport authorities removes some of the cost and procedural barriers to developing and expanding interchange and public transport facilities that make a significant contribution to effective sustainable transport infrastructure. This adds further weight to our request for PDR for public transport facilities. Response to Question 5: As noted in response to Question 4, the present scope of PDR classes is imbalance in terms of meeting government s objectives of promoting sustainable transport. At present generous PDR are available for, railways, aviation, harbours, industrial and warehouse premises and their related car parking, and on-road walking and cycling infrastructure. Extending PDR to public transport authorities for bus and Subway development would address this imbalance. Response to Question 6: No comments. sp240611_agenda12- app1 Page 2 of 5

5 Response to Question 7: No comments. Response to Question 8: SPT supports a new category of PDR for charging infrastructure for electric vehicles as this will encourage a wider uptake of electric vehicle use. In addition, it is suggested that a change of use of land to provide off road parking spaces for electric vehicle charging points is also included in this PDR category. Response to Question 9: The clarification on electric vehicle charging points would appear to be clear and reasonable, subject to including rights to provide the parking space itself. Response to Question 10: In SPT s view, deemed advertisement consent for the charging point provider would be useful. There is a need to increase public awareness of electric vehicles and charging points to encourage their use in meeting climate change objectives for transport. A larger name plate size of 100cm2 is suggested rather than the 70cm2 identified in Paragraph 51. Response to Question 11: Response to Question 12: SPT has no contrary view to the need for PDR for the construction of new buildings in relation to industrial and warehouse development. However, we repeat our concern that there is no PDR for public transport facilities. Response to Question 13: SPT supports the requirement to include the need for adequate drainage in new hard surfaces constructed under PDR. Response to Question 14: No comments. Response to Question 15: In supporting a move for the extension of PDR more widely, SPT would again highlight the need to include the provision of public transport facilities by public transport authorities within PDR. Response to Question 16: SPT agrees that PDR should be more widely available for extensions to existing buildings, up to set limits. sp240611_agenda12- app1 Page 3 of 5

6 Response to Question 17: In extending PDR to pavement cafes, some further consideration would be required in relation to ensuring access to adjacent public facilities, if appropriate, such as bus stops. Response to Question 18: SPT supports the principle of extending PDR to this wider range of businesses, up to set limits. Without the identification of set limits there is a risk that extensions could significantly intensify the use of the site and lead to significant traffic impacts. Response to Question 19: Response to Question 20: Response to Question 21: Response to Question 22: Response to Question 23: Response to Question 24: SPT recognises that in future, more facilities will be required to collect, sort, re-use and process waste. As such, it is appropriate to have PDR for waste management facilities relating to all business uses and public facilities. Response to Question 25: Response to Question 26: This clarification would seem to be helpful and promote sustainable construction practices. Response to Question 27: These proposals would seem to be clear and reasonable. sp240611_agenda12- app1 Page 4 of 5

7 Conclusion: I trust the above comments will be of assistance to you and would welcome the opportunity for further discussion about PDR to assist public transport authorities in providing public transport facilities in a timely and cost effective way. Bus provides around 80% of public transport journeys in Scotland and the Glasgow Subway makes a significant contribution to meeting travel needs around the heart of the Glasgow conurbation. Interchanges and bus stations are important elements of effective public transport and in our view should be considered for PDR as part of these wider proposals for change. This would address the imbalance of PDR for bus and subway facilities in comparison with the availability of PDR for the wider transport sector in Scotland operated by statutory undertakers, including their successor commercial operators. We would also specifically welcome clarification of PDR for the Glasgow Subway in terms of Class 34: Railway and light railway undertakings and, otherwise, the extension of PDR for SPT as a public transport authority for this public transport facility. Yours sincerely Gordon Maclennan Chief Executive sp240611_agenda12- app1 Page 5 of 5