Permitted Development Rights (PDR) - review and extension: consultation analysis
Analysis of responses to a public consultation on phase 1 of the Scottish Government’s programme to review and extend Permitted Development Rights (PDR).
2 Digital Telecoms Infrastructure
2.1 The first development type considered by the consultation paper was digital telecoms infrastructure. The consultation paper set out specific proposals for the extension of PDR for digital telecoms infrastructure, including those relating to existing and replacement ground-based masts, antennas and small cell systems, equipment housing cabinets and other equipment on buildings, and underground equipment. A total of 28 questions were asked in relation to these proposals.
New ground-based masts
2.2 The first question sought views on proposals to increase the height limit on PDR for new ground-based masts (from 25 to 30 metres). This would only apply outwith designated areas and be subject to current prior approval requirements.
Q1. Do you agree with an increase in permitted height for new ground-based masts to 30 metres outside designated areas, subject to the existing prior approval regime on siting and appearance?
Q1a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.3 A total of 26 respondents answered the closed element at Question 1, including 24 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 26 respondents, 20 (77%) agreed with the proposal and 6 (23%) disagreed. Those disagreeing with the proposed change were four planning authorities, a private sector and a third sector respondent.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 18 | 6 | 24 | |
| % of organisations | 75% | 25% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 8 | 4 | 12 | |
| Planning authorities | 8 | 4 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| Digital telecoms | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 20 | 6 | 26 | |
| % of all respondents | 77% | 23% | 100% | |
2.4 A total of 21 respondents provided written comment at Question 1, including all six of those who disagreed with the proposed change, and 10 who agreed and a further five who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed highlighted several points in support of the proposal. This included that it constituted a relatively small change to current PDR legislation, that taller ground-based masts would be important to support 5G deployment and improve rural connectivity, and that masts would still be subject to planning authority scrutiny through prior notification/approval provisions. However, most of those providing comment raised concerns or suggested amendment to the proposal.
2.5 Some of those providing comment suggested that masts of up to 30 metres in height could have a potentially significant negative impact on the visual amenity and quality of the local environment. This point was made primarily by planning authorities and other public bodies, and included suggestions that such masts would be incongruous in the context of typical street furniture, and could result in a significant change in the appearance and character of an area. It was also noted that an increase in mast height to 30 metres is likely to require ‘bulkier’ masts or masts with more significant support structures, further increasing visual impact. Reference was also made to Planning Advice Note 62 as recognising the visual impact of ground-based masts.
2.6 Respondents raising concerns about the visual impact of taller masts also included some who suggested that a 30 metre mast would not be acceptable in many urban or residential settings. A planning authority also noted that many current prior notification applications for masts of up to 25 metres are considered unacceptable in their design. Linked to views on the limited suitability of 30 metre masts, concern was expressed that proposals risked normalising taller masts as acceptable across a range of locations.
2.7 The role of prior notification/ prior approval was highlighted by some of those making comment. This included some of those expressing overall support for the proposal, who indicated that this was dependent on a robust system of prior approval and/or raised concerns regarding the adequacy of current prior approval arrangements. Others suggested that the proposed change was not required as current PDR and prior approval worked well, or that the requirement for prior approval negates the benefits of PDR in terms of efficiencies gained.
2.8 Respondents also suggested specific revisions, additions or alternatives to the proposals set out by the consultation document. These are summarised below.
- 30m masts to go through a formal planning process, with strong supportive advice and policy from Scottish Government a material consideration.
- Consider establishing parity with England, with PDR for new ground-based masts in both designated and un-designated areas (subject to prior approval), for example up to 25 metres in designated areas.
- Allow some new masts to be built under PDR without prior approval, to establish parity with fixed operators who can erect telegraph poles and other street furniture without prior approval.
- Expansion of the current prior approval scheme to consider impacts on archaeology, environment and biodiversity.
- A requirement for prior approval from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on ground-based masts within safeguarding zones, or creation of exclusion zones around MOD safeguarded assets.
- A requirement for consultation with relevant authorities where masts would be in close proximity to, or visible from, designated areas.
Existing ground-based masts
2.9 In relation to existing ground-based masts, it is proposed that current PDR should be amended to increase the permitted height and width of existing masts. This included proposals for existing masts under 30 metres, 30-50 metres or more than 50 metres in height, and for an increase in width of existing masts. The PDR would continue to apply across all areas, including designated areas.
Q2. Do you agree that existing ground based masts should be able to be increased in height up to 30 metres (i.e. the same maximum height as for new masts proposed in Q.1) and that the increase should be limited to no more than 50% of the height of the original mast (whichever is the lower)?
Q2a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.10 A total of 27 respondents answered the closed element at Question 2, including 25 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 27 respondents, 14 (52%) agreed with the proposal and 13 (48%) disagreed. Those disagreeing with the proposed change were seven planning authorities, four third sector respondents, a private sector respondent and a planning professional.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 12 | 13 | 25 | |
| % of organisations | 48% | 52% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 6 | 7 | 13 | |
| Planning authorities | 6 | 7 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Private sector | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| Digital telecoms | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 14 | 13 | 27 | |
| % of all respondents | 52% | 48% | 100% | |
2.11 A total of 26 respondents provided written comment at Question 2, including all 13 of those who disagreed with the proposed change, and eight who agreed and a further five who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed highlighted a number of points in support of the proposal, including that proposals represented a relatively minor change which was unlikely to have a significant impact on the environment of existing masts, and could minimise the number of new masts required (for example to support 5G deployment). However, most of those providing comment raised concerns or suggested amendment to the proposal.
2.12 Consistent with comments at Question 1, concerns regarding the potential visual impact of masts appeared to be a key factor for those who disagreed with proposals including for a number of planning authorities. It was suggested that an increase of up to 50% in the height of an existing mast constituted a substantial change and could have a more significant impact on the visual amenity and quality of the local environment. A planning authority also noted that increasing masts to 30 metres in height could require additional support structures, further increasing visual impact.
2.13 Several planning authorities and third sector respondents raised specific objections to proposals applying in designated areas, and suggested that full planning scrutiny or more substantial prior approval arrangements would be required in these cases. Concerns were also raised regarding the suitability of 30 metre masts in un-designated areas. This appeared to reflect views noted above that proposals could permit a significant increase in the visual impact of existing masts with a planning authority suggesting that a significant number of existing masts in their area would not be acceptable at 30 metres.
2.14 Some objections to the proposed change also appeared to reflect concerns that the current prior notification scheme for alteration to existing masts does not provide sufficient opportunity to assess siting and design. However, it is also notable that a private telecoms respondent objected to the proposals as they found that current PDR for existing masts worked well.
2.15 Respondents suggested a number of specific revisions, additions or alternatives to proposals as set out by the consultation. These are summarised below.
- Applying the prior notification/ prior approval scheme that applies to new ground-based masts where the increase in height of existing masts is greater than 20-30% and/or the mast is within a designated area.
- Consider establishing ‘buffer zones’ around designated areas where development of masts and other infrastructure would have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the designated landscape.
- ‘Original mast’ is re-defined to refer to the current structure, where the original mast has been subject to an Amendment Order.
- Extend PDR further to allow for shared mast structures.
- A requirement for prior approval from the MOD for alteration to existing ground-based masts within safeguarding zones, or creation of exclusion zones around MOD safeguarded assets.
- Revision to ensure proposals do not permit erection of a small mast under PDR, and subsequent incremental increases in size while avoiding planning scrutiny.
Q3. Do you agree that we should allow existing masts which are above 30 metres in height to be increased to up to 50 metres in height?
Q3a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.16 A total of 25 respondents answered the closed element at Question 3, including 23 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 25 respondents, nine (36%) agreed with the proposal and 16 (64%) disagreed. Those disagreeing with the proposed change were eight planning authorities, five third sector respondents, a private sector respondent, a planning professional and an individual.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 8 | 15 | 23 | |
| % of organisations | 35% | 65% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 4 | 8 | 12 | |
| Planning authorities | 4 | 8 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Digital telecoms | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 5 | 5 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 50% | 50% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 9 | 16 | 25 | |
| % of all respondents | 36% | 64% | 100% | |
2.17 A total of 27 respondents provided written comment at Question 3. This included all 16 of those who disagreed with the proposed change, five who agreed, and a further six who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed raised several points in support of the proposal, primarily that proposals could be important to support 5G deployment and improve rural connectivity. However, most of those providing comment raised concerns or suggested amendment to the proposal.
2.18 Again a number of these concerns reflected points raised at Questions 1 and 2. This included concerns regarding the visual impact of the increase in mast height, that such an increase was likely to require a more substantial ‘lattice’ structure which would further increase visual impact, and that a 50m mast would not be acceptable in many urban or residential areas. Several planning authorities also suggested that the proposed permitted increase in height could have a significant impact on the visual amenity and quality of the local environment of existing masts. This included a suggestion that there is limited scope to mitigate the visual impact of a 50 metre mast, and reference to the proposed 20 metre increase representing a larger proportionate increase than is proposed at Question 2.
2.19 Some planning authorities and third sector respondents expressed particular concerns about proposals applying in designated areas. This included suggestions that full planning scrutiny should be retained. However, others felt that a sufficiently robust prior approval scheme could be sufficient to mitigate potential negative impacts, in designated and un-designated areas. This included reference to assessment of siting and appearance and potential ecological impacts, with the prior approval process proposed for new ground-based masts cited as a suitable approach. A private telecoms respondent also objected to proposals on the basis that masts of up to 50 metres are rarely required, with experience indicating that current PDR are effective where such deployments have been required.
2.20 Respondents suggested a number of specific revisions, additions or alternatives to proposals as set out by the consultation. These are summarised below.
- Limiting the permitted percentage increase in mast height, with suggestions ranging between 20% (as proposed for masts over 50 metres) to 50% (as proposed for 30 metre masts).
- Consider establishing ‘buffer zones’ around designated areas where development of masts and other infrastructure would have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the designated landscape.
- A requirement for prior approval from the MOD for alteration to existing ground-based masts within safeguarding zones, or creation of exclusion zones around MOD safeguarded assets.
- Revision to ensure proposals do not permit erection of a small mast under PDR, and subsequent incremental increases in size while avoiding planning scrutiny.
Q4. Do you agree that we should allow existing masts which are greater than 50 metres in height to be increased by up to 20% of the height of the original mast?
Q4a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.21 A total of 27 respondents answered the closed element at Question 4, including 25 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 27 respondents, 15 (56%) agreed with the proposal and 12 (44%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were five third sector respondents, four planning authorities, a private sector respondent, a planning professional and an individual.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 14 | 11 | 25 | |
| % of organisations | 56% | 44% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 9 | 4 | 13 | |
| Planning authorities | 8 | 4 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Private sector | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| Digital telecoms | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 5 | 5 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 50% | 50% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 15 | 12 | 27 | |
| % of all respondents | 56% | 44% | 100% | |
2.22 A total of 24 respondents provided written comment at Question 4. This included 11 who disagreed with the proposed change, nine who agreed, and a further four who did not answer the closed question. Some of those who agreed with the proposed change provided comment in support of this, most commonly suggesting that a 20% increase is relatively minor, that masts of this height will have already been subject to full planning scrutiny, and that few masts of this height would be near to population centres where an increase could have a significant impact.
2.23 Issues cited by those opposed to the proposed change reflected a number of points raised at earlier questions. This included concerns raised by a range of respondent types regarding the visual impact and difficulty mitigating the visual impact of a mast of this height that masts of this size were likely to be of a ‘bulkier’ lattice structure which would further increase visual impact, and concern that a 20% increase to a mast of this size would still constitute a significant change. In addition, a planning authority noted that masts of this size are likely to be in rural areas and as such would require careful consideration of potential landscape impacts. Some also questioned the need for masts of the proposed height, suggesting that an upper limit of 50 metres is generally applied in other European countries.
2.24 Also consistent with responses to earlier questions, some planning authorities and third sector respondents raised specific concerns about the potential impact of proposed changes in designated areas. These respondents highlighted the potentially significant impact of masts of this scale in sensitive landscapes, and saw a need for full planning authority scrutiny to avoid adverse impacts to ecology, landscape and built heritage. Some respondents also referred to the importance of meaningful community engagement to assess the maximum mast height that would typically be tolerated by communities. However, it should be noted that some respondents felt that a robust prior approval process should be sufficient to mitigate adverse impacts.
2.25 Respondents suggested a number of specific revisions, additions or alternatives to proposals as set out by the consultation. These are summarised below.
- Prior approval to enable the MOD to review any increase in height of masts within safeguarding zones, or otherwise PDR not being applied within these zones.
- Revision to ensure proposals do not permit erection of a small mast under PDR, and subsequent incremental increases in size while avoiding planning scrutiny.
Q5. Do you agree that we should allow an increase in the width of existing masts by up to 2 metres or, if greater, one half of the width of the original mast (i.e. the increase is on the widest part of the mast and including any equipment)?
Q5a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.26 A total of 25 respondents answered the closed element at Question 5, including 23 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 25 respondents, 14 (56%) agreed with the proposal and 11 (44%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were seven planning authorities and four third sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 12 | 11 | 23 | |
| % of organisations | 52% | 48% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 5 | 7 | 12 | |
| Planning authorities | 5 | 7 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 5 | 5 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 3 | ||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 4 | 4 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 14 | 11 | 25 | |
| % of all respondents | 56% | 44% | 100% | |
2.27 A total of 25 respondents provided written comment at Question 5. This included all 11 who disagreed with the proposed change, nine who agreed, and a further five who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed cited a number of reasons for their support for the proposal including the importance of proposals to support the rollout of 5G (including support for more mast-sharing), that the proposed increase in width is relatively minor and can be mitigated through legislation/guidance, although some wished to see prior notification or prior approval. It was also noted that increases in mast width rarely affect the whole mast, but rather involve addition of smaller apparatus to the existing mast.
2.28 Consistent with responses to proposals regarding increases in mast height, concerns regarding impact on visual amenity and landscape character appeared to be a key factor for those opposed to the proposal. This included respondents noting that changes to the width of masts are likely to involve the addition of bulky headframes, exposed antennas and lattice structures that would represent a material change in appearance. A planning authority also suggested that proposals could allow increases in the height and width of masts that would together constitute a significant change.
2.29 Concerns regarding the potential impact of proposals included responses from a number of planning authorities and other public bodies highlighting the potential visual impact in urban and residential areas, and in designated areas with valuable built heritage such as Conservation Areas. This included suggestions that the design of wider masts are only appropriate in industrial landscapes. It was also noted that the Sustainability Appraisal identified potential negative impacts on water and soils, and suggested that these could be significant in designated areas with sensitive ecology and biodiversity.
2.30 On the basis of these concerns, some respondents specifically wished to see full planning scrutiny continue to apply to increases in width of existing masts. However, a public sector respondent suggested that prior notification/ prior approval processes should be sufficient to mitigate impacts, if these processes are robust and well-resourced across the country.
2.31 Respondents suggested a number of specific revisions, additions or alternatives to proposals as set out by the consultation. These are summarised below.
- Clarification of what is defined as the ‘original’ mast, and specifically to prevent incremental increases in size avoiding planning scrutiny.
- Prior approval to enable the MOD to review any increase in width of masts within safeguarding zones, or otherwise creation of an exclusion zone around these zones.
Q6. Do you agree that any height or width increase within a designated area should be subject to prior notification/prior approval in order that visual impacts can be assessed?
Q6a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.32 A total of 28 respondents answered the closed element at Question 6, including 26 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 28 respondents, 20 (71%) agreed with the proposal and eight (29%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were three planning authorities, three third sector and two private sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 18 | 8 | 26 | |
| % of organisations | 69% | 31% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 11 | 3 | 14 | |
| Planning authorities | 10 | 3 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Digital telecoms | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 20 | 8 | 28 | |
| % of all respondents | 71% | 29% | 100% | |
2.33 A total of 22 respondents provided written comment at Question 6. This included all eight of those who disagreed with the proposed change, 10 who agreed, and a further four who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed suggested that prior notification/ prior approval would be required to ensure proper consideration and mitigation of potential impacts to the special landscape character of designated areas. This included specific reference to ensuring these processes properly consider impact on the natural and historic environment, and that this would require sufficient resourcing of planning authorities.
2.34 Those who disagreed included some who suggested that the full planning process was required to properly assess the impact of changes to masts in designated areas. A planning authority and a third sector respondent highlighted the importance and sensitivity of landscape in these areas. Respondents also referred to the importance of ensuring genuine community engagement as part of the assessment of impacts.
2.35 There was some concern expressed that prior notification/ prior approval would not be sufficient to address these concerns, and effectively mitigate against potential adverse impacts. This was a particular concern for planning authorities and third sector respondents. These respondents referred to experience of challenges engaging communities in what were seen by some as poorly understood procedures - for communities, planning authorities, operators and others. Concerns were also expressed that use of prior notification/ prior approval:
- Generates expectation from communities that they can influence the determination in the same way as a full planning application.
- Provides insufficient detail in the consideration of issues such as ecological or archaeological.
- Has potential to undermine planning fee income for planning authorities.
2.36 Other respondents, primarily digital telecoms operators, suggested that the introduction of prior notification/ prior approval would be excessive, and would effectively restrict current PDR. These respondents suggested that proposals would add unnecessary complexity to a system which they felt was operating effectively, and which already included proportionate checks and balances requiring operators to minimise impact. Concerns were also raised that prior notification/ prior approval could add to strain on planning authorities and potentially frustrate rollout of 5G. It was suggested that increase to the height and width of an existing mast remains the most visually and environmentally sensitive means of delivering necessary service improvements, and this should be reflected in PDR.
Replacement masts
2.37 In the case of replacement masts, the current requirement is that the mast must not be situated more than 6 metres from the location of the original mast. Outside designated areas it is proposed this should be increased to 10 metres, but within designated areas the 6 metre distance would be retained.
Q7. Do you agree that we should increase the maximum distance that replacement masts may be from their original location from 6 metres to 10 metres, outside designated areas?
Q7a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.38 A total of 26 respondents answered the closed element at Question 7, including 24 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 26 respondents, 23 (88%) agreed with the proposal and three (12%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were two third sector respondents and a planning authority.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 21 | 3 | 24 | |
| % of organisations | 88% | 13% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 11 | 1 | 12 | |
| Planning authorities | 11 | 1 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 5 | 5 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 3 | ||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 23 | 3 | 26 | |
| % of all respondents | 88% | 12% | 100% | |
2.39 A total of 18 respondents provided written comment at Question 7. This included the three respondents who disagreed with the proposed change, 12 who agreed, and a further three who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed highlighted the potential value of the change from a technological point of view, and suggested that proposals were unlikely to have a significant impact, although some wished to see a requirement on operators to consider the visual and environmental impact.
2.40 Those who disagreed with the proposed change included some who highlighted potential adverse impacts. It was suggested that a relatively small change in position could nevertheless have a significant visual impact, particularly for ‘bulkier’ lattice structured masts. Potential for adverse impacts on undesignated heritage was also highlighted, such that archaeological assessment may be required.
2.41 It was suggested that prior notification/ prior approval should apply to mitigate those circumstances where the re-positioning of a mast could have significant impacts. A public sector respondent noted that this was a recommendation of the Sustainability Appraisal.
2.42 Respondents suggested a number of specific revisions, additions or alternatives to proposals as set out by the consultation. These are summarised below.
- Clarifying proposals such that the 10 metre allowance applies from the nearest point of the existing ‘site’ rather than the mast, or otherwise an allowance of 15 metres from the original mast.
- Removal of any distance control for replacement masts, consistent with elsewhere in the UK, maintaining the current requirement for operators to minimise visual and environmental impact.
- A requirement for operators to reflect local concerns and aspirations when re-siting masts, and to consult with communities to identify these.
- Prior approval to enable the MOD to review any re-siting within safeguarding zones.
Q8. Do you agree that in the case of replacement masts, in designated areas the current 6 metre distance from the original location should be retained?
Q8a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.43 A total of 28 respondents answered the closed element at Question 8, including 26 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 28 respondents, 25 (89%) agreed with the proposal and three (11%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were two private sector respondents and one third sector respondent.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 23 | 3 | 26 | |
| % of organisations | 88% | 12% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 14 | 14 | ||
| Planning authorities | 13 | 13 | ||
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Digital telecoms | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 5 | 1 | 6 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 25 | 3 | 28 | |
| % of all respondents | 89% | 11% | 100% | |
2.44 Twelve respondents provided written comment at Question 8. This included the three respondents who disagreed with the proposal, eight who agreed, and one respondent who did not answer the closed question.
2.45 Those who agreed with the retention of the current 6 metre limit on re-siting masts in designated areas included some who highlighted the greater risk of adverse impacts in these areas. This included reference to impact on built heritage, historic sites, soil and water disturbance, risk to archaeological sites, and potential visual impact on sensitive landscapes.
2.46 Those who disagreed suggested that increasing the distance allowed for replacement masts would be important to support digital connectivity. Respondents also noted that digital connectivity remains an essential service across designated and undesignated areas, and that the same operational issues exist across these areas. It was also suggested that additional controls within designated areas, such as Habitat Regulations and NatureScot, would be sufficient to mitigate against potential negative impacts.
Mitigating potential impacts on safeguarded sites on PDR for masts
2.47 It was proposed that for new or modified masts on safeguarded sites, existing requirements for the operator to notify the relevant body (e.g.an airport operator or the MOD) should be retained.
Q9. We propose to retain the current approach. Do you agree?
Q9a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.48 A total of 28 respondents answered the closed element at Question 9, including 26 organisation respondents and two individuals. All 28 respondents answering the question agreed with the proposal to retain the current approach.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 26 | 0 | 26 | |
| % of organisations | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 13 | 13 | ||
| Planning authorities | 12 | 12 | ||
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 6 | 6 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 3 | ||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 2 | 2 | ||
| Third sector | 5 | 5 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 28 | 0 | 28 | |
| % of all respondents | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
2.49 Twelve respondents provided written comment at Question 9. This included 11 who agreed with the proposal, and a further respondent who did not answer the closed question. These respondents cited a number of points in their support of the proposal, most commonly that the range of existing requirements and procedures are effective in ensuring bodies responsible for safeguarded areas are informed of new masts and changes to existing masts. This included responses from a number of such bodies who wished to see existing arrangements retained.
2.50 While no respondents disagreed with the proposal, some queries and recommendations were raised by those providing comment. This included a request for clarification regarding whether safeguarding bodies have the power to ‘veto’ a proposal that has been granted permission under PDR. Others made suggestions regarding procedures for consultation with safeguarding bodies, suggesting that notification of such bodies earlier in the process could be useful in identifying any issues or amendments and that planning authorities should be required to secure responses from all relevant bodies before making a determination.
Antenna Systems
2.51 The consultation paper explained that antenna systems and dish antennas are classified as PDR provided that they meet specific criteria. New proposed limits in relation to dish antennas and other antenna systems on buildings were summarised in Table 3 of the consultation paper (as referenced at Question 10).
2.52 There is currently no PDR for antennas in designated areas unless in an emergency, or for the alteration or replacement of existing antennas, when the resulting apparatus would be no larger, the number of items no greater and the location substantially the same as what was there already.
Q10. Do you agree that the PDR for antenna systems on buildings outside designated areas should be as set out (in Table 3 below)?
Q10a. If you disagree with an increase, please explain why.
2.53 A total of 24 respondents answered the closed element at Question 10, including 23 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 24 respondents, 20 (83%) agreed with the proposal and four (17%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were three planning authorities and a third sector respondent.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 19 | 4 | 23 | |
| % of organisations | 83% | 17% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 9 | 3 | 12 | |
| Planning authorities | 9 | 3 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 4 | 4 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 3 | ||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 20 | 4 | 24 | |
| % of all respondents | 83% | 17% | 100% | |
2.54 Thirteen respondents provided written comment at Question 10. This included all four of those who disagreed with the proposed change, seven who agreed, and a further two who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed with the proposal included some who provided further comment in support of this. These respondents felt that the proposed changes were relatively minor, applying only outwith designated areas, and as such would be unlikely to have a significant impact. It was also suggested that the increase in diameter of dish antenna could reduce the need for additional antenna.
2.55 Most of those providing comment raised concerns or potential amendments for the proposed change. Those who disagreed with proposals included a planning authority who suggested that proposals were overly complex, and do not go far enough to encourage operators to consider building-mounted antenna prior to erecting new masts. This respondent indicated that in their experience building-mounted antenna have limited visual impact and rarely raise significant issues. In contrast, other public and third sector respondents opposed to proposals suggested that they could lead to significant visual impact dependent on specific building location and design, especially in light of the positioning requirements of 5G apparatus. It was also suggested that increasing the permitted number of masts risked adding to visual clutter, particular on tenements and other flatted properties. In addition, a public sector respondent noted that proposals did not include any mitigation, and as such the Scottish Government would have to satisfy itself that the benefits outweigh impacts on non-designated historic buildings and townscapes.
2.56 Respondents suggested a number of specific revisions, additions or alternatives to proposals as set out by the consultation. These are summarised below.
- Clarifying proposals where the base height of an antenna is below 15 metres, but the top of the antenna reaches beyond 15 metres.
- Re-wording of Class 67(10)(a)(i) to read “10 metres in itself” to clarify the limit of 10 metres for apparatus.
- Encouraging operators to consider options to affix antennas to existing street furniture such as lampposts and utility poles, before mounting on buildings.
Q11. Do you agree with extending PDR for antenna systems on buildings to all or some of the designated areas to which restrictions on PDR for such infrastructure currently applies?
Q11a. Please indicate which designations should have extended PDR and why, or, if you disagree, please explain why.
2.57 A total of 25 respondents answered the closed element at Question 11, including 24 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 25 respondents, 11 (44%) agreed with the proposal and 14 (56%) disagreed. Those disagreeing included nine planning authorities, four third sector respondents and an individual.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 11 | 13 | 24 | |
| % of organisations | 46% | 54% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 4 | 9 | 13 | |
| Planning authorities | 4 | 9 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 4 | 4 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 3 | ||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 100% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 11 | 14 | 25 | |
| % of all respondents | 44% | 56% | 100% | |
2.58 A total of 26 respondents provided written comment at Question 11. This included all 14 of those who disagreed with the proposed change, nine who agreed, and a further three who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed suggested that PDR for antenna systems on buildings could be extended to some designated areas with limited risk of adverse impacts, for example where designation is not related to the quality of the built or historic environment. These respondents also noted the range of other controls in place to mitigate negative impacts, such as listed building status, although some wished to see additional prior notification/ prior approval protections in designated areas.
2.59 Those who disagreed with proposals most commonly referred to potential adverse impacts on sensitive landscapes and culturally significant buildings. This appeared to be a particular concern for some third sector respondents, and included reference to potential for a proliferation of antenna to have a cumulative impact on the historic and cultural character of an area. It was also suggested that, contrary to the Sustainability Appraisal, the effects of proposals in these areas may not be reversible, and could result in permanent damage to buildings and monuments.
2.60 Some planning authority and third sector respondents and an individual respondent wished to see installation of antennas subject to full planning scrutiny across all designated areas. These respondents suggested that this was required to ensure a proper assessment of potential adverse impacts. However, others suggested that prior notification/ prior approval would be sufficient to assess any site-specific issues. This option was supported by a range of public and private sector respondents, although some felt that prior notification/ prior approval would only be sufficient in some designated areas (i.e. where designation is not linked to built heritage).
2.61 Several respondents referred to the diversity of designated areas in terms of the character of buildings and townscape, and this appeared to influence those who wished to see some level of case-by-case assessment for installation of antennas. However, respondents also identified some types of designated area as potentially suitable for PDR, primarily where it was felt that the designation was less reliant on the quality of the built environment:
- Specific suggestions for designated areas where PDR could apply were National Parks, National Scenic Areas, European Sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), historic battlegrounds, historic gardens and designed landscapes.
- Designated areas where respondents felt PDR should not be extended were Conservation Areas, Category A listed buildings, scheduled monuments, at least some World Heritage Sites, and historic gardens and designed landscapes.
Q12. What controls should apply in designated areas for antenna systems on buildings and should there be any differentiation between area type (e.g. size and number limits, prior notification/ prior approval or greater restrictions in designations such as conservation areas and world heritage sites, to avoid any detrimental impact on the built environment in terms of any potential visual clutter etc.)?
2.62 A total of 25 respondents provided comment at Question 12, all of these being organisations. These were 14 public sector respondents, five private sector respondents, four third sector respondents and two planning professionals.
| Respondent type | Answered | Not answered | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 25 | 36 | 61 | |
| % of organisations | 41% | 59% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 14 | 8 | 22 | |
| Planning authorities | 13 | 3 | 16 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
| Private sector | 5 | 9 | 14 | |
| Digital telecoms | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Other | 6 | 6 | ||
| Third sector | 4 | 16 | 20 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 7 | 9 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| Other | 1 | 6 | 7 | |
| Individuals | 0 | 58 | 58 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 100% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 25 | 94 | 119 | |
| % of all respondents | 21% | 79% | 100% | |
2.63 A number of those making comment re-iterated their opposition to extending PDR to designated areas, and wished to see full planning control remain in place. This included planning authorities and third sector organisations. These respondents suggested that the diversity of designated areas made them unsuitable for a single set of PDR, and that full planning scrutiny is required to ensure a robust assessment of potential impacts. A planning authority specifically questioned whether prior notification/ prior approval could offer sufficient protection for sensitive designated areas. Concerns were also raised around differentiating between types of designated area, and potential for this to add unnecessary complexity to the process. It was also noted that multiple designations can apply to a single site.
2.64 Some respondents identified types of designated area where they thought additional controls would be required to avoid adverse impacts namely conservation areas, World Heritage Sites and Category A listed buildings and scheduled monuments.
2.65 Respondents suggested a number of potential mechanisms as potential controls in designated areas. These included prior notification/ prior approval (although some felt that prior notification alone would not offer sufficient protection), amending Class 67 to allow PDR only for buildings where apparatus has been previously installed, and ensuring that Listed Buildings Consent supersedes PDR and thus provides additional protection to listed buildings in designated areas. These controls were suggested as a means of placing various specific controls on installation of antennas in designated areas. These primarily related to placement of antennas, number of antennas, and size of antennas, with specific suggestions summarised below.
- Restriction on antennas being placed on principal elevations or elevations which front a road.
- Limiting the number of antennas, with suggestions of 2-3 per building.
- Limiting the size of antenna, although specific size limits were not proposed.
Small Cell Systems
2.66 Small cell systems are generally deployed to add local capacity to the main radio coverage infrastructure. It is proposed that PDR should be extended to cover small cell systems (small antennas and ancillary apparatus) on dwellinghouses and on all buildings in conservation areas. This will bring these into line with other buildings as regards PDR for small cell systems.
Q13. Do you agree that we should extend PDR to small cell systems on dwellinghouses (rather than just for small antennas)?
Q13a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.67 A total of 22 respondents answered the closed element at Question 13, including 21 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 22 respondents, 20 (91%) agreed with the proposal and two (9%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were both third sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 19 | 2 | 21 | |
| % of organisations | 90% | 10% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 13 | 13 | ||
| Planning authorities | 13 | 13 | ||
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 4 | 4 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 3 | ||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 2 | 2 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 20 | 2 | 22 | |
| % of all respondents | 91% | 9% | 100% | |
2.68 Sixteen respondents provided written comment at Question 13. This included the two respondents who disagreed with the proposed change, 11 who agreed, and a further three who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed with the proposal suggested that this would be important in supporting digital connectivity, while having a minor impact. Respondents also noted a number of existing controls such as Listed Buildings Consent, and felt that these would be sufficient to mitigate any adverse impacts.
2.69 Those who were opposed to the proposal made reference to potential adverse impacts, particularly within designated areas. This included reference to the Sustainability Appraisal having identified “significant negative potential effects on cultural heritage”. Other respondents asked for clarification of what may constitute ancillary apparatus for small cell systems, and in particular the extent to which this may have a greater visual impact, for example when compared with small antenna. In contrast, a private digital telecommunications respondent noted that allowing installation of the antenna without the ancillary equipment is inconsistent with how equipment is deployed.
2.70 On the basis of concerns regarding potential impact, some respondents wished to see additional controls or limitations for installation of small cell systems. Some wished to see this PDR extended only to non-designated areas and it was suggested that full planning scrutiny should remain in designated areas. Others suggested that PDR should be limited in terms of the size and placement of small cell systems, although specific proposals were not made.
Q14. What limitations and restrictions should apply to small cell systems on dwellinghouses (e.g. smaller units, fewer in number than small antennas under PDR)?
2.71 A total of 21 respondents provided a comment at Question 14, all of these being organisations. Those commenting were 12 public sector respondents, four private sector respondents, three third sector respondents and two planning professionals.
| Respondent type | Answered | Not answered | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 21 | 40 | 61 | |
| % of organisations | 34% | 66% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 12 | 10 | 22 | |
| Planning authorities | 11 | 5 | 16 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
| Private sector | 4 | 10 | 14 | |
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Other | 6 | 6 | ||
| Third sector | 3 | 17 | 20 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 7 | 9 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| Other | 7 | 7 | ||
| Individuals | 0 | 58 | 58 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 100% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 21 | 98 | 119 | |
| % of all respondents | 18% | 82% | 100% | |
2.72 These respondents referred to a range of potential limitations on PDR for small cell systems on dwellinghouses, although few respondents provided detailed suggestions here, with some indicating that they were less familiar with small cell systems than with antenna. In this context, a planning authority suggested that PDR for small cell systems should include relatively strict limits on size, number and location, until more is known about how common they may become.
2.73 In terms of specific suggestions, a number of public and private sector respondents and planning professionals recommended that limitations on PDR for small cell systems should be in line with existing PDR for small antenna on dwellinghouses. This included a planning authority suggesting that small cell systems should be added to the current class for small antenna in the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) to avoid adding unnecessary complexity.
2.74 Other suggestions for restriction on PDR for small cell systems were:
- A range of respondents suggested restrictions on size, including some who wished to see size limited to that permitted for small antennas.
- Restrictions on number of small cell systems were the most common recommendation, including suggestions of 1-2 per dwelling/building although again it was noted that more information was required on why a dwelling might need more than one system.
- Restrictions on the placement were most commonly related to preventing installation on public-facing elevations of dwellinghouses.
- Restrictions relating to colour and design of systems, particularly in designated areas.
2.75 Finally, some third sector respondents wished to see PDR being limited only to non-designated areas, with full planning scrutiny retained in designated areas.
Q15. In conservation areas, what limits or requirements should apply to small cell systems on dwellinghouses and other buildings (e.g. prior notification/ prior approval to assess the visual impacts or smaller/lower limits, different provisions for dwellinghouses compared to other buildings)?
2.76 A total of 26 respondents provided a comment at Question 15, including 25 organisations and one individual. The organisations providing comment were 14 public sector respondents, five private sector respondents, four third sector respondents and two planning professionals.
| Respondent type | Answered | Not answered | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 25 | 36 | 61 | |
| % of organisations | 41% | 59% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 14 | 8 | 22 | |
| Planning authorities | 13 | 3 | 16 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
| Private sector | 5 | 9 | 14 | |
| Digital telecoms | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Other | 6 | 6 | ||
| Third sector | 4 | 16 | 20 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 7 | 9 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| Other | 1 | 6 | 7 | |
| Individuals | 1 | 57 | 58 | |
| % of individuals | 2% | 98% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 26 | 93 | 119 | |
| % of all respondents | 22% | 78% | 100% | |
2.77 Respondents raised a range of issues regarding potential restrictions on PDR in conservation areas. This included reference to specific limitations, for example on number and placement of systems, and on mechanisms to implement these limitations.
2.78 Prior notification/ prior approval was the most common suggestion in terms of a mechanism to limit the impact of PDR in designated areas. This option was suggested by a range of public and private sector, planning professional and third sector respondents. Support for this option appeared to reflect a view that some degree of local scrutiny is required given the diversity of conservation areas and to avoid potential cumulative impacts and ‘visual clutter’. It was also suggested that prior notification/ prior approval would be more effective than seeking to apply a single set of rules or limits across all conservation areas.
2.79 However, some expressed concerns about potential use of prior notification/ prior approval for PDR in conservation areas. This included a planning authority noting that these procedures are relatively resource intensive for planning authorities, and suggesting that they can generate unrealistic expectations from communities about the extent to which they will be able to influence the determination. Some private sector respondents also raised concerns about the use of prior approval to limit PDR in conservation areas. It was suggested that existing checks and balances specified in Class 67 would limit use of PDR, and that the number of installations would be limited by the capacity of street furniture, and the need to secure landowner consent for installation on buildings. It was also noted that the additional resource requirements of prior approval would limit the benefits of PDR in terms of a more efficient planning system.
2.80 In terms of specific limitations on PDR for small cell systems in conservation areas, suggestions are summarised below:
- Several public sector, planning professional and third sector respondents wished to see clear size limits set for small cell systems, although the only specific suggestion was that these do not exceed the limits set for small antenna.
- Similarly, a range of respondents supported limits on the number of small cell systems in conservation areas, including a suggestion of no more than one per dwelling.
- Suggestions for limitation on placement of small cell systems were most commonly concerned with preventing installations on the frontage of buildings, or the elevation facing a public road. Other suggested limits on placement included ensuring limitations do not extend above the roofline.
2.81 Other limitations or amendments suggested by respondents were:
- Clarity is required regarding the definition of “any apparatus which is ancillary to that antenna”, and how any size limitations apply to this apparatus.
- Re-wording of Class 67 is required to make clear that a small cell system may comprise more than one antenna and more than one piece of associated apparatus.
- Clarity is required regarding whether the highest part of the roof refers to the roof itself, or structures such as chimneys or existing infrastructure.
- Extending PDR for small cell systems on street lighting columns as a means of incentivising use of street furniture and minimising installation to buildings.
- Development of guidance and best practice on the design and location of small cell systems to minimise visual impact.
Article 57 of EU Directive 2018/1972
2.82 It is thought that changes to PDR for small cell systems on dwellinghouses and in conservation areas, together with general proposals for PDR for new ground based cabinets in designated areas will allow compliance with Article 57 of 18 EU Directive 2018/1972 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1070.
Q16. Do you agree that extending PDR for small cell systems as proposed and the proposed changes to PDR for new ground based cabinets in designated areas would meet the requirements of Article 57 of EU Directive 2018/1972?
Q16a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.83 A total of 15 respondents answered the closed element at Question 16, all of these being organisations. Of these 15 respondents, nine (60%) agreed with the proposal and six (40%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were three third sector respondents, a public sector respondent, a private sector respondent and a planning professional.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 9 | 6 | 15 | |
| % of organisations | 60% | 40% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 5 | 1 | 6 | |
| Planning authorities | 5 | 1 | 6 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Rural economy | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 3 | 3 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| All respondents | 9 | 6 | 15 | |
| % of all respondents | 60% | 40% | 100% | |
2.84 Eleven respondents provided written comment at Question 16. This included five who disagreed with the proposal, four who agreed, and a further two who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed that proposals would meet the requirements of Article 57 suggested that changes to PDR would not unduly restrict deployment of small cell systems in designated areas, although a private sector respondent suggested that the application of prior approval in designated areas would contravene Article 57.
2.85 It should be noted that a number of those who disagreed with or did not answer the closed question indicated that they felt unable to comment on the legal question of whether proposals met the requirements of Article 57. However, some of those who disagreed that proposals would meet Article 57 highlighted specific points for consideration:
- A private sector respondent indicated that the dimensions for small cell systems as set out in Article 57 should entail a designation of ‘de minimis’.
- Some third sector respondents suggested that, as Article 57 allows for additional protections for sensitive areas, the full planning process in designated areas already meets the requirements.
- A third sector respondent noted that Article 57 suggests existing public infrastructure should be the first option for installation of small cell systems, and suggested that PDR for installation to buildings undermines this.
Q17. Are there any other potential amendments, comments or observations you wish to make in relation to potential changes to PDR that you consider necessary to be compliant with the requirements of Article 57 of EU Directive 2018/1972?
2.86 Two respondents (a planning authority and a planning professional) indicated that they had other amendments, comments or observations to make in relation to compliance with Article 57.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 2 | 14 | 16 | |
| % of organisations | 13% | 88% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 1 | 7 | 8 | |
| Planning authorities | 1 | 7 | 8 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Private sector | 2 | 2 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 2 | 2 | ||
| Rural economy | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 4 | 4 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| All respondents | 2 | 14 | 16 | |
| % of all respondents | 13% | 88% | 100% | |
2.87 In fact, six respondents provided a written comment at Question 17. A planning authority noted that while not related to the PDR, small cell systems may require Listed Building Consent separately if the development would be located on a listed building and is considered to materially affect its special character and appearance. Two third sector respondents suggested that Scotland is already compliant with Article 57.
Equipment housing cabinets (ground based)
2.88 Although there are no plans to increase PDR for ground-based equipment housing, outside designated areas, extending existing PDR in designated areas is being considered.
Q18. Do you agree that we should extend existing PDR in designated areas to allow for new equipment housing up to 2.5 cubic metres volume?
Q18a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.89 A total of 26 respondents answered the closed element at Question 18, all of these being organisations. Of these 26 respondents, 13 (50%) agreed with the proposal and 13 (50%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were seven planning authorities and six third sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 13 | 13 | 26 | |
| % of organisations | 50% | 50% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 6 | 7 | 13 | |
| Planning authorities | 6 | 7 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 5 | 5 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 4 | 4 | ||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 6 | 6 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 4 | 4 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| All respondents | 13 | 13 | 26 | |
| % of all respondents | 50% | 50% | 100% | |
2.90 A total of 23 respondents provided written comment at Question 18. This included all 13 of those who disagreed with the proposed change, eight who agreed, and a further two who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed with proposals were of the view that equipment housing was unlikely to have a significant visual impact on a designated area. It was suggested that that proposals were a proportionate balance between minimising risk of adverse impact, and supporting digital connectivity – although some felt that prior notification/ prior approval would be required to allow some local control.
2.91 Some of those opposed to the proposed change expressed concern regarding the potential impact on sensitive designated areas. This included suggestions that equipment installed in the vicinity of historic buildings could have a negative impact on the quality of the building, even if no apparatus is installed on the building itself. A third sector respondent also compared the proposed 2.5 cubic metre size limit to a traditional telephone box of 2 cubic metres, suggesting that apparatus of this size could have a significant impact in sensitive areas.
2.92 Those expressing concerns regarding potential impact noted that the degree of impact could vary across different types of designated area. Particular concern was raised regarding potential impact in conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, Category A Listed Buildings and scheduled monuments, historic gardens and designed landscapes, historic battlefields and SSSIs.
2.93 A number of planning authorities and third sector respondents suggested that full planning scrutiny would be required to mitigate potential negative impacts, particularly in the above noted areas. This included a view that proposals should not undermine meaningful public consultation in these cases. Others were of the view that prior notification/ prior approval would be sufficient to assess siting and appearance of installations, including public and private sector respondents, although an other private sector respondent objected to use of prior approval.
2.94 In addition to the above comments, some respondents suggested specific amendment or addition to proposals:
- Requiring removal of any equipment housing being replaced.
- Specifying the colour of cabinets in conservation areas to align with other street furniture.
- Removing SSSI and other habitat designations from the list of limitations within Class 67, as they are subject to other statutory controls.
- Removing limitations on the volume of equipment housing where this is installed within an existing fenced compound.
Q19. Should this be subject to prior notification/prior approval on the siting and appearance to mitigate visual impacts?
Q19a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.95 A total of 27 respondents answered the closed element at Question 19, including 26 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 27 respondents, 19 (70%) agreed that PDR should be subject to prior notification/ prior approval, and eight (30%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were four planning authorities, two private sector and two third sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 18 | 8 | 26 | |
| % of organisations | 69% | 31% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 10 | 4 | 14 | |
| Planning authorities | 9 | 4 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Digital telecoms | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 19 | 8 | 27 | |
| % of all respondents | 70% | 30% | 100% | |
2.96 A total of 20 respondents provided written comment at Question 19. This included seven who disagreed with the proposed change, 11 who agreed, and a further two who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed commented on the importance of prior notification/ prior approval in allowing consideration of local circumstances, and potential impact on built heritage and/or ecology.
2.97 Those opposed to the proposal expressed a range of views on prior notification/ prior approval. Reference was made to the diversity of designated areas, and it was suggested that there are difficulties in developing a single set of rules to apply across all areas. A number of planning authorities and third sector respondents were of the view that the full planning process is necessary to allow proper consideration of location and design, and to ensure adverse visual impacts are mitigated. Some also referred to the full planning process as ensuring meaningful engagement with communities and other stakeholders. Retaining full planning scrutiny appeared to be a particular concern for the most sensitive designated areas, including reference to historic environments and where archaeological assessment may be required; it was suggested that prior notification/ prior approval may not be sufficient to mitigate adverse impacts in these areas.
2.98 In contrast, some private sector respondents felt that prior approval would be excessive in light of what these respondents felt was relatively low impact development, and that prior notification would be a more proportionate approach. These respondents suggested that prior approval would add delay and cost to the process, and would not represent a significant efficiency saving compared to the full planning process. Reference was also made to existing controls in designated areas and a private sector respondent recommended that supporting PDR through best practice guidance should be sufficient to avoid the need for prior approval.
Q20. If this were to be introduced do you agree that we should differentiate between types of designated areas by, for example, having smaller size limits in conservation areas than in National Parks?
Q20a. If you disagree, please explain why and give your view on what limits should apply in which areas.
2.99 A total of 28 respondents answered the closed element at Question 20, including 27 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 28 respondents, 13 (46%) agreed with the proposal and 15 (54%) disagreed. Those disagreeing with the proposed change were five planning authorities, five private sector respondents, three third sector respondents, a planning professional and an individual.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 13 | 14 | 27 | |
| % of organisations | 48% | 52% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 9 | 5 | 14 | |
| Planning authorities | 8 | 5 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Private sector | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| Digital telecoms | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 2 | 3 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 100% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 13 | 15 | 28 | |
| % of all respondents | 46% | 54% | 100% | |
2.100 A total of 24 respondents provided written comment at Question 20. This included 14 who disagreed with the proposal, nine who agreed, and a further respondent who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed with the proposal noted that areas were designated for different reasons, and are highly varied in character, and this should be reflected in PDR.
2.101 Those who disagreed included planning authorities and private sector respondents who suggested that proposals would add unnecessary complexity and confusion to the planning system. It was suggested that Class 67 is already too complicated, and that proposals would undermine the aim of easing the burden on local authorities and speeding up digital infrastructure rollout. This included reference to the particular burden where authorities do not have planning officers who specialise in telecoms. It was also noted that some planning authorities have to deal with multiple overlapping designations, and suggested that these planning authorities would require clarity on which designations take precedence.
2.102 Concern was also raised that installation of equipment housing requires more localised consideration than a standard set of PDR rules can offer. This appeared to reflect a view that even designated areas of the same type can be highly diverse in terms of their character, and that equipment housing could have a significant impact dependent on local circumstances. Reference was made to the Sustainability Appraisal having identified “potentially significant” impacts both for built heritage (e.g. in conservation areas) and landscape/ biodiversity (e.g. in National Parks).
2.103 Some of those raising concerns about localised impact recommended prior notification or prior approval as a means of mitigating impact. However, others felt that the full planning process should apply in these areas to enable lower impact developments to be determined quickly, while ensuring those with potential for greater impact receive sufficient scrutiny.
2.104 In contrast to the above points, a private sector respondent suggested that PDR should not distinguish between designated areas, on the grounds that the need for digital connectivity applied equally across areas.
2.105 Comments from respondents included reference to specific types of designated area which were seen as more or less suitable for PDR. These comments are summarised below.
- It was suggested that PDR could have a lesser impact in National Parks.
- Designated areas where concerns were raised about the impact of PDR, and a potential role for smaller size limits, were focused on built heritage designations. This included reference to conservation areas. A third sector respondent also saw a need for greater controls within nature conservation sites.
Equipment housing cabinets on buildings
2.106 Although there are no plans to increase PDR for equipment housing on buildings outside designated areas, the Sustainability Appraisal highlighted potential changes to PDR, and whether to extend existing PDR in designated areas is being considered.
Q21. Do you agree that we should extend PDR for new equipment housing on buildings in designated areas, with a limit on size of up to 2.5 cubic metres volume?
Q21a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.107 A total of 24 respondents answered the closed element at Question 21, including 23 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 24 respondents, 13 (54%) agreed with the proposal and 11 (46%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were seven planning authorities and four third sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 12 | 11 | 23 | |
| % of organisations | 52% | 48% | b100% | |
| Public sector | 5 | 7 | 12 | |
| Planning authorities | 5 | 7 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 4 | 4 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 3 | ||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 13 | 11 | 24 | |
| % of all respondents | 54% | 46% | 100% | |
2.108 A total of 20 respondents provided written comment at Question 21. This included all 11 who disagreed with the proposed change, five who agreed, and a further four who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed highlighted the importance of proposals to facilitate digital connectivity across designated areas, and to enable more shareable infrastructure, while minimising visual impact.
2.109 For those who disagreed with the proposal, concern regarding visual impact was the most common concern raised, particularly for planning authorities and third sector respondents. This included suggestions that the proposal constitutes a potentially significant addition to a building, with potential to cause permanent damage. This appeared to be a particular concern for designated areas with more sensitive built environment, with some suggesting that equipment housings of this volume could have a significant impact for some building designs, particularly historic buildings.
2.110 This concern appeared to reflect a view that the impact of equipment housing is dependent on the type of designated area. A number of planning authorities and third sector respondents suggested that a single set of rules cannot be applied across the diversity of designated areas. These respondents were of the view that full planning scrutiny is required to ensure proper assessment of local impact, to take account of cumulative visual impact, and for meaningful public consultation. However, others suggested that prior notification or prior approval should be sufficient to mitigate the impact of proposals. This included planning authority, third and private sector respondents, although another private sector respondent was of the view that prior approval would be an excessive requirement, and that prior notification would be sufficient.
Q22. Should this be subject to prior notification/ prior approval requirements on the siting and appearance to mitigate visual impacts?
Q22a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.111 A total of 26 respondents answered the closed element at Question 22, including 24 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 26 respondents, 19 (73%) agreed that PDR should be subject to prior notification/ prior approval, and seven (27%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were three planning authorities, two private sector and one third sector respondent, and a planning professional.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 17 | 7 | 24 | |
| % of organisations | 71% | 29% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 10 | 3 | 13 | |
| Planning authorities | 9 | 3 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Digital telecoms | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 19 | 7 | 26 | |
| % of all respondents | 73% | 27% | 100% | |
2.112 A total of 20 respondents provided written comment at Question 22. This included all seven who disagreed with the proposed change, nine who agreed, and a further four who did not answer the closed question. Consistent with comments at Question 21, those who agreed with proposals suggested that prior notification/ prior approval would be effective in mitigating potentially significant impacts associated with equipment housing.
2.113 Those who disagreed with proposals also raised a number of points noted earlier at Question 21. This included concerns around scope to apply a single set of rules across varied designated areas, and that prior notification/ prior approval may not be sufficient to mitigate adverse impacts in some circumstances. This included reference to conservation areas, Category A listed buildings and other historic buildings. These respondents felt that the full planning process is required to ensure a proper assessment of local impact, and to enable meaningful community engagement.
2.114 In contrast, some private sector respondents suggested that prior notification only should be used, and that prior approval would be excessive. These respondents referred to existing controls in Class 67 to minimise visual impact and suggested that prior notification is more in line with provisions of The Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003.
Other apparatus on buildings
2.115 ‘Other apparatus’ is defined as any structure or apparatus which is ancillary or reasonably required for the construction, installation, alteration or replacement of digital communications infrastructure network. These do not have specific PDR limits in the way equipment housing and antenna systems do. It is proposed that the PDR that applies to other apparatus in designated areas should be extended.
Q23. Do you agree that PDR for other apparatus should be extended in designated areas, beyond the basic ‘like for like’ alteration or replacement that currently applies?
Q23a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.116 A total of 26 respondents answered the closed element at Question 23, including 25 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 26 respondents, 12 (46%) agreed with the proposal and 14 (54%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were eight planning authorities, four third sector respondents, a planning professional and an individual.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 12 | 13 | 25 | |
| % of organisations | 48% | 52% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 4 | 8 | 12 | |
| Planning authorities | 4 | 8 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Private sector | 6 | 6 | ||
| Digital telecoms | 5 | 5 | ||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 100% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 12 | 14 | 26 | |
| % of all respondents | 46% | 54% | 100% | |
2.117 A total of 21 respondents provided written comment at Question 23. This included all 14 who disagreed with the proposed change, five who agreed, and a further two who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed saw PDR as required to support digital connectivity, and to facilitate network deployment. This included a suggestion that technological advances mean like-for-like replacement may become less common.
2.118 Amongst those who disagreed with the proposal, a need for installations to be considered on an individual basis was the most commonly cited issue. This included planning authorities and third sector respondents who raised particular concerns about potential impacts in designated areas with sensitive built environments such as Conservation Areas and Category A listed buildings and noted that this was acknowledged by the Sustainability Appraisal. These concerns included reference to the extent to which apparatus reaching up to 8 metres above building height can change the character of an area, and diminish its cultural and historic value.
2.119 It was suggested use of the prior approval process could enable consideration of specific siting and appearance of apparatus. However, one planning authority wished to retain current powers within designated areas, suggesting that current arrangements allow authorities sufficient discretion to ensure proposals which are close enough to ‘like for like’ are not required to go through the full planning process. In contrast, a private sector respondent objected to use of prior approval (rather than prior notification). Another private sector respondent suggested that ancillary rooftop equipment that is required for health and safety reasons, such as handrails, should be exempt from any prior approval or prior notification process.
Q24. Should any new PDR for other apparatus in designated areas have specific limits and restrictions regarding size and visual intrusion?
Q24a. Please explain your answer, and, if you agree, please indicate what sorts of limits and restrictions should apply and why. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.120 A total of 25 respondents answered the closed element at Question 24, all of these being organisations. Of these 25 respondents, 15 (60%) agreed that PDR for other apparatus in designated areas should have limits and restrictions, and 10 (40%) disagreed. Those disagreeing included eight planning authorities, a planning professional and a private sector respondent.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 15 | 10 | 25 | |
| % of organisations | 60% | 40% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 6 | 8 | 14 | |
| Planning authorities | 5 | 8 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Private sector | 4 | 1 | 5 | |
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 4 | 4 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| All respondents | 15 | 10 | 25 | |
| % of all respondents | 60% | 40% | 100% | |
2.121 A total of 24 respondents provided written comment at Question 24. This included all 10 who disagreed with the proposed change, 12 who agreed, and a further two who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed with restrictions on PDR emphasised the potential impact of apparatus in some designated areas, suggesting that restrictions may be needed to minimise adverse impacts in the most sensitive locations. This included a suggestion from a planning authority that limits and restrictions should be tailored to take account of differences between different types of designation. They also commented that limits would be required on the amount of visible modern apparatus in areas designated to protect built and cultural heritage, while limits on noise and ground disturbance may be more relevant where designation is linked to ecology and biodiversity.
2.122 Respondents made reference to a range of specific limits and restrictions which they would like to see applied to PDR in designated areas:
- Maintaining the same limits as are in place for non-designated areas.
- Limiting installation on principal elevations, and limiting visibility from public roads and areas.
- Setting an upper limit on the number of items.
- Setting smaller size limits in more sensitive designated areas, limiting any increase in height to a maximum percentage and/or ensuring apparatus does not extend above current rooflines.
- Limits on noise for backup generators near residences or ecological sites.
- Limits on construction times and ground disturbance in areas designated for ecological reasons.
- Engaging with the industry to ensure limitations are consistent with developing technologies. This included specific concerns that limits on the distance that apparatus can extend beyond a roofline may render PDR worthless.
- Ensuring operators are fully aware of other applicable regulations which may impact the installation of apparatus.
- Developing best practice guidance on how to protect cultural and built heritage within designated areas.
2.123 Those who disagreed with PDR with limits and restrictions highlighted the varied character of designated areas, and expressed concern that additional rules would make PDR overly complex given the diversity of technological and environmental factors to be taken into account. These concerns were primarily raised by planning authorities, and included a view that a standard set of limits and restrictions would be insufficient to overcome the need for local scrutiny. Some expressed a specific preference for the full planning process to be retained in designated areas, although others felt that a prior approval process would be sufficient.
Q25. Do you agree that PDR for new development of other apparatus on buildings in designated areas should be subject to prior notification/prior approval to mitigate visual impacts?
Q25a. If you disagree, please explain why.
2.124 A total of 25 respondents answered the closed element at Question 25, including 24 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 25 respondents, 17 (68%) agreed with the proposal and eight (32%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were six planning authorities and two private sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 16 | 8 | 24 | |
| % of organisations | 67% | 33% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 8 | 6 | 14 | |
| Planning authorities | 7 | 6 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 2 | ||
| Private sector | 4 | 2 | 6 | |
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 2 | 2 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 17 | 8 | 25 | |
| % of all respondents | 68% | 32% | 100% | |
2.125 A total of 17 respondents provided written comment at Question 25. This included seven of the eight who disagreed with the proposal, nine of the 17 who agreed, and a further respondent who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed highlighted the risk of significant negative impacts, particularly in some designated areas, and suggested that the diversity of these areas meant that some level of case-by-case consideration was required.
2.126 Those who disagreed included some planning authorities who suggested that prior notification/ prior approval would be inappropriate given the potential impact of installations across the diversity of designated areas. Another planning authority referred to these procedures as resource intensive for authorities, while undermining planning fee income. It was suggested that, as prior notification/ prior approval could be insufficient for some applications but excessive for others, it should be left to planning authorities to judge whether a full application is required.
2.127 Another planning authority suggested that prior notification/ prior approval could be effective if they enabled a proper assessment of local impacts and to identify mitigation. Some private sector respondents supported prior notification but suggested that prior approval would be excessive. These respondents referred to the additional time and cost requirements of prior approval, and the administrative burden on all parties. Reference was also made to existing provisions within Class 67 to mitigate impact of development.
Underground equipment
2.128 Underground development typically refers to underground cables which support a digital telecommunications network. It is proposed that the general restriction on PDR for underground digital infrastructure in designated areas should be removed, while recognising that restrictions/safeguards may be needed in some areas.
Q26. In which designated areas do you consider that PDR for underground development could be extended? Please explain your answer, particularly with regard to those designated areas where PDR for underground development could not be extended.
2.129 A total of 26 respondents provided comment at Question 26, all of these being organisations. Those providing comment included 15 public sector respondents, four private sector respondents, four third sector respondents and three planning professionals.
| Respondent type | Answered | Not answered | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 25 | 36 | 61 | |
| % of organisations | 41% | 59% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 15 | 7 | 22 | |
| Planning authorities | 13 | 3 | 16 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Private sector | 4 | 10 | 14 | |
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Other | 6 | 6 | ||
| Third sector | 4 | 16 | 20 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 6 | 9 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 4 | 4 | ||
| Other | 1 | 6 | 7 | |
| Individuals | 0 | 58 | 58 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 100% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 25 | 94 | 119 | |
| % of all respondents | 21% | 79% | 100% | |
2.130 Respondents who felt it was possible to extend PDR at least to some designated areas referred to a range of possibilities, although some noted that prior notification/ prior approval would be required if PDR is to be applied to any designated areas. Indeed, a planning professional suggested that PDR for underground development could be extended to all designated areas, if this was subject to careful controls (e.g. on like-for-like replacement) and archaeological investigation where necessary.
2.131 Specific types of designated area mentioned by respondents are noted below.
- Designated areas where it was felt that PDR could be extended were: conservation areas, National Scenic Areas, National Parks, World Heritage Sites, Category A listed buildings and scheduled monuments, and historic gardens and designed landscapes. Some noted that prior notification/ prior approval would be required in these areas.
- Designated areas where it was felt that PDR cannot be extended were primarily where underground development is more likely to have an impact on archaeological, ecological or scientific interests. Suggestions included World Heritage Sites, historic gardens and designed landscape, natural heritage and habitat sites such as SSSIs and European Sites, the settings of scheduled monuments and Class A listed buildings and scheduled monuments and historic battlefields. Some suggested that PDR may be applied in these areas, where underground development would replace or be ancillary to existing development, and/or where sufficient controls were in place.
- Some third sector respondents used their comments to indicate that they were opposed to extending PDR to any designated areas.
- A planning professional also recommended that consideration is given to applying prior notification to specific areas of archaeological significance outwith designated areas.
Q27. In those areas where PDR for underground development could be extended, what limitations, restrictions or requirements should apply (e.g. prior notification/ prior approval, a requirement for an archaeological assessment or specific limitations)? Please explain your answer.
2.132 A total of 27 respondents provided comment at Question 27, including 26 organisations and one individual. Organisations providing comment were 15 public sector respondents, four private sector respondents, four third sector respondents and three planning professionals.
| Respondent type | Answered | Not answered | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 26 | 35 | 61 | |
| % of organisations | 43% | 57% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 15 | 7 | 22 | |
| Planning authorities | 14 | 2 | 16 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 5 | 6 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Private sector | 4 | 10 | 14 | |
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Other | 6 | 6 | ||
| Third sector | 4 | 16 | 20 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 6 | 9 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 4 | 4 | ||
| Other | 1 | 6 | 7 | |
| Individuals | 1 | 57 | 58 | |
| % of individuals | 2% | 98% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 27 | 92 | 119 | |
| % of all respondents | 23% | 77% | 100% | |
2.133 Respondents referred to a range of limitations and restrictions which they wished to see applied to PDR for underground development in designated areas.
2.134 A range of public bodies, planning professionals and third sector respondents wished to see prior approval for PDR in designated areas to enable relevant supporting information to be considered. Respondents suggested that dependent on location, prior notification/ prior approval should consider:
- Archaeological assessment and appropriate mitigation.
- Protected species and habitat surveys.
- Geological surveys.
- Flood risk assessment.
- Pollution protection measures.
2.135 It was also suggested that PDR could include a requirement on an operator to ensure the appropriate range of issues are addressed or to produce an options appraisal, including which options have been discounted and why.
2.136 Other suggested limitations were:
- Like-for-like restoration of land and surfacing.
- Limitation on the depth of undergrounding (e.g. up to 10 metres).
- Ensuring a minimum distance between development and sensitive buildings or settings.
2.137 However, some private sector respondents referred to existing regulations and controls affecting development in designated areas, and suggested that prior approval would not be required.
General comments
Q28. Do you have any further comments to make which are specifically related to the potential changes to PDR for Digital Communications Infrastructure which have not been addressed in the questions above?
2.138 A total of 16 respondents indicated that they had further comments to make at Question 28. These were seven planning authorities, four private sector respondents, three planning professionals and two third sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 16 | 10 | 26 | |
| % of organisations | 62% | 38% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 7 | 6 | 13 | |
| Planning authorities | 7 | 6 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 3 | 3 | ||
| Private sector | 4 | 3 | 7 | |
| Digital telecoms | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| % of individuals | 0% | 0% | 0% | |
| All respondents | 16 | 10 | 26 | |
| % of all respondents | 62% | 38% | 100% | |
2.139 In fact, 22 respondents provided written comment at Question 28. This included seven planning authorities, four planning professionals, six private sector and five third sector respondents. Key points raised by these respondents are summarised below.
2.140 Some planning authorities felt that proposed changes have not addressed the complexity of Class 67, described as a fundamental issue with the legislation relative to other parts of the GPDO. These respondents referred to all parties (planning authorities, operators, consultants and the public) finding Class 67 difficult to interpret. This was noted as a particular issue for smaller planning teams who may not have officers specialising in telecoms.
2.141 Concerns were also raised regarding the current prior notification/ prior approval process, which was described as “cumbersome” and difficult for communities to understand. The same planning authority recommended that a ‘Planning Certificate’, similar to the current process for Certificate of Lawfulness, could be an effective replacement for prior notification/ prior approval.
2.142 Some respondents also reiterated a view that caution is required in the extension of PDR to designated areas. This included support for prior approval or planning application requirement in designated areas, although there was some concern about the administrative and financial burden this places on planning authorities. Best practice guidance and quality standards for digital communications infrastructure were also recommended as decreasing the risks to designated areas. Others expressed their opposition to extension of PDR and wished to see a requirement for full planning application in these areas.
2.143 Concerns were raised regarding fees associated with prior notification/ prior approval, and the extent to which these enable full cost recovery. A planning authority suggested that a review of statutory planning fees should seek to ensure that fees associated with prior notification/ prior approval enable full cost recovery for these processes.
2.144 Comments at Question 28 also included the following recommendations for addition or amendment to proposals:
- It was suggested that a focus on designated areas in the proposals omits potential to consider other potentially relevant designations such as Special Landscape Areas, Wild Land areas, and Drinking Water Protected Areas.
- Some respondents indicated that confusion around the process of prior notification had led to complaints from local communities. It was suggested that neighbour notification requirements are amended to include a requirement for advertisement in the local newspaper, and/or extending the radius for neighbour notification.
- Adding a requirement to consult with the roads authority where development involves ground based cabinets.
- A private sector respondent noted that fixed line apparatus currently follows the PDR notification process, and wished to see this continue as the dimensions of this apparatus does not fall into the category that would require prior approval.
- A third sector respondent wished to see PDR for access tracks for digital infrastructure postponed until consideration of PDR for hill tracks in 2021.
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback