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).
3 Agricultural Developments
3.1 The second development type considered by the consultation paper was agricultural developments. The consultation paper set out specific proposals for the extension of PDR for agricultural developments including those relating to larger agricultural buildings, conversion of agricultural buildings to residential or commercial use, and conversion of forestry buildings, and includes proposals to clarify the planning status of polytunnels. A total of 20 questions were asked in relation to these proposals.
Larger agricultural buildings
3.2 Class 18 of the GPDO sets out current PDR for agricultural buildings and operations, including the erection, extension or alteration of agricultural buildings. These PDR are subject to a number of conditions limiting the size and height of buildings, limiting the distance of agricultural buildings from trunk roads and dwellings, and limiting the use of any buildings to agricultural purposes. Where a new building or a “significant extension or significant alteration” of an existing building is proposed, the GPDO requires developers to apply to the planning authority to determine whether prior approval is required in relation to siting, design and external appearance. “Significant” extension or alteration is defined as an increase in cubic content of more than 10%.
3.3 Scottish Government proposes more than doubling the maximum ground area for new buildings or extensions to existing buildings, and amending the definition of “significant” extension of alteration to 20%. Together, these proposals would double the size of new buildings permitted under PDR, and double the size of extensions that may be undertaken without prior approval. Other limitations and restrictions on the PDR would remain unchanged.
Q29. Do you agree with our proposal to increase the maximum ground area of agricultural buildings that may be constructed under class 18 PDR from 465sqm to 1,000sqm?
Q29a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.4 A total of 32 respondents answered the closed element at Question 29, including 26 organisation respondents and six individuals. Of these 32 respondents, 24 (75%) agreed with the proposal and eight (25%) disagreed. The eight respondents who disagreed were two public bodies, two planning professionals and four third sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 18 | 8 | 26 | |
| % of organisations | 69% | 31% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 14 | 2 | 16 | |
| Planning authorities | 12 | 12 | ||
| Other public bodies | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 3 | ||
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 3 | 3 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 4 | 4 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 6 | 0 | 6 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 24 | 8 | 32 | |
| % of all respondents | 75% | 25% | 100% | |
3.5 A total of 25 respondents provided written comment at Question 29. This included all eight of those who disagreed with the proposal, 12 who agreed, and five who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed were of the view that proposals were more in step with modern farming practices, and noted that they were consistent with the rest of the UK. Some of those expressing overall support for the proposals suggested that the proposed scale of increase may not be appropriate in all designated areas, and highlighted the role of prior notification/ prior approval in enabling some local scrutiny.
3.6 The most common point raised by those opposed to the proposal, were comments highlighting that it represents a significant increase in building size to be permitted without some local scrutiny. This was a particular concern for planning professionals and third sector respondents. These respondents referred to potential impact on landscape and visual amenity, the increased intensity of use on the site, and potential noise disturbance. One respondent considered that an SEA had not been undertaken to assess the potential long-term impact of proposals.
3.7 Particular concern was expressed about the potential impact of proposals for designated areas, and the risk of diminishing the value of these areas. This included reference to potential for buildings of this size to have a visual impact on sensitive landscapes, and concern about impact on biodiversity, habitat and ecology. On the basis of these concerns, some respondents indicated that proposals should not be applied across all designated areas. Specific reference was made to the following areas as not suitable for the proposed increase in building size: National Parks, National Scenic Areas, Conservation Areas, World Heritage Sites and historic designed gardens and landscapes.
3.8 Comments on additional protections in designated areas included a suggestion that prior approval procedures should consider impacts on soil quality, biodiversity, flood risk and archaeological disturbance – alongside siting and appearance. However, some planning professionals and third sector respondents were of the view that a full planning application should be required. This included some who specifically wished to see full planning scrutiny in designated areas, and others who felt that this was required for all cases.
3.9 Other issues raised in relation to proposals were:
- A suggestion that no evidence has been cited that current PDR for agricultural buildings are inadequate, and why such a large increase is required.
- Concern regarding potential for proposals to increase flood risk through uncontrolled loss of permeable ground. It was suggested that prior notification should be required to consider flood risk, including downstream risk and cumulative impact. In addition, it was suggested that PDR should be limited in identified medium to high flood risk areas, and/or PDR specify a maximum total increase in agricultural buildings within a defined area.
- Concern that developers could still erect large agricultural buildings purely for later conversion to residential use, despite proposed mitigation measures.
Q30. Do you agree with our proposal to retain other existing class 18 conditions and limitations?
Q30a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.10 A total of 30 respondents answered the closed element at Question 30, including 25 organisation respondents and five individuals. Of these 30 respondents, 27 (90%) agreed with the proposal and three (10%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were a planning authority, a planning professional, and a private sector respondent.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 22 | 3 | 25 | |
| % of organisations | 88% | 12% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 16 | 1 | 17 | |
| Planning authorities | 12 | 1 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | 4 | 4 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 2 | 2 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 27 | 3 | 30 | |
| % of all respondents | 90% | 10% | 100% | |
3.11 Sixteen respondents provided written comment at Question 30. This included the three who disagreed with the proposal, nine who agreed, and four who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed referred to the importance of existing conditions to limit the impact of larger agricultural buildings, and for planning authorities to retain a degree of control. This included particular reference to the importance of conditions in sensitive landscapes.
3.12 However, those who indicated their overall agreement at Question 30 were amongst a range of respondents who suggested amendments or additions to existing controls. This included a mix of public, private and third sector respondents. These suggestions are summarised below.
- Some wished to see re-consideration of the building height limit. This included a planning authority recommending additional assessment of proposals over a specified height, and private sector respondents suggesting that the current 12 metre height limit is not consistent with modern farming practices. This included potential future growth in indoor “vertical” farming.
- A private sector respondent suggested that the minimum distance requirement for classified roads could be reduced or removed, if sightlines for road entrances and junctions are retained. However, some planning authorities suggested that the larger size limit may require a greater distance from roads and residential buildings to avoid noise and other disruption.
- Some respondents suggested that the proposed larger size limit for buildings is disproportionate to the minimum size of the agricultural unit. Concerns were raised that permitted buildings could account for up to two thirds of the total site, and as such are likely to have a significant visual impact. Reference was made to the minimum land size of 5 hectares in England as a potentially suitable approach.
- A private sector respondent suggested that the requirement that agricultural land is used in the course of a trade or business may disadvantage non-commercial growers, even where their activities fall within the definition of agriculture as set out in the 1997 Planning Act.
- A private sector respondent suggested that the 3m height limit for PDR close to aerodromes is very low, given the size of the buffer zone around aerodromes. It was suggested that the size of the buffer zone and height limit on buildings should be reviewed.
- A third sector respondent suggested that more guidance is required on the assessment of impacts on wildlife, habitats and ecology.
- A third sector respondent suggested that planning authority approval should be required for sites within a flood risk area, or where proposals could have a material adverse impact on flood risk.
Q31. Do you think that the new 1,000sqm size limit should apply in designated areas (e.g. National Parks and National Scenic Areas)?
Q31a. Please explain your answer.
3.13 A total of 30 respondents answered the closed element at Question 31, including 24 organisation respondents and six individuals. Of these 30 respondents, nine (30%) agreed that the new size limit should apply in designated areas, and 21 (70%) disagreed. The nine respondents who agreed included three planning authorities, three private sector respondents, one third sector respondent and two individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 7 | 17 | 24 | |
| % of organisations | 29% | 71% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 3 | 11 | 14 | |
| Planning authorities | 3 | 10 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 3 | 3 | ||
| Private sector | 3 | 3 | ||
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 3 | 3 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 2 | 4 | 6 | |
| % of individuals | 33% | 67% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 9 | 21 | 30 | |
| % of all respondents | 30% | 70% | 100% | |
3.14 A total of 29 respondents provided written comment at Question 31. This included 20 who disagreed with the proposal, seven who agreed, and two who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed were concerned that farmers should not be put at a commercial disadvantage based only on their location within a designated area. However, reference was made to the importance of prior notification/ prior approval processes, and the need to ensure these provide sufficient protection to prevent inappropriate development.
3.15 The most common concern for those opposed to the 1,000sqm limit in designated areas was the potential impact of what was seen as a significant increase in building size. This was raised by a range of planning authorities, planning professionals, third sector respondents and individuals. Some noted that agricultural buildings are often the largest structure in their surroundings, and felt that an increase to 1,000sqm would be out of keeping with what were described as “fragile landscapes”. These respondents felt that more planning authority control is required to properly manage these areas. Moreover, some third sector respondents suggested that extending the 1,000sqm limit would effectively undermine the designated status – for example rendering National Park Authorities unable to fully scrutinise development.
3.16 Those opposed to the proposal raised a number of points in support of their position. These included concerns that the 1,000sqm limit could encourage new development which is not in keeping with the area, and that planning authorities may find it difficult to resist this trend even if some controls are in place. Concern was also expressed around potential for future change of use of larger agricultural buildings, for example to storage or other industrial uses in areas where this kind of land use would not usually be permitted.
3.17 Respondents also referred to a range of designated areas and other sensitive landscapes where it was felt the 1,000sqm limit on agricultural buildings could have a particularly adverse impact. These are summarised below.
- Specific designated areas where the 1,000sqm was seen as inappropriate were National Parks, National Scenic Areas, conservation areas, the setting of Category A listed buildings, scheduled monuments, World Heritage Sites, gardens and designed landscapes, and historic battlefields.
- Respondents also referred to other sensitive landscapes, which are not designated but where it was felt that 1,000sqm buildings could have a significant impact. These included Local Landscape designations as defined in Local Plans, Greenbelt designations, and in areas of ‘traditional’ farming practices and/or crofting.
Q32. Do you agree with our proposal to increase the scale of extensions or alterations to agricultural (and forestry) buildings that may be carried out without requiring prior approval?
Q32a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.18 A total of 32 respondents answered the closed element at Question 32, including 25 organisation respondents and seven individuals. Of these 32 respondents, 22 (69%) agreed with the proposal and 10 (31%) disagreed. The ten respondents who disagreed were four public bodies, two planning professionals, one private sector and three third sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 15 | 10 | 25 | |
| % of organisations | 60% | 40% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 11 | 4 | 15 | |
| Planning authorities | 10 | 2 | 12 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 3 | 3 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 3 | 3 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 7 | 0 | 7 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 22 | 10 | 32 | |
| % of all respondents | 69% | 31% | 100% | |
3.19 A total of 20 respondents provided written comment at Question 32. This included the 10 respondents who disagreed with the proposal, six who agreed, and four who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed noted that the proposal represented a smaller change than that proposed for the maximum size of agricultural buildings (see Questions 29 and 31). However, some of those in agreement expressed concerns regarding impact in designated areas, and wished to see these excluded.
3.20 For those who opposed the proposed increase, this was most commonly related to the potential impact, particularly in designated areas. A mix of public sector, planning professionals and third sector respondents suggested that proposals could still result in relatively significant change to agricultural buildings, and were concerned about potential adverse impacts. It was also noted that the Sustainability Appraisal indicates that removing a requirement for prior notification has potential significant effects, particularly on cultural heritage.
3.21 These concerns were particularly acute in relation to designated areas. A range of public and third sector respondents, including some of those who agreed with the proposal in general, referred to potential significant impact on designated areas and other sensitive landscapes. This included specific reference to National Parks, National Scenic Areas, conservation areas, historic designed gardens and landscapes, local landscapes, greenbelt designations, and designated croft land. However, some public and third sector respondents felt that proposals should not be applied to any designated areas. It was noted that the Sustainability Appraisal recommends retention of prior notification/ prior approval; some suggested that this may be sufficient to mitigate potential adverse impacts in designated areas, or otherwise a lower limit above which prior notification/ prior approval would apply.
3.22 Respondents also suggested other amendments or additions to proposals including:
- Applying a condition that buildings can only be extended once.
- Making clear that this does not allow extensions that would increase the size of a shed beyond that ordinarily permitted under the Class 18.
- Setting a maximum size for forestry buildings to better control inappropriately sized buildings.
- Prior approval to be applied within MOD safeguarding zones.
- Prior approval to be required where protected species legislation applies, or buildings that host protected species should be excluded from PDR. More generally, existing protocols that alert planners to the presence of protected species in developments should be adopted by proposals.
Q33. Do you agree with our proposal to discourage developers from erecting new buildings for the sole purpose of converting them by limiting class 18 and 22 PDR where a residential conversion has taken place under PDR on the same farm within the preceding 10 years?
Q33a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.23 A total of 34 respondents answered the closed element at Question 33, including 26 organisation respondents and eight individuals. Of these 34 respondents, 16 (47%) agreed and 18 (53%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were 11 public sector respondents, four third sector respondents, a private sector respondent and two individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 10 | 16 | 26 |
| % of organisations | 38% | 62% | 100% |
| Public sector | 5 | 11 | 16 |
| Planning authorities | 3 | 10 | 13 |
| Other public bodies | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Planning and other professionals | 3 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 1 | 1 | |
| Digital telecoms | |||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | |
| Other | |||
| Third sector | 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Environment/natural heritage | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Other | 1 | 1 | |
| Individuals | 6 | 2 | 8 |
| % of individuals | 75% | 25% | 100% |
| All respondents | 16 | 18 | 34 |
| % of all respondents | 47% | 53% | 100% |
3.24 A total of 28 respondents provided written comment at Question 33. This included all 18 who disagreed with the proposal, seven who agreed, and three who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed indicated that they supported the purpose of proposals in preventing inappropriate or excessive residential development, although some felt that application of the proposal could be complex for planning authorities given potential ownership and layout changes over time.
3.25 Most of those opposed to the proposal appeared to support the aim of preventing inappropriate residential development, but had concerns about the likely effectiveness of the proposed approach. This was a particular issue for public and third sector respondents, with some of the view that a 10 year limit would be insufficient, and may still be seen by developers as a “worthwhile investment”. This included suggestions that a period of more than 10 years would be required to sufficiently deter conversion to residential development. However, others wished to see conversion to residential use excluded from PDR, expressing a view that preventative measures would not be sufficient to prevent erection of agricultural buildings solely for future conversion. This included suggestions that PDR would undermine the principle of a plan-led system.
3.26 Those opposed to the proposal raised several other concerns. This included suggestions that application of the proposal may be complex for planning authorities. Some public, private and third sector respondents noted that it can be difficult to determine what constitutes relevant “farm unit” or the “same farm”, with many farming businesses comprising multiple sites and buildings. Reference was also made to potential changes to farm holdings over time, and it was noted that planning authorities are unlikely to have information allowing them to track these changes to make judgements on whether and how PDR restrictions should apply. A planning authority also suggested that it may be difficult to determine whether previous conversion has been undertaken, as building warrant compliance is not 100%.
3.27 A planning authority suggested that proposals could disincentivise these conversions, if doing so would restrict owners in the future.
3.28 Others, including private sector respondents and individuals, objected to the proposal on the basis that it would be overly restrictive, and potentially work against the aim of supporting sustainable rural economic growth. This included suggestions that proposals would create barriers to business growth and improved productivity, if any building must be in agricultural use for 10 years. A private sector respondent suggested that a farmer choosing to convert buildings no longer suitable for agriculture, and needing modern buildings to develop their farming business, may be unrelated and should not be penalised by planning legislation. The proposed change to PDR discussed at Question 39 below was recommended as a more proportionate approach.
3.29 Reflecting the range of views and concerns outlined above, respondents suggested a number of specific amendments or additions to proposals as summarised below:
- Increasing the time threshold for conversion including a suggestion of 20 years.
- Applying PDR for conversion exclusively to existing buildings, with scope for this to be reviewed to consider if the available ‘stock’ for conversion has been sufficient.
- The phrase “under the new PDR proposed below” should be removed from the proposal, such that the proposal will capture farms where conversion has taken place irrespective of the regulations under which conversion was undertaken.
- The PDR should be limited only to “vernacular buildings” (defined as pre-1950s and build using traditional materials and methods) to deter new buildings being erected for conversion.
- Guidance will be required to assist planning authorities in determining whether buildings to be converted are genuinely redundant for the purposes of the farm business. A planning authority suggested that any conversion which gives rise to a need to construct a replacement building that would otherwise not have been required, is not a sustainable use of land.
3.30 Respondents also identified a number of issues where it was felt that clarification is required, including a suggestion that it should be made clear that the proposal would not remove all PDR for the 10 years following conversion, but would only remove the right to construct new agricultural buildings. Other queries included:
- If a proposal for conversion has been granted, but not implemented, could another permission be granted?
- If a farm business owns several scattered farms, would a conversion on one site restrict the erection of a new building on another site that may be many miles distant?
- If a farm is dissolved and sold in lots to neighbours, would any conversions undertaken on this land restrict the new owners?
Conversion of agricultural buildings to residential use
3.31 The GPDO includes PDR for some changes of use, but these do not currently apply to agricultural buildings. Scottish Government proposes new PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings to residential use, to include change of use of an agricultural building and “reasonable building operations” required to convert the building to dwellings.
3.32 The new PDR would be subject to a number of conditions and limitations to minimise the risk of adverse impacts, and prevent misuse of the new PDR:
- PDR would be subject to prior approval, which would be required to consider a range of matters including design and appearance, provision of natural light within habitable rooms, transport and access, flood risk, contamination risk, and noise. If this process identifies impacts that cannot be acceptably mitigated, prior approval may be refused.
- Conversions would be limited to no more than 5 new dwellings, each of which should be no more than 150sqm.
- External dimensions of the completed development may not extend beyond those of the existing agricultural building.
- PDR would not apply to listed buildings or buildings in the site of a scheduled monument.
- To prevent landowners from erecting agricultural buildings solely for the purposes of subsequent conversion, any building to be converted must have been used for agricultural purposes on or before 5 November 2019, or have been used for agricultural purposes for a continuous period of 10 years.
Q34. Do you agree with the proposed new PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings to residential use, including reasonable building operations necessary to convert the building?
Q34a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.33 A total of 37 respondents answered the closed element at Question 34, including 29 organisation respondents and eight individuals. Of these 37 respondents, 10 (27%) agreed with the proposal and 27 (73%) disagreed. The ten respondents who agreed were another public body, a planning professional, and three private sector respondents.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 5 | 24 | 29 | |
| % of organisations | 17% | 83% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 1 | 15 | 16 | |
| Planning authorities | 14 | 14 | ||
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 3 | 3 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 6 | 6 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 4 | 4 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 5 | 3 | 8 | |
| % of individuals | 63% | 38% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 10 | 27 | 37 | |
| % of all respondents | 27% | 73% | 100% | |
3.34 A total of 36 respondents provided written comment at Question 34. This included the 27 respondent who disagreed with the proposal, four of the 10 who agreed, and five who did not answer the closed question.
3.35 For respondents opposed to the proposed PDR, the two most commonly cited concerns were that proposals undermined the plan-led approach being taken by planning authorities, and concerns regarding potential for inappropriate residential development. These issues were raised by a range of respondents including planning authorities, planning professionals, third sector respondents and individuals.
3.36 A number of planning authorities noted that they already make provision to encourage conversion of existing buildings as part of the Local Development Plan-led approach. This included description of policies and controls to ensure conversions are in suitable locations, including a specific focus for some on controlling housing development in greenbelt and rural locations, preventing urban sprawl and the suburbanisation of rural areas. Some referred to the current Local Development Plan system as working well to support appropriate conversion of agricultural buildings, and suggested that proposals were seeking to fix something that is not broken.
3.37 Some noted that sites with potential for five or more would usually be included in Housing Land Audits to inform forward planning, but that the proposed PDR could undermine this process. At a national level, it was also noted that neither NPF3 nor the recent Rural Planning Policy to 2050 document referenced the proposed PDR, and suggested that national Scottish Planning Policy should be the vehicle to drive any policy change to rural housing development.
3.38 It was also suggested that proposals could undermine local policy priorities. This included reference to wind turbine generation, minerals development, tourism accommodation policies and town centre regeneration.
3.39 A range of respondents expressed concerns regarding potential for the proposed PDR to allow residential development in unsuitable locations. This included specific concerns about residential conversions in remote or inaccessible locations, and in close proximity to agricultural operations. Some also suggested that proposals do not take account of the diversity of farm steadings in terms of their location and character, and suitability for residential conversion.
3.40 Comments relating to the potential impact of proposals included concerns regarding the potential cumulative impact of residential conversions on the character of rural areas. This reflected points noted above regarding planning authority policies to prevent the “suburbanisation” of rural areas. Some also expressed concerns regarding the potential impact of uncontrolled residential development on infrastructure capacity in rural areas. It was noted that proposals would not allow planning authorities to secure developer contributions to increase infrastructure capacity, as might be expected of other developments of a similar size.
3.41 In addition to concerns regarding the potential impact of proposals, some expressed scepticism regarding the likely effectiveness of the PDR to support the supply of affordable housing in rural areas, and to support rural repopulation. This included some who noted that conversion costs are typically higher than for new build, and that rural housing market trends in parts of Scotland suggested that some conversions will be used for second homes or short-term lets. Some planning authorities suggested that the proposed PDR would not include any mechanism by which authorities can require a proportion of affordable housing units.
3.42 It was also suggested that the range of matters to be considered through prior approval were such that proposals were unlikely to achieve any real streamlining of the planning process. Indeed, it was suggested that proposals represent a significant change in the scope and nature of development permitted under Class 18 and 22.
3.43 Other concerns raised by those opposed to the proposed PDR are summarised below.
- Some indicated that planning authorities and others may have difficulty defining what “reasonable building operations” should be allowed by the PDR, such that planning authorities can prevent proposals which effectively rebuild agricultural buildings.
- In relation to the proposal to limit the size of converted dwellings to that of the existing agricultural building, some suggested that existing residential PDR would mean that converted dwellings could subsequently be extended without the need for planning scrutiny.
- It was suggested that the scale of development to be permitted under proposals would usually warrant public engagement, and that proposals for prior notification/ prior approval are insufficient to support meaningful public engagement.
- Some felt that the conditions and limits specified in the consultation document would not be effective in minimising impact of development, including reference to flood risk management, and impact on ecology and biodiversity. Some expressed particular concern regarding impact in designated areas. Some also suggested that conditions would not be sufficient to prevent developers from “gaming” the PDR by erecting buildings for later conversion.
3.44 Respondents also identified a range of points where it was felt that clarification is required, and suggested amendment or addition to proposals. These are summarised below.
- PDR should be restricted only to rural buildings of vernacular quality and/or historical or architectural interest – modern utilitarian structures should not be eligible.
- A condition should be added that the dwelling must be a principal residence.
- The applicant should be required to prove the redundancy of the building to be converted.
- Reduce the size threshold for dwellings to encourage development of more affordable homes.
- The proposed PDR should be limited to specific zones or local circumstances, as identified by planning authorities. For example, this could exclude greenbelt.
- The proposed PDR should not apply within military safeguarding zones.
Q35. Do you agree that the proposed new PDR should be subject to a prior notification/prior approval process in respect of specified matters?
Q35a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.45 A total of 37 respondents answered the closed element at Question 35, including 29 organisation respondents and eight individuals. Of these 37 respondents, 20 (54%) agreed with the proposal and 17 (46%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were 12 planning authorities, a planning professional, a private sector respondent, a third sector respondent and two individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 14 | 15 | 29 | |
| % of organisations | 48% | 52% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 6 | 12 | 18 | |
| Planning authorities | 2 | 12 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | 4 | 4 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Third sector | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 6 | 2 | 8 | |
| % of individuals | 75% | 25% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 20 | 17 | 37 | |
| % of all respondents | 54% | 46% | 100% | |
3.46 A total of 32 respondents provided written comment at Question 35. This included the 17 respondents who disagreed with the proposal, 11 who agreed, and four who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed with the proposed prior notification/ prior approval requirement were of the view that this would be required to ensure design quality and amenity of conversions, and felt that proposals set out appropriate controls to minimise any adverse impact. However, some of those expressing broad support for the proposal suggested that it was unlikely to differ greatly from consideration of a full planning application, other than establishing the principle. Some of these respondents suggested that this could be achieved through Local Development Plans (LDPs) without any need for additional PDR.
3.47 For those opposed to the proposal, the most common issue raised was that prior notification/ prior approval would not provide sufficient scrutiny given the significance of the development. These concerns were raised primarily by planning authorities, although some planning professionals and private and third sector respondents agreed. This included reference to the variation in farm holdings and agricultural buildings, and potential for inappropriate development. It was also suggested that prior approval can raise public expectation regarding the level of scrutiny involved and, in particular, scope for meaningful public engagement. This included reference to public objections raised due to a lack of understanding of what was seen as a complex process. Some suggested that a full planning application was required to ensure sufficient opportunity to consider the required range of issues, and to enable proper public engagement.
3.48 Some raised concerns that the proposed range of matters to be considered is insufficient – these views are considered in more detail at Question 36. However, it was also suggested that the range of matters to be considered by prior notification/ prior approval are such that the proposed PDR would not streamline the process relative to a full planning application. This included comments from planning authorities, a planning professional and a private sector respondent. Moreover, it was suggested that proposals could add further delay to the present process, if prior approval is refused and developers are required to submit a full planning application.
3.49 Some planning authorities and planning professionals suggested that prior notification/ prior approval placed a significant resource burden on authorities, particular given the broad range of matters and depth of information to be considered. This included suggestions that the resource requirements of the proposed PDR with prior approval would be equivalent to those of a full planning application. In this context, some planning authorities and planning professionals raised concerns that current fee structures for PDR would not allow full cost recovery.
3.50 Respondents highlighted a number of points for clarification, including:
- The timescales in which the prior approval would be determined.
- Whether neighbour notification would be required.
- Whether converted dwellings would be eligible for householder PDR, thus allowing subsequent extension.
- How consultees would contribute to the prior notification/ prior approval process.
- Whether the proposed PDR include any opportunity to secure developer contributions and/or affordable housing contribution.
3.51 Finally, there was a call for design guidance for conversion of agricultural buildings, alongside prior approval, in order to minimise the impact on historic environment assets.
Q36. Do you agree with the proposed range of matters that would be the subject of a prior notification/prior approval process?
Q36a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.52 A total of 34 respondents answered the closed element at Question 36, including 27 organisation respondents and seven individuals. Of these 34 respondents, 12 (35%) agreed with the proposal and 22 (65%) disagreed. The 12 respondents who agreed were three public bodies, two planning professionals, two private sector, a third sector respondent and four individuals
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 8 | 19 | 27 | |
| % of organisations | 30% | 70% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 3 | 13 | 16 | |
| Planning authorities | 1 | 13 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | 2 | 2 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | ||||
| Other | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Third sector | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 4 | 4 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 4 | 3 | 7 | |
| % of individuals | 57% | 43% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 12 | 22 | 34 | |
| % of all respondents | 35% | 65% | 100% | |
3.53 A total of 34 respondents provided written comment at Question 36. This included all 22 who disagreed with the proposal, seven who agreed, and five who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed indicated that the matters noted in the consultation document addressed the key points for consideration. However, some wished to see guidance on the extent and limitations of the prior notification/ prior approval process for PDR, and how the identified matters will be assessed. This included for example the role of statutory consultees.
3.54 Some respondents suggested that the range of matters to be considered is effectively equivalent to a full planning application. This included a suggestion that fees should be reviewed to ensure full cost recovery for the extended prior notification/ prior approval process.
3.55 Some saw a need for Scottish Government guidance regarding the application of PDR, to ensure a consistent approach across the country. It was suggested that this should include clarification on matters to be considered. A planning authority also sought clarification regarding potential development outwith the curtilage of the agricultural building, for example access arrangements or water supply, and whether this would be considered development in its own right.
3.56 Respondents identified a range of other matters to be considered by the prior notification/ prior approval process. These included:
- Impact on ecology and biodiversity, including protected species
- Archaeological and/or architectural assessment.
- Mineral resource safeguarding.
- Ensuring reliable water supply, foul drainage and impact on watercourses.
- Air quality including proximity to agricultural processes.
- Odour.
- Residential amenity, space standards and impact, for example on neighbouring properties.
- Potential impact on the viability of the croft/farm holding.
- Definition of curtilage of building, and control of future development within curtilage.
- Reference to provision of natural light is expanded to include provision of adequate living accommodation.
- Parking provision.
- Sufficient garden ground.
- Separation from agricultural operations.
- Boundary treatments.
- Options for developer obligation payments/affordable housing supply.
- Consideration of local affordable housing needs.
- Impact on local service provision, including education and healthcare.
- Active travel links.
- Impact on established road policies.
- Requirement for consultation with the relevant roads authority.
- Clarification regarding whether planning authorities should consider relevant LDP policy as part of the prior notification/ prior approval process.
Q37. Do you agree with the proposed maximum number (5) and size (150sqm) of units that may be developed under this PDR?
Q37a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.57 A total of 34 respondents answered Question 37, including 27 organisation respondents and seven individuals. Of these 34 respondents, 10 (29%) agreed with the proposal and 24 (71%) disagreed. The ten respondents who agreed were two public bodies, a planning professional, two private sector and one third sector respondents, and four individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 6 | 21 | 27 | |
| % of organisations | 22% | 78% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 2 | 14 | 16 | |
| Planning authorities | 1 | 13 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 4 | 3 | 7 | |
| % of individuals | 57% | 43% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 10 | 24 | 34 | |
| % of all respondents | 29% | 71% | 100% | |
3.58 A total of 30 respondents provided written comment at Question 37. This included all 24 who disagreed with the proposal, five who agreed, and one who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed with proposals expressed a view that limits on the PDR are essential to ensure development minimises impact on the rural character of the surrounding area. However, most of those providing comment raised concerns about and/or suggested amendment to the proposals.
3.59 For those opposed to the proposal, the most common issue was that the numeric limit of five dwellings per conversion is too high. This included concern primarily from planning authorities and planning professionals regarding the potential for significant impact on the character of rural areas, including potential cumulative impact across multiple farm steadings. Some noted that this kind of development could be at odds with local planning policy which seeks to control the volume and character of rural housing development. A planning authority suggested that the proposal could lead to a substantial number of residential dwellings in unsuitable, unsustainable locations.
3.60 In addition to impact on the character of the local area, concerns were raised regarding impact on local infrastructure. This included particular concern around impact on shared private water supplies, potentially imposed without opportunity for meaningful consultation. Others raised concerns regarding the impact of proposals for farms hosting the conversion. Some suggested that development of up to five dwellings would be excessive for many crofts and smaller farm units. There was also concern that potential to develop up to five dwellings could encourage land holders to convert buildings that could remain suitable for agricultural use.
3.61 Planning authority and third sector respondents were among those who suggested that the proposed limit on dwelling numbers could be difficult to enforce. This included potential for two units being used as a single dwelling over time, or vice versa. Others suggested that the potential financial gain may encourage landowners to artificially sub-divide farm holdings to maximise opportunity for re-development.
3.62 Other comments included that the consultation paper did not provide reasoning or justification for the limit of five dwellings. It was noted that the limit is inconsistent with some LDP policies in terms of threshold on small scale rural housing development, and is a development size that would potentially attract developer contributions in relation to affordable housing, services and infrastructure.
3.63 Respondents offered a number of alternatives to the proposed limit of five dwellings. Some suggested that a set limit should not be imposed, but should be determined based on the farm holding and character of the local area on a case by case basis. A planning authority suggested that a lower volume limit would be more appropriate for an untested process, and could be reviewed once more is known about the impact of the PDR. It was also suggested that a single dwelling limit would have been less of an incentive for inappropriate conversion, and would be a better fit with succession planning within farm management.
3.64 In terms of the proposed limit on the size of each dwelling, it was suggested that this is no guarantee of affordability, nor that dwellings will meet local housing needs. Moreover, it was noted that landowners may have the opportunity to subsequently extend a dwelling, if converted dwellings were eligible for householder PDR. Other, primarily private sector, respondents felt that the proposed size limit may be too small. This included a suggestion that conversions often result in inefficient use of space, and that the proposed limit may not be enough for a family home. In this context, the size limit was seen as potentially encouraging development of dwellings for short-term lets, and a private sector responded suggested a cumulative (i.e. per agricultural unit) limit of 750sqm.
Q38. Do you agree with the proposed protection for listed buildings and scheduled monuments?
Q38a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.65 A total of 28 respondents answered Question 38, including 21 organisation respondents and seven individuals. Of these 28 respondents, 25 (89%) agreed with the proposal and three (11%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were a planning authority and two individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 20 | 1 | 21 | |
| % of organisations | 95% | 5% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 13 | 1 | 14 | |
| Planning authorities | 13 | 1 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 3 | 3 | ||
| Private sector | 1 | 1 | ||
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 3 | 3 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 5 | 2 | 7 | |
| % of individuals | 71% | 29% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 25 | 3 | 28 | |
| % of all respondents | 89% | 11% | 100% | |
3.66 Fifteen respondents provided written comment at Question 38. This included the three respondents who disagreed with the proposal, nine of the 25 who agreed, and three who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed saw the proposal as a vital protection to ensure that the PDR does not result in damage to cultural heritage. However, it is notable that some of those in favour of the proposal suggested that this may require more careful consideration than would be allowed by prior notification/ prior approval.
3.67 The three respondents who objected to the proposed protections included two who re-stated their objection to the principle of PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings. However, it was also suggested that proposed protection for listed buildings and scheduled monuments fail to recognise the impact of conversion of relatively large agricultural buildings adjacent to sites of cultural importance. It was suggested that converted agricultural buildings do not have to be within the site of scheduled monuments to have an impact on the character of the site. This was also acknowledged by some of those in favour of the proposals, who wished to see guidance and/or further limitations to avoid inappropriate development on the boundary of scheduled monuments.
3.68 Other respondents expressing broad support for proposed protection for listed buildings and scheduled monuments also raised other points for consideration and/or suggested amendments. These are summarised below.
- A number of planning authorities, planning professionals and third sector respondents suggested that protections should be extended to include the following designated areas and important landscapes:
- Unlisted buildings in Conservation Areas, for example where residential conversion could have an adverse impact on the character of the historic built environment.
- Designated greenbelt, for example where residential conversion could undermine a plan-led approach to manage pressured land.
- Registered crofts where PDR may result in the break-up and unsustainable development of croft land assets.
- It was noted that listed buildings and scheduled monuments have been removed from designated areas for other PDR, on the basis that Listed Building Consent and Scheduled Monument Consent offer sufficient protection for these sites. It was suggested that proposals would introduce unnecessary inconsistency between different PDRs.
- A private sector respondent suggested that the buildings best suited to conversion to residential use are “vernacular”, and may include listed buildings. It was suggested that proposed protections may leave a shortfall in suitable properties for conversion.
Q39. Do you agree with the proposed measures to discourage developers from erecting new buildings for the sole purpose of converting them?
Q39a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.69 A total of 33 respondents answered Question 39, including 27 organisation respondents and six individuals. Of these 33 respondents, 19 (58%) agreed with the proposal and 14 (42%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were eight public sector respondents, five third sector respondents, and a planning professional.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 13 | 14 | 27 | |
| % of organisations | 48% | 52% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 9 | 8 | 17 | |
| Planning authorities | 7 | 7 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 2 | 2 | ||
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 2 | 2 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 5 | 5 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 6 | 0 | 6 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 19 | 14 | 33 | |
| % of all respondents | 58% | 42% | 100% | |
3.70 A total of 24 respondents provided written comment at Question 39. This included all 14 of those who disagreed with the proposal, eight of the 19 who agreed, and two who did not answer the closed question. Those who supported proposals indicated that rules would be essential to prevent misuse of PDR, in terms of landowners “gaming” the system, but also minimising the risk of inappropriate residential development, and over-development of rural areas. Some also noted that they felt that this proposal was preferable to that discussed at Question 33, whereby PDR would be invalidated for 10 years following a residential conversion on a site.
3.71 Concerns raised by those objecting to the proposals included that PDR for residential conversion would undermine planning authorities’ plan-led approach to rural housing development. This included a suggestion that a plan-led approach can provide additional flexibility for rural housing development, without the need for additional PDR.
3.72 A range of public and third sector respondents expressed a view that the proposed 10-year requirement would be insufficient deterrent for developers, relative to the potential financial return on development of five dwellings. It was suggested that development of five dwellings every 10 years could be a significant incentive for developers taking a longer-term view, particularly in the context of low interest rates. This view was supported by reference to examples of landowners choosing to sell farm land in ‘lots’ to maximise the value, including use of existing PDR for redevelopment.
3.73 Some planning authorities and third sector respondents suggested that the proposed rules may be difficult to implement. In particular, some were of the view that authorities may not have access to the information required to determine whether a building has been in continuous agricultural use, for example where the building itself was developed under PDR and where farm holdings have broken up and/or changed ownership in the previous ten years. A planning authority also suggested that the proposed rules do not recognise the characteristic of crofts, where many crofters are not full-time farmers and buildings may be used for non-agricultural purposes. It was suggested that guidance would be required to assist authorities on how rules should be applied in practice.
3.74 In contrast to these concerns, a planning authority suggested that proposals may not sufficiently incentivise retention and conversion of traditional steadings, rather than demolish and re-build. It was suggested that this could have significant unplanned impacts on the development of new residential housing in rural areas.
3.75 Respondents suggested a range of amendments and additions to proposals to prevent “gaming” of PDR, and identified points for clarification. These are summarised below.
- Clarification is required regarding whether PDR would apply to buildings last used for the purpose of agriculture, but which have since been separated in ownership and use (i.e. are vacant and no longer part of an associated farm holding).
- The time limit for agricultural use should be extended to 20 years.
- The ten-year agricultural use stipulation should still apply to buildings built before 5 November 2019.
- The PDR should be limited only to existing buildings at the time legislation is enacted, with scope to review the impact of PDR at a later date and revise the ‘effective date’ accordingly.
Conversion of agricultural buildings to flexible commercial use
3.76 As with conversion of agricultural buildings to residential use, conversion to a commercial use would currently require a full planning application. Scottish Government proposes new PDR for conversion of agricultural and forestry buildings to a range of commercial uses. Specifically, the proposed PDR would allow conversion to a ‘flexible’ use within the following use classes: class 1 (shops), class 2 (financial, professional and other services), class 3 (food and drink), class 4 (business), class 6 (storage or distribution), or class 10 (non-residential institutions).
3.77 Consistent with the PDR proposed for residential conversion, the PDR would be subject to a number of conditions and limitations to minimise the risk of adverse impacts, and prevent misuse:
- Total cumulative floorspace to be changed to flexible commercial use may not exceed 500sqm.
- Where the cumulative floorspace subject to change of use exceeds 150sqm, PDR would be subject to prior approval. This process would consider design and appearance, contamination risks, noise, transport and highways, and flood risk. If this process identifies impacts that cannot be acceptably mitigated, prior approval may be refused.
- Where the cumulative floorspace subject to change of use is no more than 150sqm, notification of the planning authority would be required.
- PDR would not apply to listed buildings or buildings in the site of a scheduled monument.
- To prevent landowners from erecting agricultural buildings solely for the purposes of subsequent conversion, any building to be converted must have been used for agricultural purposes on or before 5 November 2019, or have been used for agricultural purposes for a continuous period of 10 years.
Q40. Do you agree with the proposed new PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings to flexible commercial use, including reasonable building operations necessary to convert the building?
Q40a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.78 A total of 35 respondents answered Question 40, including 28 organisation respondents and seven individuals. Of these 35 respondents, 15 (43%) agreed with the proposal and 20 (57%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were 11 public sector respondents, five third sector respondents, a planning professional and a private sector respondent, and two individuals.
Q40. Do you agree with the proposed new PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings to flexible commercial use, including reasonable building operations necessary to convert the building?
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 10 | 18 | 28 | |
| % of organisations | 36% | 64% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 5 | 11 | 16 | |
| Planning authorities | 4 | 10 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 3 | 3 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 5 | 5 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 4 | 4 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 5 | 2 | 7 | |
| % of individuals | 71% | 29% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 15 | 20 | 35 | |
| % of all respondents | 43% | 57% | 100% | |
3.79 A total of 31 respondents provided written comment at Question 40. This included the 20 respondents who disagreed with the proposal, seven who agreed, and four who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed with the proposals noted potential benefits in terms of retaining and re-using traditional buildings, and supporting diversification and sustainability of the rural economy. However, most of those providing comment raised concerns and/or suggested amendment to proposals.
3.80 A range of respondents, particularly planning authorities and third sector respondents, expressed concern than proposals undermined the current plan-led approach to managing development in rural areas. This included planning authorities referring to existing policies that inform the location of commercial premises and avoid inappropriate development, such as town-centre first policies for some commercial uses, and specific policies for footfall-generating businesses, including use of active travel. These policies were described as having been effective in supporting conversion of agricultural buildings and diversification of the rural economy. On this basis, it was suggested that this kind of development requires a genuinely plan-led planning policy, with detailed scrutiny of proposals to manage development.
3.81 Respondents also expressed concerns regarding potential for the proposed PDR to allow unsuitable commercial development. This was raised by a range of respondents including planning authorities, planning processionals, third sector respondents and individuals. Some referred to the range of commercial uses included in the proposed PDR, and suggested that these are likely to have differing impact on the local area, and have differing location requirements. Particular concerns were expressed around the impact of the PDR on work to promote sustainable travel, including reference to Scottish Government policy directing planning authorities to locate employment-generating businesses in accessible locations.
3.82 Comments relating to the need for careful consideration of agricultural conversions included concerns regarding the potential cumulative impact of commercial development on rural areas. This included reference to impact on the character of rural areas, and potential impact on ecology and archaeology, particularly in designated areas and other sensitive environments such as National Parks, European Sites and greenbelt. As noted above, concerns were also expressed regarding potential impact on transport infrastructure and on increased human disturbance of rural areas through additional travel. A planning authority suggested that these impacts could be greater for commercial uses than residential conversions, noting that proposals could together allow a 1,000sqm building to be converted to provide five dwellings and a commercial unit.
3.83 Some respondents also suggested that the range of matters to be considered in relation to conversion to commercial use were such that proposals were unlikely to streamline the current planning process. This included reference to the information required from applicants resource input required from planning authorities (particularly relative to reduced fee income) and time required to properly consider matters proposed for prior approval. A third sector respondent suggested that proposals represent a significant change in the scope and nature of development currently permitted under Class 18 and 22. It was also suggested that the scale of potential impact on the local area would usually warrant more effective public engagement than the prior approval process can provide. In this context, some suggested that the proposed prior approval process was insufficient to consider the full range of matters required.
3.84 Respondents identified a number of points for clarification, and suggested amendments to the proposed PDR. These are summarised below.
- Clarification is required regarding whether PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings would permit residential development alongside change of commercial use.
- Clarification is required on what is to be considered “reasonable building operations” allowed by the PDR.
- Clarification is required regarding whether a building would be permitted to further change commercial use without planning permission.
- Some wished to see PDR limited to conversion of cumulative floorspace of up to 150sqm, with planning permission required for larger areas.
- PDR should not be applied within military explosive safeguarding zones.
Q41. Do you agree with the proposed cumulative maximum floorspace (500sqm) that may change use?
Q41a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.85 A total of 30 respondents answered Question 41, including 23 organisation respondents and seven individuals. Of these 30 respondents, 14 (47%) agreed with the proposal and 16 (53%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were 11 planning authorities, a planning professional, a third sector respondent, and three individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 10 | 13 | 23 | |
| % of organisations | 43% | 57% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 4 | 11 | 15 | |
| Planning authorities | 3 | 11 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 3 | ||
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 3 | 3 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 1 | 1 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 4 | 3 | 7 | |
| % of individuals | 57% | 43% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 14 | 16 | 30 | |
| % of all respondents | 47% | 53% | 100% | |
3.86 A total of 22 respondents provided written comment at Question 41. This included 15 who disagreed with the proposal, six who agreed, and one who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed felt that this was a reasonable scale for commercial use, and would be sufficient to support economic diversification. However, some of those in agreement raised concerns around the suitability of the size limit in some areas, and most of those providing comment expressed concerns and/or suggested amendment.
3.87 The most common concern expressed by those who disagreed with the proposal was that 500sqm is a significant size for commercial premises in a rural environment, and could have a significant impact on the local area. This included reference to impact on the character of the local area, ecological impacts, and the impact of additional travel generated. The impact of additional travel included reference to the size limit being sufficient to allow employment-generating commercial use, and potential for additional delivery/collection by HGVs. In this context, some noted that current local planning policy would limit the impact of development, for example by directing specific commercial uses to suitable locations. It was also suggested that justification had not been provided for the specific size limit.
3.88 Concerns regarding the potential impact of commercial premises of this size were also reflected in some respondents suggesting that PDR should be limited in some designated areas and other sensitive landscapes. This included reference to National Parks, greenbelt and heritage assets.
3.89 Some respondents also raised concerns regarding the extent to which the proposed size limit could be enforced. This included potential difficulties determining when use was changed and in defining a single farm unit to prevent over-development, for example by incentivising subdivision of farms.
3.90 Respondents suggested some specific amendments to the proposed size limit. This included a preference for a “much lower” size threshold, and potential for a lower size limit to be applied in National Parks.
Q42. Do you agree that the proposed new PDR should be subject to a prior notification/prior approval process in respect of specified matters where the cumulative floorspace changing use exceeds 150sqm?
Q42a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.91 A total of 33 respondents answered Question 42, including 25 organisation respondents and eight individuals. Of these 33 respondents, 17 (52%) agreed with the proposal and 16 (48%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were nine planning authorities, two third sector respondents, a planning professional, a private sector respondent, and three individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 12 | 13 | 25 | |
| % of organisations | 48% | 52% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 6 | 9 | 15 | |
| Planning authorities | 4 | 9 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | 2 | 2 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 5 | 3 | 8 | |
| % of individuals | 63% | 38% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 17 | 16 | 33 | |
| % of all respondents | 52% | 48% | 100% | |
3.92 A total of 27 respondents provided written comment at Question 42. This included all 16 of those who disagreed with the proposal, seven who agreed, and four who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed suggested that prior notification/ prior approval should be necessary to limit any adverse impacts, although some suggested that Scottish Government guidance would be required to support planning authorities, for example in defining “reasonable building operations”.
3.93 For those opposed to the proposal, the most common reason cited was an objection to use of PDR for conversion to commercial use. A range of planning authorities, planning professionals third sector respondents and individuals suggested that this kind of development required full planning scrutiny, meaning that any conversion with a cumulative floorspace of more than 150sqm should require submission of a full planning application. However, some felt that the 150sqm threshold was “arbitrary”, and that development below this size could still have a significant impact.
3.94 It was also suggested that insufficient scrutiny of cases could be a particular concern in designated areas and other sensitive landscapes, such as Wild Land. Limited scope for public engagement was also highlighted, with a third sector respondent noting that proposals would permit a significant change at the boundary of a third party’s property, with the third party having no prior knowledge nor opportunity to comment.
3.95 Respondents also raised concerns that the range of matters to be considered through prior notification/ prior approval is such that it is unlikely to streamline the current process and would place a significant administrative burden on planning authorities. This included a suggestion that fees should be reviewed to ensure full cost recovery for planning authorities.
3.96 Respondents identified a range of points for clarification and suggested amendments to proposals. These are summarised below.
- Clarification is required regarding whether converted premises would be permitted to further change use within the range of uses specified by the proposed PDR.
- The size threshold is reduced to 50sqm or removed such that prior approval is required for all conversions to flexible commercial use.
- Changing the size threshold such that prior notification/ prior approval only applies to cumulative sizes above 250sqm.
Q43. Do you agree with the proposed range of matters that would be the subject of prior notification/prior approval?
Q43a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.97 A total of 31 respondents answered Question 43, including 25 organisation respondents and six individuals. Of these 31 respondents, 13 (42%) agreed with the proposal and 18 (58%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were 10 planning authorities, three third sector respondents, two planning professionals and a private sector respondent, and two individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 9 | 16 | 25 | |
| % of organisations | 36% | 64% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 5 | 10 | 15 | |
| Planning authorities | 4 | 10 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 2 | 2 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 4 | 2 | 6 | |
| % of individuals | 67% | 33% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 13 | 18 | 31 | |
| % of all respondents | 42% | 58% | 100% | |
3.98 A total of 30 respondents provided written comment at Question 43. This included all 18 respondents who disagreed with the proposal, six who agreed, and six who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed suggested that the proposed range of matters was required to ensure proper consideration of each case. However, some of those in agreement suggested that the significant range of matters being proposed reinforced their view that a full planning application should be required.
3.99 Those opposed to the proposal included some planning authorities and third sector respondents who suggested that the range of matters proposed is equivalent to a full planning application. These respondents referred to significant resource implications for planning authorities (suggesting a review of fees to ensure full cost recovery) and that the information required from applicants would also be similar to that for a full planning application.
3.100 Reference to the specific matters proposed included some suggestions that these were not sufficiently tailored to the range of commercial uses, including reference to potential differences in matters to be considered dependent on the specific use class under consideration. Some saw a need for Scottish Government guidance regarding the specific points to be considered through prior notification/ prior approval, to ensure a consistent approach across the country.
3.101 Respondents identified a range of points for clarification and other matters to be considered by the prior notification/ prior approval process. These are summarised below.
- Clarification is required regarding potential development outwith the curtilage of the agricultural building, for example for access arrangements, drainage or water supply, and whether this would be considered development in its own right.
- Clarification is required regarding whether there will be scope to apply conditions to permission secured through prior approval.
- Clarification is required regarding whether external cladding of a building may be permitted to improve appearance, even if this would extend beyond the existing building.
- Clarification is required regarding whether the prior notification/ prior approval process would allow consideration of relevant LDP policy.
3.102 Additional matters suggested by respondents were:
- Transport and highways to include consideration of access arrangements traffic impacts on private roads, adopted roads access 8, sustainable and active travel, a requirement to consult with the relevant roads authority, and parking requirements.
- Design and appearance to include signage, fencing and other external equipment, and external lighting.
- Environmental protection and enhancement, including protection for habitats, contribution to biodiversity, protected species.
- Air quality, noise and odour.
- Archaeological assessment, Standing Building Surveys, architectural assessment, and record of the original building if vernacular.
- Suitability of water supply and foul drainage.
- Flood risk.
- Landscape integration.
- Compatibility of residential and commercial uses on a single site, where relevant.
- Impact on neighbouring residential amenity and other existing uses.
- Operating hours.
- Retail impact on settlements and town centres.
- Confirmation that the building to be converted is redundant for agricultural purposes.
- Proximity to existing or permitted wind turbines.
- Mineral Resource Safeguarding and the Agent of Change principle.
- It was suggested that contamination is less relevant to conversion to commercial use.
Q44. Do you agree with the proposed protection for listed buildings and scheduled monuments?
Q44a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.103 A total of 26 respondents answered Question 44, including 22 organisation respondents and four individuals. Of these 26 respondents, 25 (96%) agreed with the proposal and one (4%) disagreed. The only respondent who disagreed was a planning authority.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 21 | 1 | 22 | |
| % of organisations | 95% | 5% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 13 | 1 | 14 | |
| Planning authorities | 13 | 1 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | ||||
| Planning and other professionals | 3 | 3 | ||
| Private sector | 2 | 2 | ||
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 2 | 2 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 3 | 3 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 2 | 2 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 4 | 0 | 4 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 25 | 1 | 26 | |
| % of all respondents | 96% | 4% | 100% | |
3.104 Thirteen respondents provided written comment at Question 44. This included the respondent who disagreed with the proposal, nine who agreed, and three who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed referred to the importance of limiting PDR in terms of protecting important cultural heritage assets, and recognising the more detailed assessment required in these cases.
3.105 Those providing comment included some who felt that proposed protection for conversion of listed buildings or where the site contains a scheduled monument does not recognise the impact of buildings adjacent to sites of cultural importance. It was suggested that conversion of agricultural buildings adjacent to scheduled monuments could have a significant impact on the character of the site and that PDR should include provision to prevent the parameters of a site being simply redrawn to exclude listed buildings or scheduled monuments.
3.106 A public body noted that listed buildings and scheduled monuments have been removed from designated areas for other PDR, on the basis that Listed Building Consent and Scheduled Monument Consent offer sufficient protection for these sites. It was suggested that proposals would introduce unnecessary inconsistency between different PDRs.
3.107 A private sector respondent suggested that the buildings best suited to conversion may include listed buildings, such that proposed protections may leave a shortfall in suitable properties for conversion.
3.108 A number of planning authorities suggested that protections should be extended to include the following designated areas and important landscapes:
- Unlisted buildings in Conservation Areas.
- SSSIs and European Sites.
- Designated greenbelt.
- Registered crofts.
Q45. Do you agree with the proposed measures to discourage developers from erecting new buildings for the sole purpose of converting them?
Q45a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.109 A total of 33 respondents answered Question 45, including 26 organisation respondents and seven individuals. Of these 33 respondents, 20 (61%) agreed with the proposal and 13 (39%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were eight public sector respondents, four third sector respondents and an individual.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 14 | 12 | 26 | |
| % of organisations | 54% | 46% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 9 | 8 | 17 | |
| Planning authorities | 7 | 7 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Planning and other professionals | 3 | 3 | ||
| Private sector | 2 | 2 | ||
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 2 | 2 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 4 | 4 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 6 | 1 | 7 | |
| % of individuals | 86% | 14% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 20 | 13 | 33 | |
| % of all respondents | 61% | 39% | 100% | |
3.110 A total of 19 respondents provided written comment at Question 45. This included all 13 of those who disagreed with the proposal, and six of the 20 who agreed. Those who agreed highlighted the potential impact of misuse of PDR and felt it was essential that controls are introduced to prevent this. However, some of those in agreement raised queries regarding how proposals would be implemented, and most of those providing comment raised concerns or suggested amendment to proposals.
3.111 The most common concern raised by those opposed to proposals was a view that the proposed 10-year requirement would be an insufficient deterrent for developers, relative to the potential financial return on conversion to commercial use. This included a mix of planning authorities, other public bodies and third sector respondents. While some felt that the financial incentive may be less than that for conversion to residential use, some suggested that a 500sqm commercial development remained a significant incentive for developers able to take a longer-term view. This was supported with reference to examples of landowners selling farm land in ‘lots’ to maximise the value, including use of existing PDR for redevelopment.
3.112 Some public sector respondents referred to proposals as potentially undermining the current plan-led approach to controlling development in rural areas, suggesting that proposals would make future development unpredictable. Some planning authorities also suggested that proposed rules may be difficult to implement. This included calls for Scottish Government guidance to assist planning authorities, recognising that they are unlikely to have access to the information necessary to determine whether a building has been in continuous agricultural use. A planning authority also suggested that proposals do not recognise that many buildings on crofts will have multiple uses, including use for non-agricultural purposes.
3.113 Respondents suggested a range of amendments and additions to proposals to prevent “gaming” of PDR, and identified points for clarification. These are summarised below.
- Clarification is required regarding whether PDR would apply to buildings last used for the purpose of agriculture, but which have since been separated in ownership and use (i.e. are vacant and no longer part of an associated farm holding).
- Clarification is required regarding whether buildings will be permitted to convert to other commercial use classes, after the original commercial use has been implemented.
- The time limit for agricultural use should be extended beyond 10 years.
- The 10-year agricultural use stipulation should still apply to buildings built before 5 November 2019.
- PDR should be limited only to existing buildings at the time legislation is enacted.
- PDR should require the applicant to demonstrate that buildings to be converted are genuinely redundant.
- Where new buildings are not used for agricultural purposes for a set period of time, they must be removed.
Conversion of Forestry Buildings
3.114 Scottish Government proposes introducing a new PDR for conversion of forestry buildings to residential and various commercial uses, in parallel to those proposed for conversion of agricultural buildings. It is proposed that the same conditions and limitations would apply to conversion of forestry buildings, insofar as they are relevant.
Q46. Do you agree that we should take forward separate PDRs for the conversion of forestry buildings to residential and commercial uses?
Q46a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.115 A total of 31 respondents answered Question 46, including 24 organisation respondents and seven individuals. Of these 31 respondents, 14 (45%) agreed with the proposal and 17 disagreed. Those disagreeing were nine planning authorities, three third sector respondents, two planning professionals, a private sector respondent, and two individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 9 | 15 | 24 | |
| % of organisations | 38% | 63% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 6 | 9 | 15 | |
| Planning authorities | 5 | 9 | 14 | |
| Other public bodies | 1 | 1 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 2 | 2 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 3 | 3 | ||
| Environment/natural heritage | 3 | 3 | ||
| Community Councils/representative groups | ||||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 5 | 2 | 7 | |
| % of individuals | 71% | 29% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 14 | 17 | 31 | |
| % of all respondents | 45% | 55% | 100% | |
3.116 A total of 23 respondents provided written comment at Question 46. This included all 17 who disagreed with the proposal, one who agreed, and five who did not answer the closed question. Few respondents provided comment in support of the proposed PDR for conversion of forestry buildings. However, some suggested that considerations are likely to be similar to those for agricultural buildings, such that the PDR for agricultural buildings could be applied to forestry buildings.
3.117 Most of those providing comment indicated that they objected to PDR for conversion of forestry buildings on the same basis as their objection to conversion of agricultural buildings. This was particularly the case for planning authorities, planning professionals and third sector respondents objecting to the proposal. This included specific reference to the potential impact of the PDR in terms of allowing unsustainable development (not plan-led), potentially significant impact on habitat and biodiversity as a result of increased human disturbance, impact on the historic environment, impact on visual amenity, and impact on mineral extraction. It was also suggested that the proposed PDR would be open to abuse in the same was as PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings.
3.118 In terms of the potential impact of conversion of forestry buildings, some suggested that this could be more significant than for conversion of agricultural buildings. This included reference to forestry buildings often being in remote locations, enclosed by forestry and habitat, and served only by a forestry track. However, a planning professional indicated that they were opposed to PDR for conversion to residential use, but may support conversion to commercial use for buildings that are genuinely redundant.
3.119 Respondents identified some points for clarification and amendments to proposals. These are summarised below.
- Clarification is required regarding the buildings that would be included in the PDR – for example whether a sawmill is classified as industrial or forestry use.
- Concern was expressed regarding potential difficulty in defining a forestry “unit” for the purposes of PDR, and in defining the curtilage of a building.
- PDR should not apply to military safeguarding zones.
Q47. Do you agree that the same conditions and limitations proposed in respect of the PDR for the conversion of agricultural buildings should apply to any separate PDR for the conversion of forestry buildings, insofar as relevant?
Q47a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.120 A total of 33 respondents answered Question 47, including 25 organisation respondents and eight individuals. Of these 33 respondents, 13 (39%) agreed with the proposal and 20 (61%) disagreed. Those disagreeing were 10 planning authorities, four third sector respondents, two planning professionals and a private sector respondent, and three individuals.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 8 | 17 | 25 | |
| % of organisations | 32% | 68% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 5 | 10 | 15 | |
| Planning authorities | 3 | 10 | 13 | |
| Other public bodies | 2 | 2 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Third sector | 1 | 4 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 1 | 1 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Individuals | 5 | 3 | 8 | |
| % of individuals | 63% | 38% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 13 | 20 | 33 | |
| % of all respondents | 39% | 61% | 100% | |
3.121 A total of 28 respondents provided written comment at Question 47. This included 19 who disagreed with the proposal, five who agreed, and four who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed were of the view that the set of restrictions proposed for conversion of agricultural buildings would be applicable to forestry buildings. It was also suggested that there may be benefit in retaining consistency between the two sets of PDRs, unless there is good reason to do otherwise.
3.122 For those objecting to the proposal, this was most commonly stated with reference to objections raised in relation to PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings. A mix of planning authorities, planning professionals and third sector respondents stated this. In addition, some indicated that they objected to the principle of PDR being applied to conversion of forestry buildings.
3.123 In terms of specific issues raised, these were most commonly related to the prior approval process and the range of matters to be considered. Some suggested that the proposed process would be insufficient to avoid adverse impacts on landscape and visual amenity, ecological and biodiversity. Reference was also made to impact on minerals extraction. Some of these concerns appeared to reflect a wider concern that extending PDR to conversion of forestry buildings would result in unsuitable residential and commercial development. It was suggested that the typical location of forestry buildings is less suitable for residential or commercial use than is the case for agricultural buildings. This included reference to forestry buildings being isolated, with poor transport links and often limited basic welfare facilities. It was also noted that forestry buildings are less likely to incorporate an existing residential element.
3.124 Other concerns and suggestions regarding the application of the same conditions and limitations to PDR for conversion of agricultural and forestry buildings are summarised below.
- Some suggested that the proposed limitations would not be sufficient to prevent misuse of PDR for conversion of forestry buildings. This included a suggestion that PDR should be applied only to vernacular buildings, as a means of preventing misuse.
- It was recommended that additional provision would be required to prevent conversion of forestry buildings on the boundary of listed buildings and scheduled monuments.
- It was suggested that the lower size threshold should be removed, such that prior approval applies to conversion of all forestry buildings.
- Some saw a need for guidance on how a “forestry unit” is to be defined, against which limits would be applied.
- Clarification is required as to whether the two PDRs would be additive, such that PDR would permit an agricultural unit incorporating forestry buildings to create five dwellings through conversion of an agricultural building, plus another five dwellings through conversion of a forestry building.
Polytunnels
3.125 Structures comprising a series of supports covered with polythene or other translucent material, polytunnels create a warmer micro-climate and can help to extend the growing season for certain fruit or vegetable plants. Polytunnels vary considerably in scale and permanence, from relatively small temporary structures that may only be used for part of the year, to permanent buildings covering multiple hectares. The planning status of polytunnels varies accordingly, ranging from small temporary structures which may not be classified as ‘development’, to larger structures which may require a full planning application.
3.126 PDR proposed for larger agricultural buildings (see Questions 29 to 33) would permit larger polytunnels, insofar as they constitute agricultural buildings. Scottish Government is not proposing a bespoke PDR for polytunnels, but rather propose the following amendment to clarify their planning status:
- Amending fees regulations to clarify appropriate fees for polytunnels.
- New guidance clarifying PDR under which polytunnels may be erected.
- New guidance to be taken into account where a polytunnel proposal requires a planning application, highlighting the weight to be given to their economic and agricultural benefits.
Q48. Do you agree with our proposed approach to providing greater clarity as to the planning status of polytunnels?
Q48a. If you disagree, please explain why.
3.127 A total of 28 respondents answered Question 48, including 23 organisation respondents and five individuals. Of these 28 respondents, 25 (89%) agreed with the proposal and three (11%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were two third sector respondents and a planning professional.
| Respondent type | Yes | No | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisations | 20 | 3 | 23 | |
| % of organisations | 87% | 13% | 100% | |
| Public sector | 13 | 13 | ||
| Planning authorities | 11 | 11 | ||
| Other public bodies | 2 | 2 | ||
| Planning and other professionals | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| Private sector | 2 | 2 | ||
| Digital telecoms | ||||
| Rural economy | 2 | 2 | ||
| Other | ||||
| Third sector | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Environment/natural heritage | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| Community Councils/representative groups | 2 | 2 | ||
| Other | 1 | 1 | ||
| Individuals | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| % of individuals | 100% | 0% | 100% | |
| All respondents | 25 | 3 | 28 | |
| % of all respondents | 89% | 11% | 100% | |
3.128 Nineteen respondents provided written comment at Question 48. This included the three who disagreed with the proposal, 12 who agreed, and four who did not answer the closed question. Those who agreed reiterated the need for clarity on polytunnels, welcoming guidance on their planning status and the review of fees.
3.129 Among the respondents who were opposed to proposals for polytunnels, a planning professional and a third sector respondent wished to see the GPDO amended to recognise use of polytunnels by non-commercial growers, including community growing. These respondents noted that Class 18 currently only applies to polytunnels (and other agricultural buildings) on land used for trade or business, and wished to see this restriction removed. It was also recommended that the minimum holding size is removed to allow flexibility for smaller projects.
3.130 These respondents also wished to see a specific PDR for small-scale polytunnels. It was recommended that this could incorporate an upper size restriction (suggested at 12ft x 30ft) such that larger structures continue to be considered under prior notification or through a planning application, although it was also suggested that PDR could include larger polytunnels up to the size permitted in Class 18, subject to prior notification procedures.
3.131 Some third sector respondents objected to proposals on the grounds that additional protection is required to prevent erection of polytunnels causing damage to archaeological sites. It was suggested that robust mitigation measures should be introduced alongside clarification of the planning status of polytunnels, to encourage best practice in relation to non-designated archaeology.
3.132 In addition to these specific objections to proposals for polytunnels, respondents identified a number of points for clarification including:
- Guidance should define when a polytunnel becomes a “material operation” comprising development.
- Guidance should take account of issues of landscape impact, permanence, method of heating, need and impact on private water supplies.
- Guidance should highlight the potential requirement for scheduled monument consent, and encourage best practice more generally in relation to non-designated archaeology.
3.133 A more relaxed regime was also recommended for polytunnels, removing the minimum distance from roads, increasing their maximum permitted area to greater than 1,000sqm, and removing the link between maximum permitted area and the size of the landholding.
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback