Permitted Development Rights (PDR) - review and extension: consultation analysis

4 Peatland Restoration

4.1 The third development type considered by the consultation paper was development related to peatland restoration. The intention with PDR is to provide clarity on the planning position for peatland restoration projects. The questions focus on each aspect of the PDR in turn – the definitions, the basic grant of planning permission, the restrictions and conditions that apply to it.

The General Approach to PDR for Peatland Restoration

4.2 It is proposed that wide ranging PDR should be granted for restoration projects delivered by Peatland Action or validated under the Peatland Code. Projects proceeding without a significant degree of scrutiny via these routes are thought to be unlikely.

Q49. Do you agree with the general approach to PDR for peatland restoration, (i.e. wide ranging PDR given the likely oversight via Peatland Action and via the Peatland Code)?

Q49a. If you disagree, please explain why.

4.3 A total of 24 respondents answered the closed element at Question 49, including 22 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 24 respondents, 23 (96%) agreed with the proposal and one (4%) disagreed. The only respondent who disagreed was a third sector respondent.

Q49. Do you agree with the general approach to PDR for peatland restoration, (i.e. wide ranging PDR given the likely oversight via Peatland Action and via the Peatland Code)?

Respondent type		Yes	No	Total
Organisations		21	1	22
% of organisations		95%	5%	100%
Public sector		10		10
	Planning authorities	9		9
	Other public bodies	1		1
Planning and other professionals		2		2
Private sector		5		5
	Digital telecoms
	Rural economy	3		3
	Other	2		2
Third sector		4	1	5
	Environment/natural heritage	4	1	5
	Community Councils/representative groups
	Other
Individuals		2	0	2
% of individuals		100%	0%	100%
All respondents		23	1	24
% of all respondents		96%	4%	100%

4.4 In total, 19 respondents provided a further comment, of whom 14 had agreed at the closed question, one had disagreed and four had not answered.

4.5 Those who agreed with the general approach often made only brief additional comments including expressions of support. However, as some added caveats reflecting concerns also raised by those who disagreed or did not answer the question, all comments are considered together below.

4.6 General comments included a call for clarity on what constitutes peatland restoration and on whether PDR would apply only to projects overseen by Peatland Action or additionally to those carried out in accordance with the Peatland Code. The legal status of Peatland Action and the Peatland Code was also queried, and it was suggested regulation could be rationalised and incorporated in a legal and enforceable framework.

4.7 Projects assessed by Peatland Action. PDR was welcomed for projects overseen by Peatland Action. It was observed that the detail required for such projects covers issues likely to be addressed by the planning process and that public funding provides a mechanism for scrutiny. Ensuring that the scrutiny/acceptance of a scheme by Peatland Action is confirmed before PDR can apply was also suggested.

4.8 Projects covered by the Peatland Code. However, some respondents noted that they would not support PDR under the Peatland Code or suggested that the code in its current form may not be fit for purpose in relation to detailed restoration proposals. It was noted that the Peatland Code is a voluntary scheme with a focus on carbon sequestration, and it was argued that it does not provide sufficient guidance on the historic environment to enable robust mitigation of impacts. The absence of representation from the historic environment sector on the current Peatland Code Executive Board and Technical Advisory Board was also noted.

4.9 Suggestions with respect to the Peatland Code were that:

• Projects under the code should be subject to prior notification.
• The code should be expanded to include requirements for assessment of effects on the historic environment, and the identification and delivery of mitigation measures where necessary.
• The code should be updated for restoration.
• Compliance with an updated code should be a PDR requirement or criterion.

4.10 Projects covered by neither Peatland Action nor the Peatland Code. Respondents also commented on the possibility of PDR for restoration projects neither overseen by Peatland Action nor complying with the Peatland Code. In such cases it was argued that scrutiny of projects should be through the prior notification/prior approval process or that projects not going through either channel would need to be reviewed.

4.11 All peatland restoration. There were also calls for a prior notification/ prior approval system to be followed for all restoration projects. Further, it was argued that where the risk of damaging development is higher, or in historic environment Designated Areas there should be no PDR. Designated areas are covered further at Question 52.

4.12 Other points on the general approach included that a process will be required to check PDR is only applied to genuine peatland restoration schemes and to exclude schemes deemed not genuine. Some form of notification to the planning application was thought to be helpful, particularly in responding to community concerns in relation to the works. The status of existing restoration schemes already approved as part of ongoing or historical permissions for extraction was also queried.

4.13 The production of best practice guidance or a code of practice on PDR for peatland restoration was also suggested, and that this should be collaboration with relevant stakeholders, including local authorities, the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers and Historic Environment Scotland. Peatland Action’s existing good practice procedures were suggested as suitable basis for such guidance.

Defining the Permitted Development Rights for Peatland Restoration

4.14 Definitions of ‘peatland’ are often highly technical and there is neither a single, overarching approval process for all peatland restoration, nor adequate maps of peatland areas to which PDR can be attached. The intention is therefore that PDR will rely on a general understanding of what constitutes peatland and ‘peatland restoration’ without further definition.

Q50. Do you agree with the approach to PDR for peatland restoration that relies on a general understanding of what will constitute peatland?

Q50a. If you disagree, please explain why.

4.15 A total of 23 respondents answered the closed element at Question 50, including 21 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 23 respondents, 19 (83%) agreed with the proposal and four (17%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were two planning professional respondents, a third sector respondent and an individual respondent.

Q50. Do you agree with the approach to PDR for peatland restoration that relies on a general understanding of what will constitute peatland?

Respondent type		Yes	No	Total
Organisations		18	3	21
% of organisations		86%	14%	100%
Public sector		11		11
	Planning authorities	9		9
	Other public bodies	2		2
Planning and other professionals			2	2
Private sector		3		3
	Digital telecoms
	Rural economy	3		3
	Other
Third sector		4	1	5
	Environment/natural heritage	4	1	5
	Community Councils/representative groups
	Other
Individuals		1	1	2
% of individuals		50%	50%	100%
All respondents		19	4	23
% of all respondents		83%	17%	100%

4.16 In total, 14 respondents provided a further comment, of whom nine had agreed with the proposed change, four had disagreed and one had not answered the closed question.

4.17 Among respondents who agreed, three environment/natural heritage organisations observed that, rather than a narrow definition of peatland they would favour use of a broad ecological definition, with two noting that they did not think this needed to be specified within the GPDO. It was also suggested both that a narrower or more technical definition could complicate or obstruct restoration work on some peatland and that the approach is sensible as there is no legal definition of peatland.

4.18 A planning authority respondent noted their assumption that where there is public funding due diligence would be undertaken to ensure that proposals fall within the definition of peatland. They went on to suggest NatureScot should include peatlands worthy of restoration into the classification for areas needing protection and testing through the LDP process.

4.19 Respondents who disagreed or did not answer the closed question argued that a definition - even if broad - is needed, or that without one, PDR is open to interpretation, dispute, unintended consequences, or potential misuse.

4.20 A planning professional respondent suggested that a written definition is required for PDR purposes and that this could be linked to the mechanism they proposed at the previous question to exclude schemes not deemed genuine from the PDR process.

Q51. Do you agree with this approach to a blanket PDR for ‘peatland restoration’?

Q51a. If you disagree, please explain why.

4.21 A total of 19 respondents answered the closed element at Question 51, including 18 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 19 respondents, 13 (68%) agreed with the proposal and six (32%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were three third sector respondents, two planning professionals and one planning authority.

Q51. Do you agree with this approach to a blanket PDR for ‘peatland restoration’?

Respondent type		Yes	No	Total
Organisations		12	6	18
% of organisations		67%	33%	100%
Public sector		8	1	9
	Planning authorities	7	1	8
	Other public bodies	1		1
Planning and other professionals		1	2	3
Private sector		2		2
	Digital telecoms
	Rural economy	2		2
	Other
Third sector		1	3	4
	Environment/natural heritage	1	3	4
	Community Councils/representative groups
	Other
Individuals		1	0	1
% of individuals		100%	0%	100%
All respondents		13	6	19
% of all respondents		68%	32%	100%

4.22 In total, 12 respondents provided a further comment, of whom three had agreed with the proposed approach, six had disagreed and three had not answered the closed question.

4.23 As those who agreed and commented all added caveats to their approval including points also raised by those who disagreed or did not answer the closed question, all comments are considered together below.

4.24 Most suggestions concerned the need for a broad definition of peatland restoration in order to provide clarity or to avoid disputes. Specific suggestions were:

‘Operations to return peatland to ecologically functioning, carbon sequestering peatland.’

‘Works carried out with the primary intention of restoring damaged peatland to increase carbon sequestration and improve environmental outcomes.’

‘Works carried out with the primary intention of restoring damaged peatland to allow increased carbon sequestration through restoring active peat formation.’

4.25 A need for written and map-based guidance/criteria to help define areas suitable for peatland restoration was argued and that this could help ‘score’ the suitability of land for peatland restoration with PDR then applying for good sites but not for marginal sites.

4.26 Setting out specific criteria such as a minimum threshold in terms of peat depth or area was suggested and that operations covered by a new PD class should be specified. With respect to the latter ‘carrying out of works, including engineering operations, requisite for peat restoration’ was proposed and that this should include operations such as ditch blocking, earth moving, dam or bund building, works to stabilise bare peat and land re-profiling.

4.27 Suggestions were also made with respect to oversight, including:

• A Peatland Code, applicable in all cases to which the PDR applies.
• Oversight arrangements with involvement from SEPA and NatureScot.
• A light touch consultation process (as for new forestry planting proposals) providing an opportunity for the planning authority to highlight any relevant constraints that should be considered in the authorisation of the project via Peatland Action/Peatland Code.
• A prior notification process would also ensure that planning authorities are aware of works when they do commence and would assist them in efficiently addressing any enforcement.

4.28 Concerns were raised with respect to potential impacts on the historical environment with a suggestion that specific good practice guidance on peatland restoration and archaeology is required in order to promote proper management of risks to the historic environment in the course of peatland restoration works.

4.29 A potential for conflict between policy on peatland restoration and control of woodland removal was also highlighted.

Conditions and restrictions on PDR for Peatland Restoration

Designated Areas

4.30 The Sustainability Appraisal identified potential loss of, or damage to, archaeological and cultural artefacts as a concern in relation to peatland restoration, and suggested prior notification/prior approval in designated areas. However, since Peatland Action already considers historical, cultural and archaeological interests and Peatland Code applicants could be required to prepare statements that include consideration of historical, cultural and archaeological heritage, it is not proposed to have restrictions or requirements in particular designated areas regarding peatland PDR.

Q52. Do you agree that as peatland restoration projects will likely be subject to oversight from Peatland Action, or validation under the Peatland Code, there is no need for additional controls on related PDR in designated areas?

Q52a. If you disagree, please explain why.

4.31 A total of 19 respondents answered the closed element at Question 52, including 18 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 19 respondents, 12 (63%) agreed with the proposal and seven (37%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were three planning authorities, a planning professional respondent, an other public body respondent, a third sector respondent and an individual respondent.

Q52. Do you agree that as peatland restoration projects will likely be subject to oversight from Peatland Action, or validation under the Peatland Code, there is no need for additional controls on related PDR in designated areas?

Respondent type		Yes	No	Total
Organisations		12	6	18
% of organisations		67%	33%	100%
Public sector		6	4	10
	Planning authorities	6	3	9
	Other public bodies		1	1
Planning and other professionals		2	1	3
Private sector		1		1
	Digital telecoms
	Rural economy	1		1
	Other
Third sector		3	1	4
	Environment/natural heritage	3	1	4
	Community Councils/representative groups
	Other
Individuals		0	1	1
% of individuals		0%	100%	100%
All respondents		12	7	19
% of all respondents		63%	37%	100%

4.32 In total, 14 respondents provided a further comment, of whom four had agreed with the proposal, seven had disagreed and three had not answered the closed question.

4.33 Those who agreed and provided further comment sometimes noted this approval to be subject to conditions they had proposed at earlier questions, including PDR being subject to oversight or to PDR applying to projects overseen by Peatland Action but not those covered by the Peatland Code.

4.34 Among those who disagreed, several respondents argued in favour of prior notification/prior approval in designated areas, as suggested by the Sustainability Appraisal. As at Question 49, differences in the type of oversight provided by Peatland Action and the Peatland Code were highlighted and it was suggested that the Peatland Code should require considerations of historical, cultural and archaeological heritage as a matter of course. The possibility that some projects might not be overseen by Peatland Action or compliant with the Peatland Code was also raised.

4.35 Further, it was noted that many archaeological sites are unrecorded and therefore not designated. It was therefore argued that a proportionate approach to predicting the likelihood that archaeological heritage assets will be encountered during works must be considered, even in the absence of designated assets/areas or that the prior notification/ prior approval system should also cover development in undesignated areas.

4.36 Prior approval for projects not coming forward through Peatland Action and the good practice guidance were both suggested as necessary to provide additional mitigation. It was also recommended that PDR should not apply within historic environment designated areas where, as a minimum, the prior notification/ prior notification process should apply.

4.37 Since undesignated assets fall outwith the remit of Historic Environment Scotland, a risk of damage to such assets even with oversight from Peatland Action was also suggested. The planning authority respondent making this point argued that Peatland Scotland should either expand collaborative working to include local authority archaeology services or the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers.

Access Tracks (Private Ways)

4.38 Where peatland restoration sites are remote from existing roads and tracks, restoration projects may require a new access track. Although the Sustainability Appraisal excluded access tracks, all statutory assessment obligations will be met before any new proposals for PDR in respect of access tracks for peatland restoration are progressed.

Q53. Do you think there should be PDR for new temporary access tracks (private ways) which may be necessary to carry out peatland restoration projects?

Q53a. If you disagree, please explain why.

4.39 A total of 23 respondents answered the closed element at Question 53, including 21 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 23 respondents, 14 (61%) agreed with the proposal and nine (39%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were three planning authorities, an other public body respondent, a planning professional respondent and four third sector respondents.

Q53. Do you think there should be PDR for new temporary access tracks (private ways) which may be necessary to carry out peatland restoration projects?

Respondent type		Yes	No	Total
Organisations		12	9	21
% of organisations		57%	43%	100%
Public sector		8	4	12
	Planning authorities	7	3	10
	Other public bodies	1	1	2
Planning and other professionals		1	1	2
Private sector		1		1
	Digital telecoms
	Rural economy	1		1
	Other
Third sector		2	4	6
	Environment/natural heritage	2	4	6
	Community Councils/representative groups
	Other
Individuals		2	0	2
% of individuals		100%	0%	100%
All respondents		14	9	23
% of all respondents		61%	39%	100%

4.40 In total, 23 respondents provided a further comment, of whom ten had agreed at the closed question, nine had disagreed and four had not answered.

4.41 Although agreeing there should be PDR for new tracks some respondents also expressed concerns with respect to landscape impacts or added caveats to their approval to the effect that such tracks should be: solely for access to peat areas or to accredited restoration schemes; constructed in line with approved or best practice measures; permitted for an agreed temporary period or be subject to checks to ensure they do not become permanent; and subject to conditions for restoration/reinstatement on completion.

4.42 Respondents who did not agree or did not answer the closed question tended to a view that PDR for new temporary access tracks would lack adequate controls or highlighted risks that such tracks could be used for other purposes or be left in place. A risk of significant negative effects for the historic environment was also suggested and two respondents suggested that access tracks for peatland restoration might be better dealt with as part of broader consideration of PDR for tracks in Phase 3.

4.43 Some respondents argued that while temporary ‘routes’ (for example using matting or floating track) could be subject to PDR, properly constructed tracks should require planning permission. Other respondents noted their understanding that such temporary routes would fall under GPDO Class 14 in which case no new PDR would be necessary.

4.44 If PDR were to be extended to temporary tracks it was suggested these should be detailed within project proposals and so be subject to scrutiny by Peatland Action and covered by the Peatland Code. Such details should include the justification for the installation of the track, a statement identifying the design considerations taken into account in identifying the route and construction detail, and details of its proposed removal and restoration.

4.45 A further suggestion was that subsequent applications to keep a temporary track for peat restoration should not be permitted, or that such applications should not be made until after the general period set for the removal of such tracks.

4.46 In the absence of scrutiny by Peatland Action it was argued PDR should not apply within historic environment designated areas and should be subject to a prior notification/prior approval process outwith those areas. Other areas where it was argued that PDR for access tracks should not apply or should be restricted were within National Scenic Areas and Wild land designations and in National Parks.

Q54. What sort of time limits and restoration requirements do you consider should apply to any PDR for temporary access tracks (private ways) for peatland restoration projects? Please explain your answer.

4.47 A total of 21 respondents answered Question 54, including 20 organisation respondents and one individual, as summarised in below.

Q54. What sort of time limits and restoration requirements do you consider should apply to any PDR for temporary access tracks (private ways) for peatland restoration projects? Please explain your answer.

Respondent type		Answered	Not answered	Total
Organisations		20	41	61
% of organisations		34%	66%	100%
Public sector		10	12	22
	Planning authorities	7	9	16
	Other public bodies	2	4	6
Planning and other professionals		2	3	5
Private sector		2	12	14
	Digital telecoms		5	5
	Rural economy	2	1	3
	Other		6	6
Third sector		7	13	20
	Environment/natural heritage	7	2	9
	Community Councils/representative groups		4	4
	Other		7	7
Individuals		1	57	58
% of individuals		2%	98%	100%
All respondents		21	98	119
% of all respondents		18%	82%	100%

4.48 Comments on time limits and restoration requirements were all very brief.

4.49 With respect to time limits, several respondents commented that these should be related to individual projects or to the size of operations, with no ‘one-size-fits-all’ answer.

4.50 Others suggested very general criteria including ‘after completion’ or as ‘quickly as possible after completion’, while more specific suggestions were:

• Three weeks after completion.
• Within one year of completion.

4.51 The latter was noted to be in line with requirements for inspection of completed peatland restoration projects.

4.52 With respect to restoration, suggested requirements included ‘full restoration’, restoration to ‘prior condition’ or ‘a like-for-like basis’. One planning authority commented they would support the views of NatureScot on time limits and restoration given their direct experience with these projects.

4.53 It was also noted that if temporary tracks are covered by GPDO Class 14, the requirement would be ‘shall as soon as reasonably practicable, be reinstated to its condition before that development was carried out’.

Q55. If possible, should any PDR for temporary access tracks (private ways) for peatland restoration only apply to projects which have been approved for funds provided by the Scottish Government, through Peatland Action or other bodies?

Q55a. Please explain your answer.

4.54 A total of 18 respondents answered the closed element at Question 55, including 16 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 18 respondents, 11 (61%) agreed with the proposal and seven (39%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were three planning authorities, a planning professional respondent, two private sector respondents and a third sector respondent.

Q55. If possible, should any PDR for temporary access tracks (private ways) for peatland restoration only apply to projects which have been approved for funds provided by the Scottish Government, through Peatland Action or other bodies?

Respondent type		Yes	No	Total
Organisations		9	7	16
% of organisations		56%	44%	100%
Public sector		5	3	8
	Planning authorities	5	3	8
	Other public bodies
Planning and other professionals		1	1	2
Private sector			2	2
	Digital telecoms
	Rural economy		2	2
	Other
Third sector		3	1	4
	Environment/natural heritage	3	1	4
	Community Councils/representative groups
	Other
Individuals		2	0	2
% of individuals		100%	0%	100%
All respondents		11	7	18
% of all respondents		61%	39%	100%

4.55 In total, 19 respondents provided a further comment, of whom seven had agreed at the closed question, seven had disagreed and five had not answered. All comments were brief.

4.56 Respondents who agreed sometimes referred to the need for checks or a high level of scrutiny, both to minimise the risk of abuse of the system and to ensure impacts are adequately considered. One third sector respondent suggested this this to be of importance since the Sustainability Assessment did not consider the impact of access tracks.

4.57 Among respondents who disagreed or did not answer the question, some restated a view that there should be no PDR for constructed access tracks or an opinion that the existing provisions of GPDO Class 14 are sufficient.

4.58 Two respondents suggested additional elements they thought would be required:

• An Other public bodies respondent commented that to ensure effective mitigation of potential effects on the historic environment, the processes leading to approval of funds would need to include scrutiny of the potential effects, and approval of appropriate mitigation measures.
• A Planning authority respondent suggested that funds equivalent to the restoration cost (and index linked) should be retained to address the risk of developer insolvency, with an agreement for restoration to be undertaken by the Scottish Government in such circumstances.

4.59 Others argued that:

• Funding should not be a qualifying criterion for any PDR.
• Restoration may be undertaken as part of a commercial development, to off-set disturbance arising from commercial development, or may involve surplus peat from private/commercial developments that will not be funded or eligible for funds.
• Regardless of how it is funded, peatland restoration brings the same public benefits so should be afforded the same PDR and there could be considerable potential for private funds to be engaged in restoration.
• Work may not be on a scale to be considered for a project through Peatland Action but may still require access tracks.

Other Conditions and Restrictions

4.60 The aim is to be very wide ranging in the PDR for peatland restoration, creating a risk that planning permission could be granted for inappropriate development. One issue is where peat is transferred for the purposes of peatland restoration. The intention is that the transfer of peat within a restoration site, for the purposes of restoration, should be allowed under PDR. Also, the bringing in of peat to a restoration site for the purposes of peatland restoration. However, the extraction of peat outside the restoration site would not be granted permission by the peatland restoration PDR, nor would removal of peat from the restoration site.

Q56. Do you agree that the peatland restoration PDR should allow for the transfer of peat within the restoration site and for peat to be brought into the restoration site?

Q56a. If you disagree, please explain why.

4.61 A total of 20 respondents answered the closed element at Question 56, including 19 organisation respondents and one individual. Of these 20 respondents, 16 (80%) agreed with the proposal and four (20%) disagreed. Those who disagreed were a planning authority, two third sector respondents and an individual respondent.

Q56. Do you agree that the peatland restoration PDR should allow for the transfer of peat within the restoration site and for peat to be brought into the restoration site?

Respondent type		Yes	No	Total
Organisations		16	3	19
% of organisations		84%	16%	100%
Public sector		9	1	10
	Planning authorities	8	1	9
	Other public bodies	1		1
Planning and other professionals		2		2
Private sector		1		1
	Digital telecoms
	Rural economy	1		1
	Other
Third sector		4	2	6
	Environment/natural heritage	4	2	6
	Community Councils/representative groups
	Other
Individuals		0	1	1
% of individuals		0%	100%	100%
All respondents		16	4	20
% of all respondents		80%	20%	100%

4.62 In total, 14 respondents provided a further comment, of whom eight had agreed at the closed question, four had disagreed and two had not answered. All comments were brief.

4.63 Four respondents who agreed (three third sector respondents and a planning professional respondent) made clear in their further comments that their approval was with respect to transfer within sites but not between sites. Two further respondents who disagreed (a further third sector respondent and a planning authority) also noted they would approve transfer within a site.

4.64 Other respondents who agreed also qualified their approval including that there should be limitations on the volumes of peat, or that extraction for restoration would appear counterproductive, even within a restoration site.

4.65 However, it was also suggested that restoration is most likely to arise as a consequence of surplus peat generated off-site.

4.66 Comments from respondents who did not agree that the peatland restoration PDR should allow for the transfer of peat or who did not answer the closed question included concerns that:

• Lifting and transporting peat invariably damages its structure and potentially makes it unusable.
• Removing peat material from one location within a restoration site to move it to another has the potential for damage to archaeological sites, and also to reveal unknown archaeological features.
• Allowing peat to be brought in from outwith the restoration site would degrade other peatlands.
• Importation of peat is too site specific and complex an issue to be considered a PDR.

Q57. Do you agree that the peatland restoration PDR should not grant permission for the extraction of peat outside the restoration site or for removal of peat from the restoration site?

Q57a. If you disagree, please explain why.

4.67 A total of 23 respondents answered the closed element at Question 57, including 21 organisation respondents and two individuals. Of these 23 respondents, 22 (96%) agreed with the proposal and one (4%) disagreed. Only one private sector respondent disagreed.

4.68 A total of 23 respondents answered Question 57, including 21 organisation respondents and two individuals. All answered the closed question.

Q57. Do you agree that the peatland restoration PDR should not grant permission for the extraction of peat outside the restoration site or for removal of peat from the restoration site?

Respondent type		Yes	No	Total
Organisations		20	1	21
% of organisations		95%	5%	100%
Public sector		11		11
	Planning authorities	10		10
	Other public bodies	1		1
Planning and other professionals		2		2
Private sector		1	1	2
	Digital telecoms
	Rural economy	1	1	2
	Other
Third sector		6		6
	Environment/natural heritage	6		6
	Community Councils/representative groups
	Other
Individuals		2	0	2
% of individuals		100%	0%	100%
All respondents		22	1	23
% of all respondents		96%	4%	100%

4.69 In total, nine respondents provided a further comment, of whom eight had agreed at the closed question, and one had disagreed.

4.70 Comments from those who agreed that the peatland restoration PDR should not grant permission for the extraction of peat outside the restoration site or for removal of peat from the restoration site included views that extraction of peat should be regulated and that, if allowed, such extraction or removal of peat could be open to abuse. However, a potential complication was also suggested if peat can be brought into a restoration site under PDR (as set out at Question 56) but a planning application is required for the associated extraction.

4.71 The one respondent who did not agree argued that, if the peat brought in is primarily intended to achieve a better restoration outcome on the PDR site, and it is not being harvested from an extraction site but sympathetically removed without long-term harm, they could not see why this should not be acceptable.

Q58. Are there any other forms of development which could be granted planning permission by the PDR for peatland restoration as proposed, which should be restricted or controlled?

Q58a. Please explain your answer, setting out what sorts of development you consider should be restricted and why.

4.72 A total of 12 organisation respondents answered the closed element at Question 58. Of these five respondents, 22 (42%) thought there were other forms of development which should be restricted or controlled and seven (58%) that there were not. However, the further comments suggested some variation in the way this question was interpreted.

Q58. Are there any other forms of development which could be granted planning permission by the PDR for peatland restoration as proposed, which should be restricted or controlled?

Respondent type		Yes	No	Total
Organisations		5	7	12
% of organisations		42%	58%	100%
Public sector		3	4	7
	Planning authorities	3	4	7
	Other public bodies
Planning and other professionals		1	1	2
Private sector
	Digital telecoms
	Rural economy
	Other
Third sector		1	2	3
	Environment/natural heritage	1	2	3
	Community Councils/representative groups
	Other
Individuals		0	0	0
% of individuals		0%	0%	0%
All respondents		5	7	12
% of all respondents		42%	58%	100%

4.73 In total, 10 respondents provided a further comment, of whom five had agreed at the closed question, two had disagreed, and three had not answered.

4.74 Three respondents noted that other forms of development operations to be covered by the PDR were not set out in the consultation paper, or that they were unsure what forms of development might be covered, and it was not always clear whether other respondents were suggesting forms of development that they thought should be included under PDR or that should be restricted.

4.75 Suggestions for inclusion were:

• Signage/interpretation for restoration schemes.
• Any form of dam or bund building, alongside the rest of the widely recognised peatland restoration techniques. Specifically, construction of peat bunds immediately on top of mineral soils and use of peat bunding to create permanent surface water lagoons over peat.
• Ability to stack and store peat on site for restoration purposes.

4.76 Suggestions for exclusion/restriction were:

• Peatland restoration associated with developments should be excluded.
• Size and height of stacks of peat stored may need to be restricted.

4.77 Other issues raised were:

• Associated works/infrastructure such as creation of works compounds, worker welfare units, services, machinery laydown and parking/ transport.
• Burning peat yards.

Q59. Do you have any other views or points to make about the proposed PDR for peatland restoration?

4.78 A total of 10 respondents – all organisations – made a comment at Question 59.

Q59. Do you have any other views or points to make about the proposed PDR for peatland restoration?

Respondent type		Answered	Not answered	Total
Organisations		10	51	61
% of organisations		16%	84%	100%
Public sector		1	21	22
	Planning authorities	1	15	16
	Other public bodies		6	6
Planning and other professionals		3	2	5
Private sector		1	13	14
	Digital telecoms		5	5
	Rural economy	1	2	3
	Other		6	6
Third sector		5	15	20
	Environment/natural heritage	5	4	9
	Community Councils/representative groups		4	4
	Other		7	7
Individuals		0	58	58
% of individuals		0%	100%	100%
All respondents		10	109	119
% of all respondents		8%	92%	100%

4.79 Points not already covered elsewhere in this section included that:

• Given the potential impact of development on the historical and cultural heritage of peatlands, all bodies and boards involved in peatland restoration should contain historical representation (for example, Historic Environment Scotland).
• PDR is a blanket instrument for limited/simple development whereas peat restoration is normally complex. Where no extraction off site is involved, consideration should be given to the use of prior determination or reduced/ exempt planning fees to aid restoration rather than PDR.
• The proposed approach to peatland restoration potentially distinguishes this work as a non-agricultural activity, with possible consequences elsewhere, as perhaps for the taxation treatment of landowners and occupiers.
• Land with potential to contribute to other national, regional and local policy outcomes could be converted to peatland under the PDR, potentially to the detriment of other outcomes. Targeting sites should be considered, leaving marginal ones that may be suitable for woodland planting or are adjacent to wind farms that may expand.