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

6 SEA and Assessment of Impacts

6.1 The final section of the consultation sought views on the Update to the 2019 Sustainability Appraisal Report and the partial and draft impact assessments accompanying the proposals, including any additional information sources that could inform the final impact assessments.

SEA Post-adoption Statement and Update to the 2019 Sustainability Appraisal

6.2 A Sustainability Appraisal Report, incorporating SEA requirements, was consulted on alongside the proposed programme in November 2019. This set out the potential environmental, social and economic effects arising from proposals for change to PDR across a range of development types.

6.3 The draft Post Adoption Statement published alongside the present consultation sets out how views gathered on the Sustainability Appraisal have been taken into account in progressing the detailed proposals for Phase 1 changes to PDR. An Update to the Sustainability Appraisal has also been published, incorporating additional assessment of Phase 1 proposals. The consultation sought views on the Update and these are summarised below.

Q71. What are your views on the findings of the Update to the 2019 Sustainability Appraisal Report that accompanies this consultation document?

6.4 Seven respondents provided comment at Question 71, all of these being organisations. These included four public sector respondents, two planning professionals and a third sector respondent.

6.5 Comments on the update to the Sustainability Appraisal Report are summarised below.

• Several public bodies and planning professional respondents noted that the Update report does not identify potential cumulative, secondary or synergistic effects. It was suggested that these types of effects are a key element of environmental assessment, and must be fully understood to inform decision making. Specific reference was made to effects on rural services and infrastructure associated with PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings.
• A public sector respondent suggested that the Update lacked the level of detailed assessment presented in the 2019 Sustainability Appraisal, and insufficient commentary on how conclusions were reached on effects and mitigation. A third sector respondent also suggested that the Update does not include sufficient detail on proposals that have changed since the 2019 SEA, such as the 1000sqm agricultural PDR and the bike storage PDR. A public sector respondent wished to see the Update incorporate detailed assessment matrices similar to those provided by the 2019 Sustainability Appraisal.
• Several public bodies welcomed revisions to the 2019 findings, but suggested that a substantial range of queried findings remained unchanged and wished to see an explanation of how Scottish Government concluded that the original 2019 findings remained appropriate.
• A public body respondent noted that readers are required to cross-reference the Update with the original 2019 assessment to gain a full understanding of the impact of proposals. It was suggested that this approach should be altered for future phases, and that there is greater integration of assessment findings with the consultation material for future phases.
• Comments on findings in relation to specific development types are summarised below.

• Polytunnels. A public body disagreed with the assessment of negative effects on the historic environment as “minor”, and suggested potential for significant negative effects. It was also suggested that it was unclear how preparation of guidance will mitigate effects on the historic environment.
• Peatland Restoration. A public body suggested that the appraisal is incorrect in predicting mixed minor effects on the historic environment, and that there is potential for significant negative effects.
• Active Travel A public body suggested that proposed PDR for bike storage is likely to have (potentially significant) negative effects for the historic environment, and that mitigation measures should address this.

Other impact assessments

6.6 A range of other assessment of the draft proposals have been undertaken, in addition to the SEA. Initial and draft assessments were included alongside the consultation proposals, including a Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA), Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA), Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA), Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment, and Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA).

Q72. Do you have any comments on the partial and draft impact assessments undertaken on these draft Phase 1 proposals?

6.7 Nine respondents provided comment at Question 72, including eight organisation respondents and one individual. Organisation respondents included four planning authorities, two planning professionals, a third sector and a private sector respondent.

6.8 Comments on the initial and draft impact assessments are summarised below.

• Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment. Some planning authorities and planning professionals expressed concern that cost/benefit assessment within the BRIA does not take account of proposals for much of the development to be removed from the planning application to still be subject to prior notification/ prior approval processes. It was suggested that a complex prior approval process, for example for conversion of agricultural buildings, will deliver little benefit for applicants and planning authorities in terms of resources required, and determination timescales. This included specific concern that the reduction in fee income would increase cost pressures and is contrary to Scottish Government aspirations that local authorities move to full cost recovery. Concerns were also raised regarding the potential impact of proposals for conservation areas and the attractiveness of rural landscapes more widely, and subsequent impact on tourism. A private sector respondent noted that PDR can reduce planning costs to help delivery of marginal sites, and support additional investment in telecommunications infrastructure.
• Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment. It was suggested that the proposals for PDR for agricultural development represent a significant shift in national planning policy, moving away from a plan-led approach to managing rural development. Concerns were expressed that prior notification/ prior approval would be insufficient to ensure proper scrutiny, and risked disenfranchising communities and third parties.
• Equalities Impact Assessment. It was queried that the EqIA does not identify any negative consequences.

Q73. Do you have any suggestions for additional sources of information on the potential impacts of the proposals that could help inform our final assessments?

6.9 Five respondents provided comment at Question 73. These were two planning professionals, a planning authority, a third sector respondent and an individual.

6.10 Comments on additional sources of information on the potential impact of PDR are summarised below.

• It was suggested that planning authorities hold information that would allow the Scottish Government to further consider whether the planning application is a genuine barrier to realisation of new residential and commercial development in rural areas.
• It was suggested that continuing assessment of the impact of PDR for conversion of agricultural buildings for residential use should include gathering of data to assess the impact of PDR on developer obligations and affordable housing delivery.
• Specific sources cited by respondents were:
  • www.bats.org.uk
  • www.biodiversityinplanning.org
  • www.biodiversityinplanning.org/resources/publications
  • www.biodiversityinplanning.org/wildlife-assessment-check
  • https://cieem.net/resource/planning-naturally
  • www1.biodiversityplanningtoolkit.com/?tm=1&subid4=1602866252.0014459802&kw=Biodiversity+Planning+System+Software&KW1=Biodiversity%20Planning%20Software&KW2=Project%20Management%20Software&KW3=Data%20Visualization%20Toolkit&searchbox=0&domainname=0&backfill=0