Reviewing and extending permitted development rights: consultation analysis

4. Predicted effects

4.1 The third consultation question sought views on the predicted effects of extending PDR as set out in the SA report. The question was split into three parts, asking for views on predicted (a) environmental, (b) social and (C) economic effects.

Q3. What are your views on the predicted effects set out in the Sustainability Appraisal report as regards:

a. environmental effects?

b. social effects?

c. economic effects?

4.2 A total of 81 respondents provided an answer at Question 3, including 45 organisation respondents and 36 individuals. Of these 81 respondents, 13 expressed broad support for the predicted effects set out in the SA, 44 provided comments which criticised aspects of the predicted effects (the majority being individuals, including 16 campaign plus responses), and 24 did not express a clear overall view.

4.3 Most of those expressing broad support for the predicted effects set out in the SA raised some issues or concerns; overall, 66 respondents (34 organisations and 32 individuals) raised issues or concerns regarding the predicted effects described in the SA. Table 4 summarises these responses by respondent type.

Table 4: Respondents to Question 3 by type

	Answered Question 3	Raised issues or amendments
All Respondents	81	66
Organisations	45	34
Public sector	12	9
Planning authorities	8	5
Other public bodies	4	4
Planning and other professionals	5	3
Private sector	12	10
Energy supply and/or distribution	5	3
Telecoms	2	2
Rural economy	3	3
Other	2	2
Third sector	16	12
Environment	6	4
Representative bodies/groups	2	1
Campaign groups	2	2
Other	6	5
Individuals	36	32

4.4 A range of respondents express their general agreement with the predicted effects described in the SA. This included planning authorities, planning/other professional and third sector respondents.

4.5 As Table 4 shows, most of those providing comment at Question 3 raised issues or concerns. The great majority of points raised by these respondents related to the predicted effects of specific development types, and we summarise these over the following pages. However, several common themes were also evident across these responses.

4.6 As was the case at Question 2, these common themes and most of the comments on specific development types were raised in relation to environmental effects. Relatively few respondents raised issues related exclusively to social or economic effects. The points considered below therefore relate to environmental effects; we highlight where points were also raised in relation to social and/or economic effects. Points raised exclusively in relation to social and/or economic effects are summarised at the end of this section of the report.

Common themes

4.7 These themes were similar to those raised at Question 2, and considered in the previous section of this report. For example, respondents raised concerns regarding what were seen as out of date sources, and to effects on historic and cultural heritage.

4.8 A number of respondents raised concerns regarding potential cumulative effects of extending PDR, and felt that further consideration of these effects, and how they can be assessed, is required. Concerns regarding cumulative effects were primarily related to landscape and biodiversity, particularly in designated areas. However, some respondents also referred to potential cumulative effects in relation to flood risk. This was a particular concern in relation to householder developments but is also noted below in relation to other specific development types.

4.9 In addition to these issues, some respondents raised concerns regarding how predicted effects are described throughout the SA and associated appendices. This included some suggesting that, where predicted effects are significantly negative, or are uncertain, consideration should be given to whether these development types are suitable for PDR.

4.10 Others suggested that greater consistency is required in the language used to ascribe value to predicted effects, and that use of 'reversible' should be better qualified. Some also had difficulty reading between the main SA report and appendices to assess the significance of predicted effects. An other public sector respondent suggested that any such inconsistencies should be addressed in the Post Adoption Statement.

Comments on environmental effects

Phase 1 development types

4.11 Key points raised in relation to PDR for digital communications infrastructure are summarised below.

• Some respondents suggested that the negative impacts on natural and cultural heritage could be more significant than is suggested by the SA, if PDR is extended to designated areas without limitations. This included reference to potential for significant effects on undesignated heritage assets, including those within designated areas, and a suggestion that mitigation o these effects should be explored. Reference was also made to the reliance on guidance in ensuring that PDR for digital communications infrastructure does not have significant negative impacts, and noted the need for 'buy in' from stakeholders if this to be effective.
• An other public body suggested that the SA should consider the effects of PDR on the setting of listed buildings and scheduled monuments, including archaeology within these settings.
• Some other public bodies questioned the SA description of negative effects associated with permitting new masts as 'reversible'. This included a suggestion that direct effects, such as on archaeology, are likely to be permanent.
• An other public body noted an inconsistency between Section 5.4 of the SA and Annex 2, in relation to the assessment of negative impacts for soils.
• A planning authority suggested that the SA under-estimates the negative impact of dish antenna in undesignated areas, and noted the cumulative impact of proliferation of dishes.
• A third sector respondent noted that the SA identifies potentially significant biodiversity effects associated with equipment housing cabinets, but does not discuss these effects further.
• A private sector respondent suggested that the SA should consider the wider implications of the Shared Rural Network programme, including the potential to reduce the overall number of sites (while increasing the height of masts).
• Some third sector and individual respondents suggested that the SA does not take sufficient account of environmental associated with development of 5G infrastructure. These respondents referred to environmental impact (including suggested negative impacts on biodiversity) and aesthetic impact.
• A private sector respondent raised concerns around the potential for extension of PDR for digital communications infrastructure to have a negative impact on aviation safety.

4.12 Key points raised in relation to PDR for agricultural developments are summarised below.

• A number of public sector and third sector respondents raised concerns regarding the potential for extension of PDR to have significant social and environmental impacts. This included specific reference to the potential impacts of conversion of buildings for residential housing. In contrast, a private sector respondent suggested that the SA had not given sufficient consideration to the potential positive economic impacts of extending PDR to include change of use to residential housing. This included reference to specific evidence on positive economic benefits associated with the home building industry in Scotland.
• Public and third sector respondents suggested that further consideration of the current 400m distance to the curtilage before any relaxation in this requirement is introduced, and raised concerns regarding the impact of polytunnels being more significant and less temporary than is suggested in the SA. This included impacts landscapes, flood risk areas, biodiversity and climate change, and historic heritage. Some planning authorities and other public bodies suggested that the SA was incorrect in describing flood risk as a 'minor negative' effect, and that extension of PDR should exclude flood risk areas. However, some private sector respondents felt that the SA may over-estimate impacts on flood risk. This included a suggestion that this assessment did not take account of mitigation from introducing additional housing stock into the housing system, and questions around whether the SA had considered the application of existing flood management techniques.
• Some third sector respondents saw a need for guidance to support planning authorities in assessing impacts on designated areas, and to ensure natural heritage is protected. These respondents considered that prior notification should be retained for agricultural developments.
• An other public body raised concerns that extending PDR for increase in size of agricultural buildings could have significant negative impacts on biodiversity and climate change, if the increase in size is to intensify livestock production.
• A private sector respondent suggested that the SA had not sufficiently explored the impact of extending PDR in agricultural development regarding brownfield sites.
• A private sector respondent raised concerns about the potential for extension of PDR for agricultural developments to have a negative impact on aviation safety.

4.13 Key points raised in relation to PDR for micro-renewables are summarised below.

• Some respondents expressed concerns that care will be required to ensure any further changes to existing PDR for micro-renewables do not have a negative impact on the built or natural heritage. This included suggestions that the SA does not consider potential landscape impacts of free standing domestic turbines, that potential cumulative effects (including in more densely populated areas) were not addressed sufficiently, and that the SA does not recognise potential for new tracks and non-domestic micro-renewables to raise case-specific issues due to the location and sensitivity of surrounding landscapes. Specific suggestions here included updating guidance relating to landscape impact alongside any change in PDR, and for listed buildings and designated areas to be excluded from extension of PDR.
• Some respondents suggested that the SA may over-state the potential adverse impacts of micro-renewables. This included a public sector respondent suggesting that too much emphasis was placed on visual impact, and a private sector respondent suggested that the SA fails to recognise the versatility in design of solar PV panels, and that solar deployment can be less intrusive than some other micro-renewables.
• An other public sector respondent felt that evidence was required to support the assessment of predicted effects to water, social, population and human health as 'negligible'.
• An other public body suggested that the SA should consider the effects of PDR on the setting of listed buildings and scheduled monuments. This included reference to the importance of a clear understanding of the difference between the curtilage and setting of a listed building.
• An other public body suggested that the SA narrative should mention the minor positive effect for WHS as set out in the assessment matrix.
• A private sector respondent raised concerns about the potential for extension of PDR for micro-renewables to have a negative impact on aviation safety, although a private sector respondent suggested that this was based on outdated evidence.
• Some public sector and individual respondents raised concerns regarding extension of PDR for biomass development. This included suggestions that extending PDR for agricultural biomass could have amenity issues, concerns regarding the impact of biomass flues on heritage assets, and reference to potential negative impacts on air quality.

4.14 Key points raised in relation to PDR for peatland restoration are summarised below.

• A planning authority noted a small risk that permitted development in the wider area around peatland could cause issues for a holistic planning approach.
• Further detail was requested on how the effects on the historic environment had been found to be minor rather than significant, with an other public body considering these effects to be uncertain.
• An other public body suggested that the peatland restoration technique 'pulling over grass' is not recognised and should be not be included in future advice regarding peatland restoration.
• A third sector respondent suggested that further consideration is required around the need for restrictions on PDR relating to archaeological features and in areas designated for nature conservation.

4.15 In relation to PDR for hill tracks (private ways) some third sector respondents suggested that the unpredictability of any adverse landscape and natural heritage effects associated with hill tracks raises questions for their suitability for PDR. It was suggested that, as a minimum, limits should be placed on the location and design of developments and a prior approval mechanism used to ensure some overview of developments in sensitive areas.

Phase 2 development types

4.16 Key points raised in relation to PDR for electric vehicle charging infrastructure are summarised below.

• A number of respondents, including planning authorities, raised concerns around the potential effects of installations close to roads and footpaths, including installations outside flatted developments.
• A private sector respondent suggested that the SA overstates the negative environmental effects of EV charging points for non-listed buildings designated areas. It was also suggested that positive environmental impacts associated with EV charging infrastructure is not adequately captured by the SA.
• Clarification was requested on whether effects on undesignated or unknown archaeology had been considered.

4.17 Key points raised in relation to PDR for active travel are summarised below.

• Some third sector respondents raised concerns regarding negative environmental and social impacts of extending PDR for active travel. It was suggested that additional local guidance or conditions on PDR would be required to minimise negative impacts, which would undermine any simplification of the current system associated with PDR.
• An other public body suggested that the detailed SA for active travel (at Appendix 6) is contradictory in places, is inconsistent with the main SA text, and includes impacts which are not substantiated with evidence.
• Further detail was requested on how the effects on the historic environment had been found to be minor rather than significant, particularly in relation to creation of new routes.
• A number of individual respondents suggested that the SA has not fully considered the predicted effects of small cycle sheds and containers, including climate, transport or public health effects.

Phase 3 development types

4.18 Key points raised in relation to PDR for town centre changes of use are summarised below.

• Some planning authorities suggested that extending PDR for town centres may have negative impacts on residential amenity associated with noise, air quality, etc. It was also suggested that the SA should consider potential effects on human health as a result of changing vulnerability to flooding associated with change of use.

4.19 Key points raised in relation to PDR for householder developments are summarised below.

• Some planning authorities and private sector respondents raised concerns around potential for significant negative impacts on cultural heritage and visual amenity if PDR is extended to Conservation Areas or listed buildings.
• A number of respondents suggested that the SA should consider potential cumulative environmental effects in more detail. This included reference to impacts on drainage and water run-off, flood risk, soils and biodiversity.
• Respondents also raised a range of other concerns regarding the potential impacts of extending PDR, including PDR for small scale porches being misused as a means of building extensions, allowing works higher than the existing roof having significant impacts on visual amenity, that any increase in the area of curtilage buildings permitted should take account of flood risks, and that any removal of the requirement to use porous materials will increase surface water run-off.
• Further detail was requested on how the effects on undesignated buildings were found to be minor rather than significant, with an other public body considering these effects to be uncertain. Clarification was also requested on whether effects on undesignated or unknown archaeology, and on designated historic assets (and their settings) had been considered.
• An other public body suggested that the SA should consider the effects of PDR on the setting of listed buildings and scheduled monuments. This included reference to the importance of a clear understanding of the difference between the curtilage and setting of a listed building.
• A third sector respondent called for further research with communities on potential impacts before any change to PDR for householder developments.

Phase 4 development types

4.20 Key points raised in relation to PDR for district heating and supporting infrastructure are summarised below.

• An other public sector respondent suggested that, as PDR apply only to pipework (and not energy generation or storage centres), effects on air quality are likely to be limited.
• An other public body questioned the SA description of negative effects associated with extending PDR as 'reversible. This included a suggestion that direct effects, such as on archaeology, are likely to be permanent.

4.21 Key points raised in relation to PDR for domestic and non-domestic energy storage are summarised below.

• Some private sector respondents identified additional effects associated with extending PDR for non-domestic storage. These included improving flexibility of the grid (and thus increasing opportunities for carbon reduction).
• A private sector respondent suggested that extension of PDR for domestic storage will encourage more customers to participate in domestic flexibility, and thus contribute to grid decarbonisation.

Phase 5 development types

4.22 Key points raised in relation to PDR for habitat pond creation are summarised below.

• A third sector respondent suggested that design guidance would be required to ensure habitat ponds deliver the anticipated positive effects, in particular minimising environmental impacts while maximising biodiversity. The potential positive impacts of habitat ponds were contrasted with agricultural ponds, and respondents suggested that PDR for habitat ponds should not be more restrictive than for agricultural.
• An other public sector respondent suggested that the SA should consider effects on soil as a material asset.
• Further detail was requested on how the effects on the historic environment had been found to be minor rather than significant, with an other public body considering these effects to be uncertain.
• It was suggested that PDR for habitat ponds could have negative effects in relation to flood risk (in addition to the positive effects identified by the SA), for example by embankments or location of ponds in a flood plain increasing flood risks elsewhere.

4.23 Key points raised in relation to PDR for allotments and community growing schemes are summarised below.

• An other public sector respondent wished to see consideration of potential effects on human health in relation to flooding, including in relation to secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects.
• A planning authority suggested that development of allotments and community growing spaces can have negative impacts on existing pathways and land used for recreation.
• An other public body requested clarification on whether effects on undesignated or unknown archaeology had been considered.

Phase 6 development types

4.24 Key points raised in relation to PDR for snow sports are summarised below.

• A planning authority suggested that extending PDR for snow sports could lead to significant environmental impacts in relation to biodiversity, landscape, pollution and water quality. It was suggested that these should be considered as part of a formal planning application.
• An other public body noted that the SA reference to PDR for access tracks that do not exceed 50m in length is not outlined in Planning Circular 2/2015.

Comments on social and economic effects

4.1 Specific points raised at Question 3 in relation to social effects are summarised below.

• Respondents questioned on the extent to which the SA had considered mental health impacts associated with increased flooding risk.
• Some third sector and individual respondents raised concerns regarding the potential for PDR to undermine local community and authority influence on planning. This included reference to PDR contradicting the principle of a 'plan-led' approach to development, to removing the ability of local communities to influence decisions affecting their local area, and reducing planning authority income.
• In relation to digital communications infrastructure, a private sector respondent suggested that the SA understates potential social benefits. This included reference to connectivity with emergency and rescue services, social inclusion, supporting delivery of public services, and the sustainability of rural communities. Some third sector and individual respondents suggested that the SA does not take sufficient account of health concerns associated with development of 5G infrastructure.
• in relation to agricultural developments, a third sector respondent suggested that extending PDR for change of use of agricultural buildings to residential housing is not consistent with a plan-led approach to delivery of new housing, and could place greater pressure on rural services and infrastructure. A public sector respondent suggested that conversion to housing should be excluded from PDR, raising concerns around standards of accommodation and impact on privacy and amenity. In contrast, some private sector respondents suggested that the SA did not give sufficient consideration to the positive social effects of extending PDR for agricultural developments in terms of improving existing housing for farming families and local communities and supporting farm succession.
• In relation to active travel, some were concerned that extending PDR could lead to delivery of lower quality active travel developments that may not work for all users, and will not deliver increased use of active travel. A planning authority suggested that any extension of PDR for active travel should ensure development is inclusive of all potential users, regardless of access to other transport modes.
• In relation to town centre changes of use, a planning authority expressed concern that unregulated conversion to residential use could lead to substandard accommodation.
• In relation to householder developments, a private sector respondent raised concerns that extending PDR for householder development could reduce opportunities for local planning authorities to require heat decarbonisation and energy efficiency upgrades.
• In relation to allotments and community growing schemes, It was suggested that controls may be required to ensure PDR does not lead to proliferation of buildings on allotments, negatively impacting on amenity.

4.2 Specific points raised at Question 3 in relation to economic effects are summarised below.

• Respondents questioned on the extent to which the SA had considered potential financial and mental health impacts of increased flooding risk.
• In relation to agricultural developments, some private sector respondents suggested that the SA did not give sufficient consideration to positive economic effects in terms of delivery of housing and supporting farm succession
• In relation to town centre changes of use, several respondents raised concerns that extending PDR for town centres may undermine plan-led approaches to town centre regeneration, suggesting that a coordinated and collaborative approach has been shown to be more effective in improving the economic and social viability of town centres.
• In relation to domestic and non-domestic energy storage, some private sector respondents referred to positive economic effects in terms of encouraging investment in battery storage.