Reviewing and extending permitted development rights: consultation analysis

5. Mitigation and monitoring

5.1 The fourth consultation question sought views on the proposals for mitigating and monitoring the predicted effects of extending PDR, as set out in the SA report. The question was split into three parts, asking for views on mitigation and monitoring with regard to (a) environmental matters, (b) social matters and (C) economic matters.

Q4. What are your views on the findings and the proposals for mitigation and monitoring of effects set out in the Sustainability Appraisal report with regard to:

a. environmental matters?

b. social matters?

c. economic matters?

5.2 A total of 75 respondents provided an answer at Question 4, including 40 organisation respondents and 35 individuals. Of these 75 respondents, 6 expressed broad support for mitigation and monitoring proposals, 23 provided comments which criticised aspects of mitigation and monitoring, and 46 did not express a clear overall view.

5.3 Most of those expressing broad support for the proposals raised some issues or concerns; overall, 32 respondents (25 organisations and 7 individuals) raised issues or concerns regarding the predicted effects described in the SA. Table 5 summarises these responses by respondent type.

Table 5: Respondents to Question 4 by type

	Answered Question 4	Raised issues or amendments
All Respondents	75	32 (43%)
Organisations	40	25 (63%)
Public sector	12	11
Planning authorities	8	7
Other public bodies	4	4
Planning and other professionals	4	1
Private sector	11	6
Energy supply and/or distribution	4	3
Telecoms	2	2
Rural economy	3	0
Other	2	1
Third sector	13	7
Environment	7	3
Representative bodies/groups	2	1
Campaign groups	1	1
Other	3	2
Individuals	35	7 (20%)

5.1 Some respondents, including planning/other professionals and private sector respondents, expressed their general agreement with proposals for mitigation and monitoring. However, as Table 4 shows, a substantial proportion of those providing comment at Question 4 raised issues or suggested amendments to proposals. These issues were typically related to mitigation and monitoring for specific development types, and we summarise these over the following pages.

5.2 As is noted in relation to Questions 2 and 3, comments on specific development types and other common issues were raised primarily in relation to mitigation of environmental effects. The points considered below therefore relate to mitigation of environmental effects; we highlight where points were also raised in relation to social and/or economic effects. Points raised exclusively in relation to mitigation of social and/or economic effects are summarised at the end of this section of the report.

Common themes

5.3 Some common themes were evident. This included a number of the themes discussed earlier at Questions 2 and 3 such as monitoring cumulative impact, mitigating effects on cultural heritage and mitigation proposals for environmental impact. This included concerns regarding the lack of mitigation proposals to address increased flood risk. However, respondents also raised general issues and concerns regarding proposals for mitigation and monitoring which did not relate to specific development types.

5.4 Some respondents, including other public bodies, felt that information provided on mitigation proposals was very limited and incomplete. Some also noted that proposals did not include detail on implementation mechanisms, which were seen as a key factor in the effectiveness of proposals. It was suggested that mitigation mechanisms should be outlined more comprehensively in the Post Adoption Statement, and should remain a key aspect of discussions for individual work streams.

5.5 Similar concerns were raised in relation to proposals for monitoring, which were also described as limited and incomplete. This included comments from planning authorities, other public bodies and third sector respondents. It was suggested that the SA as a minimum should indicate how existing monitoring regimes could contribute to monitoring the effects of PDR. Some respondents again suggested that further detail should be included in the Post Adoption Statement.

5.6 Respondents also expressed some concerns regarding what was seen as over-reliance on good practice guidance to mitigate the effects of PDR. Some planning authorities suggested that good practice could have limited mitigation benefits if it cannot be implemented or enforced, although other respondents suggested specific aspects of good practice guidance as having a potential role in the approach to mitigation.

5.7 Concerns were also raised regarding the potential benefits of prior notification/approval as a means of mitigating the effects of extending PDR. This included suggestions that this 'intermediate' approach may cause confusion for applicants, and can undermine the benefits of extending PDR in relation to streamlining the planning process and reducing burden on planning authorities. Some third sector respondents referred evidence from monitoring use of the new prior notification process as having highlighted issues with this approach.

Comments on mitigation of environmental effects

Phase 1 development types

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

• Some planning authorities raised concerns regarding extending prior notification/approval schemes, and suggested that these would not streamline the process nor reduce the time spent on applications.
• A planning authority expressed concern that good practice guidance is not sufficient to mitigate negative effects.
• An other public sector respondent suggested that a requirement for assessment of visual impacts, as a condition of prior notification/approval, would be of limited use as direct physical impacts are unlikely to be captured.
• A third sector respondent suggested that consultation with operators is required to assess whether higher masts outside designated areas would lead to fewer masts in designated areas, and to develop guidance on potential reductions.
• An individual respondent raised concerns that mitigation proposals give the telecommunication industry too much scope regarding antenna height.
• Some third sector and individual respondents suggested that concerns regarding 5G digital communications infrastructure cannot be mitigated, and that alternative wired and fibre optic technology should be preferred.

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

• A number of planning authorities raised concerns in relation to proposals for mitigation of effects associated with extension of PDR to allow conversion of agricultural buildings for residential use. This included suggestions that planning authorities often add considerable value to these planning applications, and concerns that design guidance is unlikely to be sufficient to mitigate adverse impacts due to inappropriate development. Some stated their objection to extension of PDR for this type of development.
• An other public sector respondent recommended that mitigation measures are identified to address potential effects on the historic environment.
• A third sector respondent expressed concern that no mitigation is proposed for uncontrolled development, which was described as having potential to have significant impacts on valued landscape areas.
• A planning/other professional suggested that assessment for bats should be required for conversion of steadings to mitigate environmental effects.

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

• Concerns raised by respondents included a perceived need for guidance regarding orientation of buildings and impact on roofscape, a potential need for PDR to be more limited in some rural areas to avoid negative environmental impact, and concerns regarding potential for increased deployment of micro-renewables to have a cumulative impact (e.g. on residential amenity or biodiversity). An other public sector respondent noted that mitigation measures have not been identified for negative effects on cultural heritage. It was also suggested that the SA could include a greater focus on potential mitigation of cumulative impact beyond 'heritage' sites, for example through requirement for a specific assessment to support a prior notification submission.
• Some raised concerns regarding proposals for a prior notification/approval scheme to mitigate the effects of PDR for designated areas, and suggested that this approach could limit the benefits of extending PDR in terms of streamlining the planning process. A planning authority suggested there should be scope for limited relaxation of planning controls within designated areas without the need for a prior notification/approval scheme.
• A public body respondent suggested that 'reasonable alternatives' presented should include other incentives to increase deployment of micro-renewables that do not involve extension of PDR.
• A public body objected to extending PDR for biomass due to impacts on amenity.
• A third sector respondent saw a need for greater clarity on size limits for PDR for non-domestic solar, and that there is no relaxation of controls in designated areas and wild land areas.

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

• A planning authority suggested that a precautionary principle should still be applied, and some control retained via a requirement for assessment of impact for the wider ecosystem. It was also suggested that restrictions should apply to all developments (including those outwith designated areas) with a potential negative impact on important habitat or species.
• An other public sector respondent noted that proposals for mitigation are focused on designated historic environment assets, and wished to see proposals extended to address effects on undesignated or unknown assets, including archaeology.

5.12 In relation to PDR for hill tracks (private ways), improvements to the current prior notification and approval system for hill tracks were suggested. This included clearer guidance on the distinction between 'maintenance' and 'alteration' to hill tracks, the potential value of local or national guidance on construction of hill tracks, and changes to ensure the 28-day target for handling applications is met. Some third sector respondents suggested that the approach to PDR for hill tracks, and associated mitigation, should use learning from monitoring of current PDR for hill tracks.

Phase 2 development types

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

• A private sector respondent suggested that additional strain on the grid associated with extending PDR for EV charging points could be mitigated through co-location of solar PV energy generation, and use of energy storage.
• A planning authority and a private sector respondent suggested that PDR for EV charging infrastructure should be extended to unlisted buildings in heritage, cultural and landscape designations. This included a suggestion for mitigation by a prior approval scheme.
• An other public sector respondent suggested that mitigation proposals would not address effects on the setting of listed buildings.

5.14 In relation to PDR for active travel an other public sector respondent noted that mitigation measures were not proposed to address negative effects the historic environment.

Phase 3 development types

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

• A planning authority questioned extending PDR to include general industrial and storage and distribution use classes for town centres, and suggested that PDR should be extended to enable change from Class 1 or 2 to other appropriate classes.
• An other public sector respondent noted that mitigation measures have not been identified in relation to effects as a result of town centres change of use.

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

• Some planning authorities suggested that prior notification and neighbour consultation is unlikely to streamline current processes, and may not necessarily ensure a good standard of development. It was also suggested that a prior notification scheme for fences over 2m may encourage development of a kind that is rarely acceptable.
• A private sector respondent raised concerns that the SA does not include mitigation proposals to address potential increase in flood risk, and wished to see robust conditions and adequate monitoring and enforcement powers as part of the PDR review. This included reference to conditions to take into account the cumulative and synergistic effect of extending PDR.
• An other public sector respondent felt that it was unclear how mitigation proposals would address effects on the setting of designated heritage assets.

Phase 4 development types

5.17 In relation to PDR for district heating and supporting infrastructure an other public sector respondent noted that proposals for mitigation are focused on designated historic environment assets, and wished to see proposals extended to address effects on undesignated or unknown assets, including archaeology.

5.18 In relation to PDR for domestic and non-domestic energy storage an other public sector respondent wished to see proposals extended to address effects on undesignated or unknown assets, including archaeology.

5.19 In relation to PDR for defibrillator cabinets a planning authority suggested that in the great majority of cases, installation of defibrillator cabinets is 'de minimis', and did not support a prior notification process for this development type.

Phase 5 development types

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

• An other public sector respondent noted that proposals for mitigation are focused on designated historic environment assets, and wished to see proposals extended to address effects on undesignated or unknown assets, including archaeology.
• A third sector respondent suggested that guidance on size and design of habitat ponds could also include sensitivity to characteristics of setting.

5.21 In relation to PDR for allotments and community growing schemes a planning authority disagreed with the suggestion in the SA that existing PDR for portable buildings could apply to allotments, and argued that development on allotments is more comparable with domestic garden sheds, greenhouses, etc.

Phase 6 development types

5.22 In relation to PDR for snow sports a planning authority expressed concern that reliance on good practice guidance would be insufficient to prevent inappropriate development in sensitive areas.

Comments on the social and economic effects

5.23 Specific points raised at Question 4 in relation to mitigation of social effects are summarised below.

• In relation to agricultural developments, it was noted that the SA includes little reference to mitigation of impact on a plan-led system and provision of public services.
• In relation to micro-renewables, it was suggested that prior notification submissions may need to include a supporting assessment of impacts on the host community.

5.24 Specific points raised at Question 4 in relation to mitigation of economic effects are summarised below.

• Some respondents noted that they did not anticipate significant negative economic impacts that would require mitigation.