Masterplan Consent Area Regulations: consultation responses summary

Question 19

Question 19A) To what extent do you agree with the proposed process set out in the Draft Masterplan Consent Area Scheme (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 contained within Annex B?

Responses to Question 19A are set out by respondent type in Table 18 below.

A total of 50 respondents answered this question. This question covered the proposed process set out in the Draft Masterplan Consent Area Scheme (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. There were a range of responses, with 52% answering strongly agree or agree, 24% disagreed or strongly disagreed and 24% remained neutral. The Development, Property & Land Management sector and Agents and Planning Authorities groups had similar levels of agreement, close to the average of all the responses, at 53.8% and 57.9% respectively.

Question 19B) Please explain your view.

40 respondents provided further comment at Question 19B

Summary /Themes

Responses were divided on the proposed process set out in the Draft Masterplan Consent Area Scheme (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. The respondents who were supportive of the proposed process stated the inclusion of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development within MCAs was welcome and it was helpful that the procedures outlined in the Draft Regulations were similar to those in the current Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017.

10 responses consisting of three Community and Individuals, two Development, Property & Land Management sector & Agents, three Planning Authorities, one Professional Representative Body and one Third Sector respondent disagreed with the proposed process set out in the Draft Masterplan Consent Area Scheme (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. The Community and Individual respondents were concerned that developers would try and avoid undertaking EIAs and suggest that the cost of producing EIAs should rest with the developer.

Those three Planning Authorities, two Development, Property & Land Management sector & Agents and one Professional Representative Body who disagreed with the proposed MCA EIA process, commented that there would be a significant staff and financial resource implications for planning authorities preparing EIAs, and some noted these challenges would then mean planning authorities would be more likely to progress MCA developments that would avoid EIA. A further nine respondents who answered strongly agree, agree or neutral to Question 19A also made reference in their answer to Question 19B of their concerns relating to the resource implications for planning authorities preparing EIAs.

While some respondents agreed that a collaborative partnership approach will be required between planning authorities and developers to progress EIA work associated with MCAs, the same respondents were unsure how this would work in practice.

One Development, Property & Land Management sector & Agent respondent cited that the Draft MCA EIA Regulations would frustrate the potential use of MCAs. They highlighted that the draft regulations did not recognise the opportunity for a multi-stage approach to EIA which is included within the existing The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. They also raised that they felt Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) had been overlooked. One Key Agency & Other Public Sector and one Third Sector respondent requested that further detailed guidance covers the multi-stage condition approach to MCA EIAs.