Masterplan Consent Area Regulations: consultation responses summary

Question 2

Question 2A) We are not proposing to regulate to exclude any form of development from having potential to be within a MCA. To what extent do you agree with this approach?

Responses to Question 2A are set out by respondent type in Table 2 below.

A total of 54 respondents answered this question. A majority – 68.5% of those who answered the question – strongly agreed or agreed with the approach to not regulate to exclude any form of development from having potential to be within a MCA. Organisations were more likely to agree or strongly agree than community and individual respondents, at 75% and 40% respectively. There were high levels of agreement from Planning Authorities (94.7%), the Development, Property & Land Management sector and Agents (78.6%) and Key Agency & Other Public Sector (75%). 14.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed and 16.7% remained neutral.

Question 2B) Please explain your view.

48 respondents provided further comment at Question 2B.

Summary /Themes

The responses were generally supportive of the approach to not regulate to exclude any form of development from having potential to be within a MCA. The supportive responses stated that all types of development, including a range of scale of development, should be able to benefit from MCAs. Others noted the flexible approach is appropriate for local circumstances, allowing planning authorities to decide what type of development is included in particular MCA schemes.

Some respondents suggested that MCAs should cover other types of authorisations including advertisement consent, marine consents, Section 36 consent and that MCA Schemes could also provide reference to SEPA environmental authorisations.

Other responses considered that exclusions within MCAs should apply to EIA Schedule 1 development, conservation areas, listed buildings, areas within Local Place Plans and strategic energy or disamenity uses. One Planning Authority suggested MCAs should only be allowed for developments up to a threshold of 250 dwellings or 20,000 sqm of gross non-residential floorspace.

Two Planning Authorities and one Key Agency & Other Public Sector respondents noted that while happy that no forms of development should be excluded at present, that this approach should be kept under review.