Planning performance and fees: consultation analysis

4. Planning Fees

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The consultation sought views on how the new provisions of the Planning Act can be implemented as well as reviewing the current planning fee structure. This section sets out the results of the questions which examined some of the issues related to how fees might operate.

4.2 Category 1 - Residential Development

4.2.1 The consultation proposed that the fee for a single house should more accurately reflect the processing and advertising costs associated with determining the suitability of the site. The following fees were proposed:

• 1 unit £600
• 11-49 units £450
• 50+ units £23,550 plus £250 per unit to maximum of £150,000.

4.2.2 For planning permission in principle (PPP) the fee proposed for one single unit is £300. Where the application is based on site size, the fee will rise on a £300 per 0.1 ha incremental basis up to the maximum £75,000 for PPP.

Q5: Do you agree with the proposed planning fees?

4.2.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 1 - residential development. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a slight majority (53%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for residential development. Policy and planning was the group most in favour of the proposed changes. Respondents from business and civil society were split over the question, but no development industry respondents were in agreement with the proposals.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 1 - residential development?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1	1	27
Civil Society	8	9	11
Development Industry		8	4
Policy and Planning	19	7	14
Total	28	25	56
% of Respondents Answering Question	53	47

Q5a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.2.4 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether the method for calculating the planning fee is correct. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, the majority (56%) did not agree with the proposed method. Policy and planning was the only group where the majority of respondents answering the question, agreed with the proposed method. All development industry respondents answering did not agree with the proposed method.

Is the method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1	1	27
Civil Society	8	10	10
Development Industry		8	4
Policy and Planning	14	10	16
Total	23	29	57
% of Respondents Answering Question	44	56

4.2.5 There were 54 comments on the proposed fees for residential development across the themes described below. The themes are presented in decreasing order of comments received.

Fee Rates

• Business: a few respondents were not accepting of the increase for small numbers of units i.e. 1-49. They felt it would penalise small developers, particularly in rural areas. A graded approach for 11-49 units was suggested as was the concern that projects in the 200-399 and 400-562 cohort face a higher increase than lower end major development or strategic scale development.
• Civil Society: several respondents felt it was wrong that the largest increase is for the smallest developments. Commercial developers should pay more and it should be based on the environmental impact of development.
• Development Industry: a few respondents agree with increasing fees for smaller developments on the grounds that these applications will require the same attention as larger applications. However, it was suggested that some applications will become twice as expensive as an equivalent application in England and the justification for the increase is not clear. The proposals send the wrong message to would-be and current investors in home building in Scotland.
• Policy and Planning: Several respondents felt the proposed increases were not enough. The rate of £250 per unit for over 50 units received most criticism, particularly for major development that can require substantial supporting information. A few suggestions were made regarding the thresholds with suggestions of just two rates: 1-49 units at £600 and more than 50 units at £500. Applying the higher fee of £600 to the first 20 units was also suggested. There were contrasting views on the sliding scale and whether there should be a maximum fee and, if so, whether it should be higher (as in England).

Method

• Business and Development Industry: a few respondents stated that full cost recovery puts too much burden on applicants when the planning service costs are increasing in response to complex policy requirements and not as a result of the actions of applicants. It was also suggested that any increase should be incremental in terms of the percentage increase.
• Civil society: a few support increases in fees to reflect the costs of processing. Other comments included that a quantity discount is wrong as large applications are more labour intensive and can have more complex relationships to neighbours; it could be carbon based and related to the whole life emissions of the building or a flat rate with reductions for community housing/housing reflecting NPF outcomes in design.
• Policy and Planning: several supported linking fees to costs and moving towards full cost recovery. One respondent supported a reduction for projects which are conceived as a significant benefit to zero carbon and climate change emergency.

PPP

• Civil Society: a few respondents felt PPP should be subject to the full fee. Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions (AMSC) could then be free. Charging half the fee is not consistent with full cost recovery.
• Development industry: there was concern that PPP will require a fee that is half the fee for a detailed application. Both PPP and detailed applications require a full assessment of the suitability of the proposals, therefore charging half the fee for PPP does not reflect the level of assessment required. Hence, there is no justification for the 'standard' fee (for detailed applications) to be higher and this should be reduced.
• Policy and Planning: several respondents highlighted that PPP applications can have more unknowns than a detailed application and hence, be more time consuming. The same or more effort is required to assess them, so they should attract the same fee as a detailed application. A few suggested the fee should be calculated on the basis of a rate per 0.1 ha as the number of units is not always known.

Performance

• Business: a few respondents supported the fee increase if there was a clear pathway to an improvement in service for applicants. Recent fee increases have not led to improvements in performance.
• Development Industry: several highlighted that recent fees have not led to improved performance and stated that Scotland is taking too long to determine major applications compared to England. An improvement in performance and the achievement of statutory timescales must be in place before an increase in fees can be considered. There could be an impact on investment decisions which would affect Scotland's ability to deliver sustainable development.
• Policy and Planning: one respondent agreed there must be a link between performance and increased fees whilst another felt that increased fees should be seen in the context of the new Planning Act which places additional duties and financial burdens on authorities.

4.3 Categories 2, 3, 4, and 5 - Extensions and Alterations to Existing Dwellings

4.3.1 The consultation proposed that there should be a clear distinction between the work involved in the creation of an extension to a dwelling and other smaller ancillary developments such as replacement windows, fences and garden huts and the fees should be more commensurate with the work involved in making a decision on those applications.

4.3.2 The following fees were proposed.

• Fees for an application to enlarge an existing dwelling will increase to £300 and an application relating to two or more dwellings will be a maximum of £600.
• Fees for an application for alterations to dwellings and operations within the curtilage of an existing dwelling will be £300 per dwelling subject to a maximum of £600.
• The replacement of windows, sheds, gates, fences and other enclosures, garages and micro-generation equipment will carry a fee of £150 for a single dwelling. For two or more dwellings or building containing one or more flats, the fee will be £300.
• Applications for PPP for the erection of buildings under these categories will incur the same fees.

Q6. Do you agree with the proposed planning fees?

4.3.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 2 - extensions and alterations to existing dwellings. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (61%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for extensions and alterations to existing dwellings. Civil society and policy and planning were the groups most in favour of the proposed changes with the majority of development industry respondents not agreeing with proposals.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 2 - Extensions and Alterations to Existing Dwellings?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	10	4	14
Development Industry	1	3	8
Policy and Planning	15	10	15
Total	27	17	65
% of Respondents Answering Question	61	39

Q6a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.3.4 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether the method for calculating the planning fee is correct. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, a very slight majority (51%) agreed with the proposed method. Policy and planning respondents were divided on the method with business and civil society tending to agree with the method and development industry disagreeing with the proposed method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	10	7	11
Development Industry		3	9
Policy and Planning	11	11	18
Total	22	21	66
% of Respondents Answering Question	51	49

4.3.5 There were 41 comments on the proposed fees and method in this category from across the themes described below:

Definition

• Business: one respondent agreed with the definition of what constitutes 'enlargement' in this category but questioned if a fee of £300 is appropriate given it is quite close to the current fee for a single house. Clarification was also required of the costs involved in processing an application for an extension compared with a whole new dwelling.
• Civil society: clarity is required as to whether the £150 fee applies to new sheds/garages etc. or just to replacement sheds/garages etc. If it is the latter, how will a substantial difference in size between the original and replacement be dealt with. Some of the statements regarding 'dwellings' and '2 or more dwellings or buildings containing one or more flats' could be open to interpretation.
• Policy and planning: several respondents highlighted a need for clarity over what is included in each category, particularly if a sliding scale of fees is to be applied. For example, a large double garage could be significantly bigger than a small extension to a house and could give rise to similar or greater planning issues, therefore there appears to be little justification for saying that the fee for the garage should be half the fee for the extension. Similarly, proposals for micro-generation equipment can give rise to issues of planning consequence that cause similar costs to consideration of an application for a modest extension to a house.
• Policy and planning: several respondents felt the categories are making householder applications complicated and confusing. There should be no distinction between extensions, developments within the curtilage of an existing dwelling and replacement works because the process is the same. An application will require neighbour notification, consultation, site visit and assessment whether it is for extension or alteration to the building or for the construction of a new ancillary building within a curtilage.

Method

• Development industry: it is understood that these applications can be time consuming. If the aspiration is to achieve full cost recovery, these applications should pay their way.
• Policy and planning: a few respondents suggested that it would be more logical to use the definitions in General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) as the basis for the fee calculations. The fees could align with the 'incidental' and 'ancillary' definitions with incidental works attracting a lower fee and ancillary work attracting a higher fee. It was also suggested that fees for applications such as fences should be lower than applications for garages.
• Policy and planning: a few respondents also highlighted that smaller developments such as replacement windows/fences etc. often occur in conservation areas and require advertisements in the local press such that a reduction in fees does not seem justified or consistent with cost recovery. (Conservation is considered further in Q30).
• Policy and planning: a few respondents highlighted that fee reductions are not consistent with full cost recovery.

Fee Rate

• Civil society: one respondent felt that planning requirements for replacement windows, internal development and extensions below a predetermined size should be exempt from planning (as in England). On the other hand, another respondent supported the retention of fees as long as it translated into a more efficient system. There was concern that an increase in permitted development rights would reduce the ability of communities to comment on neighbourhood development.
• Policy and planning: a few respondents highlighted that a two-tier scale for householder applications is not appropriate as both types of applications require similar work to process i.e. registration/validation checks, neighbour notification, site visit, assessment and report writing.
• A number of suggestions were made on the specifics of the fees and are all from the policy and planning group unless otherwise stated:
  • There should be a distinction between sheds and garages/large outbuildings as the latter usually have a greater impact. A footprint threshold may be better e.g. a rate per square metre up to 12 sq. m. and over 12 sq. m.
  • Driveway applications have not been specified but suggest £300 as there is a need to consult with the roads department.
  • Alterations should be £200 as it is easier to handle for applicants paying in cash.
  • Agree in principle with increase for extension and decrease for alteration, but suggest extensions are £400.
  • Extensions should be £600, alterations should be £300+ and replacements should be £150. The rate should be per unit, irrespective of the number of dwellings (civil society).

PPP

• A policy and planning respondent suggested there should be no provision for PPP applications for development of this nature. The acceptability of householder development within the curtilage of an existing house is very rarely a matter of principle but is typically a question regarding the acceptability of the detail.

4.4 Category 6 - Retail and Leisure including Extensions

4.4.1 Applications for full permission for buildings (other than dwelling houses) are charged according to the gross floor space to be created. The consultation proposed the following fees:

• For applications where there is no new floorspace created or the floorspace is less than 50 sq. m. the fee will be £300.
• For developments above 50 sq. m. the fee is:
  • £1,500 for the first 50 - 100 sq. m.
  • £800 per 100 sq. m. thereafter up to 2,500 sq .m.
  • £500 per 100 sq. m. or part thereof to a maximum of £150,000.
• Applications of PPP shall be charged at £500 for each 0.1ha of the site to a maximum of £75,000.

Q7. Do you agree with the proposed planning fees?

4.4.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 6 - retail and leisure including extensions. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, the majority (67%) were in agreement with the proposed planning fees for retail and leisure including extensions. Respondents in favour of the proposals were from the civil society and policy and planning groups. Some respondents from all groups did not agree with the proposals.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 6 - Retail and Leisure including Extensions?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		1	28
Civil Society	9	4	15
Development Industry		4	8
Policy and Planning	20	5	15
Total	29	14	66
% of Respondents Answering Question	67	33

Q7a. Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

4.4.3 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether the method for calculating the planning fee is correct. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, the majority (56%) agreed with the proposed method. Respondents were split over the proposed method although a majority of respondents (answering the question) in the civil society and policy and planning groups supported the proposed method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		1	28
Civil Society	8	5	15
Development Industry	1	2	9
Policy and Planning	13	9	18
Total	22	17	70
% of Respondents Answering Question	56	44

4.4.4 There were 41 comments across a range of themes with the majority of comments from the civil society and policy and planning groups. Many respondents stated that they supported the increase in fees and the move to recovering the full costs of determining a planning application. The other comments are summarised by theme, with the themes in descending order of comments received:

Fee Rates

• Several comments (business, civil society, planning and policy) were made about the percentage and absolute increase at the lower scale of development being too high and suggesting the maximum increase should be 20%. This could have disproportionate impacts on smaller community groups. There was also concern from businesses that the proposed fees could inhibit development if a development was borderline, although a civil society respondent felt the rate of increase should be higher for larger developments. It was also noted that the proposed fees are greater than the equivalent fee in England.
• A few policy and planning comments were received on the following points:
  • The increase from £300 to £1,500 at 51 sq. m. is too much of an increase which does not seem fair or proportionate.
  • The fee for development under 50 sq. m. should be £500 or £600 (to be consistent with other types of development) or remain at £400.
  • There should be no maximum fee or it should be increased given the complexity of sites that could command fees in excess of £150,000.
  • The floorspace thresholds are too low (including 50 sq. m.) and will penalise some minor extensions (e.g. golf clubs, farm shops), £1,500 should apply up to 250 sq. m. as no significant technical issues are likely at that threshold.
  • There should be a fee per 0.1ha for developments that do not have buildings e.g. golf range or equestrian arena.

Method

• Policy and planning: a few respondents were concerned that the proposed fees do not protect the traditional high street as the large increases are for small developments. The traditional high street is struggling to compete with large scale supermarket and discount retailers and the proposed fees are likely to exacerbate this. A town centre and non-town centre split is suggested so there is no impact on regeneration activities.
• Policy and planning respondents also noted:
  • Different fee categories may be impractical and add to complexity for calculating fees for mixed use developments.
  • Four fee rates over four floorspace thresholds is too complicated. The number of levels should be simplified.
• Civil society: the proposed fees for very large development do not reflect the social and environmental impacts which need to be assessed and managed and which are more likely to increase with scale.
• Civil society: the methodology should not be based on the number of units or floor size, but should be carbon based in recognition of the carbon targets set for Scotland and relate to the whole life operational carbon emissions of the development proposed, including the loss of embodied carbon arising from any demolition/fabric removal.

PPP

• Several respondents from civil society, development industry and policy and planning stated that there should be no reduction in fees for PPP. The proposal that a PPP application will require a fee of half that for a detailed application is not reflective of the required resourcing as both applications require a full assessment of the suitability of the proposals.
• Policy and planning: a few respondents suggested that PPP should be aligned with other non-housing developments and the same rate should be applied across categories.

Definition

• Policy and planning: a few respondents suggested that careful consideration should be given to the proposed disaggregation of different uses in relation to fees. To avoid confusion and uncertainty, the different uses should be related to the use classes order.
• Policy and planning: a few respondents also stated that clarity was required regarding what is covered by retail and leisure. Guidance should be prepared to ensure there is no confusion or misinterpretation of the category.
• Policy and planning: the cost of determining an application does not relate to its use, particularly for Categories 6 (retail and leisure) and 7 (business and commercial), therefore there should be consistency in fees.

4.5 Category 7 - Business and Commercial including Extensions

4.5.1 This category covers those developments not covered by residential, agriculture, retail and leisure. The proposed fees are designed to encourage affordable levels of expansion for small to medium businesses. Applications for full permission for buildings (other than dwelling houses) are charged according to the gross floor space to be created. The consultation proposed the following fees:

• For applications where there is no new floorspace created or the floorspace is less than 50 sq. m. the fee will be £300.
• For buildings above 50 sq. m. of new floorspace, the fee is:
  • £800 for the first 100 sq. m.
  • £400 per additional 100 sq. m. or part thereof to a maximum of £150,000.
• Applications for PPP shall be charged at £400 for each 0.1ha of the site to a maximum of £75,000.

Q8. Do you agree with the proposed planning fees?

4.5.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 7 - business and commercial including extensions. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (60%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for business and commercial development. Business, civil society and policy and planning respondents tended to favour the proposed fees with all development industry respondents against the proposed fees.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 7 - Business and Commercial including Extensions?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	11	2	15
Development Industry		4	8
Policy and Planning	14	11	15
Total	26	17	66
% of Respondents Answering Question	60	40

Q8a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.5.3 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether the method for calculating the planning fee is correct. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, the majority (56%) did not agree with the proposed method, although there was variation across groups. Policy and planning respondents were relatively evenly split over the proposed method and all development industry respondents answering the questions did not agree with the proposed method. The business respondent and the majority of civil society respondents agreed with the proposed method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	11	2	15
Development Industry		4	8
Policy and Planning	11	12	17
Total	23	18	68
% of Respondents Answering Question	56	44

4.5.4 There were 39 comments on this category of fees with the majority of comments from the civil society and policy and planning groups. The comments are summarised by theme below with the themes listed in descending order of comments received:

Cost Recovery

• Many respondents (civil society and policy and planning) support the move towards the costs of determining a planning application being recovered by the fee. However, in this Category, there is tension between reducing the fees for small scale developments and the move towards full cost recovery. If existing fees do not cover costs, why would they be reduced? Several policy and planning respondents felt that existing fees should be maintained rather than reduced.
• A few business, civil society and policy and planning responses supported the reduction in fees to support small businesses. A further policy and planning response agreed with the support to small businesses but felt that reducing fees was not the best way to achieve this e.g. small business grants may be better.

Definition

• Several respondents (business and policy and planning) felt there should be consistency between the fees for Category 6 and Category 7 applications. The discrepancy is much greater for small applications and there is no justification for the disparity (in terms of the cost of processing and determining applications) or the role both categories play in contributing to economic development. It was also noted that a large part of the assessment related to the principle of the development which is not necessarily affected by size.
• A few policy and planning respondents stated that clarity was required regarding what is covered by Category 7 e.g. does it include tourism development? Guidance should be prepared to ensure no confusion or misinterpretation of the category.
• A specific point was raised by a policy and planning respondent regarding Use Class Order 10 (non-residential institutions) and whether it would be covered by this category or Category 6 which has higher fees.

PPP

• A few respondents from civil society, development industry and policy and planning stated that there should be no reduction in fees for PPP. It should be the same as a detailed application as both require a full assessment of suitability.
• A few respondents suggested that PPP should be aligned with other non-housing developments and the same rate should be applied across categories.

Method

• A few policy and planning respondents questioned why small-scale business and commercial extensions are supported (with a proposed reduction in fees) but similar size of retail or leisure extension is being penalised (with a substantial increase in fees). There should be a consistent approach across the two categories.
• Other comments from policy and planning respondents included:
  • 50 sq.m. and 0.1ha are appropriate for assessing fees.
  • Different fee categories for non-domestic development may be impractical and add to the complexity of calculating fees for mixed use developments.
  • the number of fee levels is correct but some of the calculations are wrong in the consultation document.

Fees

• Policy and planning suggestions included:
  • The lower fee should be £600 to be consistent with other fee levels.
  • Fees should align with other non-housing and increase in increments of £500 e.g. £500, £1000, £1500.
  • There should be no maximum fee.
• Development industry: There was a large increase in fees two years ago and now a further 20% increase is proposed, but there has been no improvement in service.

General

• There were mixed views on whether the changes in fees would deter investment. Some respondents believe that planning fees are small relative to the overall costs of expansion while others consider that investment could be affected by increased fees. A few policy and planning respondents suggested that it would be useful to have further information on how important a reduction in planning fees would be in encouraging economic development, particularly from small/medium enterprises.

4.6 Category 8 - Agricultural Buildings

4.6.1 The Scottish Government considers that linking fee levels for agricultural buildings and developments to housing developments is disproportionate to the value of the development and actual work involved in processing such applications. The consultation proposed the following fees:

• No change to applications for buildings under 465 sq. m. which do not have permitted development rights. Fee remains £0.
• Applications for agricultural buildings (other than glasshouses or polytunnels) as defined in the Interpretation of Part 6 of the GPDO will increase from £401 for each 75 sq. m. to £500 for every 100 sq. m. in excess of 465 sq. m. or part thereof with the maximum fee increasing to £25,000.

Q9. Do you agree with the proposed planning fees?

4.6.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 8 - agricultural buildings. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (55%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for agricultural buildings. A majority of civil society respondents answering the question were in favour of the proposed changes with development industry respondents not agreeing with the proposed fees. Policy and planning respondents were split over the question.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 8 - Agricultural Buildings?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2		28
Civil Society	8	4	16
Development Industry		4	8
Policy and Planning	11	9	20
Total	21	17	71
% of Respondents Answering Question	55	45

Q9a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.6.3 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether the method for calculating the planning fee is correct. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, the majority (57%) agreed with the proposed method. The majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question, agreed with the proposed method. All development industry respondents answering the question did not agree with the proposed method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	8	3	17
Development Industry		5	7
Policy and Planning	11	7	22
Total	20	15	74
% of Respondents Answering Question	57	43

4.6.4 There were 28 comments received on the proposed fees for agricultural buildings. These are summarised below by theme with the themes listed in descending order of the number of comments received:

Fee Rates

• Several respondents (civil society and policy and planning) stated that the £0 fee for buildings less than 465 sq. m. should be removed. Reasons cited include costs are still incurred, there is a fee for permitted development of the same size and a lack of fees can result in inappropriate buildings without consideration to visual or environmental impact. Rates of £500 to £600 were suggested for buildings under 465 sq. m.
• Related to £0 fee for buildings under 465 sq. m. were some comments about Determination of Prior Approval (DPA). A few policy and planning respondents highlighted an anomaly in the current fee system in that a development which constitutes permitted development attracts a fee while a similar development that requires planning permission attracts no fee. An agricultural building less than 465 sq. m. and that constitutes permitted development is subject to a DPA process with a fee of £78. An agricultural building less than 465 sq. m. that is not permitted development requires planning permission and attracts a fee of £0. It was suggested that the building that requires planning permission (unlike the building that is permitted development) could be used for activities that have the potential to give rise to greater planning implications with associated cost to determine acceptability ( e.g. housing pigs or poultry or for the storage of slurry or sewage sludge).
• It was suggested that this anomaly is exploited in some rural areas. If work commences without a DPA, the work is no longer permitted development and the fee for a retrospective planning application applies. This is £0 which acts as a disincentive to follow the correct process and rewards those who breach planning control.
• One policy and planning respondent felt there should be no maximum fee.

Cost Recovery

• Several civil society and policy and planning respondents welcomed the move to increase fees to better reflect the cost of determining planning applications. However, several policy and planning respondents felt that reducing fees (for buildings up to 1,565 sq. m.) does not support working towards full cost recovery.

Method

• A few respondents (business, civil society, policy and planning) felt it was not clear how the proposed changes relate to the cost of processing applications.
• Development industry: A permit-based approach is suggested where a fee is paid irrespective of whether proposed development is classified as permitted development. Indeed, "as more and more development becomes 'permitted development' it is unfair that those proposals that still require planning permission have to make up any shortfall".
• Civil society: Dairy/poultry facilities come with significant waste and greenhouse gas emissions which can have a profoundly negative effect on the local environment. There is an opportunity to incentivise ecologically beneficial development. Concessions, as proposed, should only be made for businesses with a lower environmental management footprint or who actively mitigate against environmental damage for net biodiversity gain.

4.7 Category 9 - Glasshouses

4.7.1 The current charge for applications to erect glasshouses on agricultural land is a flat rate fee of £2,321 where the ground area to be covered exceeds 465 sq. m. The consultation proposed the following:

• A fee of £150 per 0.1ha for ground area exceeding 465 sq. m. up to a maximum of £10,000.
• There is no provision within the fee regulations for applying for PPP for such developments.

Q10. Do you agree with the proposed planning fees?

4.7.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 9 - glasshouses. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (56%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for glasshouses. Civil society and policy and planning were the only groups in favour of the proposed fees. There were some respondents from all groups who were not in agreement with the proposals.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 9 - Glasshouses?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		1	28
Civil Society	7	4	17
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	11	7	22
Total	18	14	77
% of Respondents Answering Question	56	44

Q10a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.7.3 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether the method for calculating the planning fee is correct. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, there was a slight majority (53%) in favour of the proposed method. Policy and planning was the only group where the majority of respondents answering the question, agreed with the proposed method. Civil society respondents answering the question were split over the method and business and development industry respondents did not agree with the proposed method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		1	28
Civil Society	6	5	17
Development Industry		3	9
Policy and Planning	11	6	23
Total	17	15	77
% of Respondents Answering Question	53	47

4.7.4 There were 26 comments on the proposed fees and method of calculation for glasshouses. These are summarised below by theme, with the themes listed in descending order of the number of comments received:

Fee Rates

• Several respondents (business, civil society and policy and planning) commented that the scale of increase for larger developments (197% and 330%) for 5,065 and 10,065 sq. m. respectively seems to be particularly high. Related to this large percentage increase, a few civil society respondents felt that the proposed increase for large applications may deter investment and lead to businesses locating elsewhere. The climate in Scotland necessitates the use of glasshouses for many crops.
• Several policy and planning respondents highlighted the inconsistency of fee rates between category 8 - agricultural buildings, category 9 - glasshouses and category 10 - polytunnels. See comments under 'definition' below.
• A few policy and planning respondents felt there should be a fee for applications below 465 sq. m. as there are still costs incurred in processing. The comments made on the £0 fee for applications less than 465 sq. m. and DPA listed under Category 8 - agricultural buildings were also made for glasshouses.
• The fees for small scale applications were welcomed as a means of supporting voluntary and charity groups e.g. Men's Shed (policy and planning) and a civil society respondent suggested that a reduced fee should be applicable for projects that support local food production, particularly given Scottish Government commitments with regard to creating a sustainable food system.

Definition

• A few policy and planning respondents felt there was no justification for different fee structures for glasshouses and polytunnels (Category 10). The planning considerations and costs associated with an application for either form of development is likely to be similar and the fee should be the same regardless of the cladding of the structure. The two categories are combined in England where there is clarification on the definition. The proposed fee for polytunnels is £50 per 0.1ha less and the maximum is £5,000 rather than £10,000.
• A few policy and planning respondents felt there should be more consistency between Categories 8 (agricultural buildings) and 9 (glasshouses). The maximum fee for agricultural buildings is £25,000.

Method

• One policy and planning respondent felt that the proposed fees appear to be linked to the use of the proposed glasshouse or polytunnel for agricultural purposes. However, a glasshouse or polytunnel is a building and not a use. This type of structure could be used for other business or commercial purpose and could give rise to entirely different planning impacts. In that case there appears little or no justification to exclude this form of development from the standard fee calculation approach under Categories 6 (retail and leisure) or 7 (business and commercial). This would better reflect the costs associated with determination of a planning application.
• A development industry respondent felt it is not clear how the proposed changes relate to the costs of determining the applications. The move from a flat system to a tiered system implies it is more expensive to determine an application, but there is no evidence to support this or whether it is appropriate.

Q10c. Should a separate category be established for erection of glasshouses on land that is not agricultural land?

4.7.5 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether a separate category be established for the erection of glasshouses on land that is not agricultural land. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, the majority (60%) did not agree with a separate category for glasshouses on non-agricultural land. The majority of respondents disagreeing with a separate category were from policy and planning. A slight majority of civil society respondents favoured the establishment of a separate category.

Should a separate category be established for erection of glasshouses on land that is not agricultural land?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business			29
Civil Society	7	5	16
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	5	11	24
Total	12	18	79
% of Respondents Answering Question	40	60

4.7.6 There were 26 comments on whether there should be a separate category for glasshouses not on agricultural land across the following themes:

Definition

• Several respondents from civil society and policy and planning (who did not support a separate category) made a number of suggestions on the most appropriate category for glasshouses not on agricultural land including Category 6 - retailing for glasshouses in garden centres, Category 7 - business and commercial and Category 26 - change of use. A further policy and planning respondent who supported a separate category also suggested category 7.
• A few policy and planning respondents supporting a separate category felt that it depends on the location of the glasshouse. There is a case for a separate category for glasshouse applications for schools, community groups etc. One civil society respondent felt there should be no charge for those in gardens.^[2]

Method

• A few civil society respondents felt all glasshouses should be treated the same as they have the same material footprint and function whereas another civil society respondent felt that there are a number of other factors to consider if a glasshouse is on non-agricultural land e.g. rainwater disposal, traffic etc.
• A few respondents from development industry and policy and planning, questioned whether glasshouse applications for non-agricultural land require more or less complex assessment. The policy and planning respondent suggested that a glasshouse on non-agricultural land is not more costly to process and recognising this in the fee structure would support the development of new technology-based / efficient forms of food production. The development industry respondent raised the issue of whether it is the agricultural land that drives the planning authority's assessment of the application? If not, this category could be graduated by a different variable (e.g. ecological sensitivity, visual sensitivity of the environment) which could also provide a more quantitative basis to the glasshouse size bands.
• A policy and planning respondent felt there are not enough applications of this kind to merit an individual category while another policy and planning respondent felt that a separate category would allow a fee to be applied at a lower size threshold, but it could exclude "domestic" scale applications.

4.8 Category 10 - Polytunnels

4.8.1 The current charge for applications to erect polytunnels on agricultural land is a flat rate fee of £2,321 where the ground area to be covered exceeds 465 sq. m. The consultation proposed the following:

• A fee of £100 per 0.1ha for ground area exceeding 465 sq. m. up to a maximum of £5,000.
• There is no provision within the fee regulations for applying for PPP for such developments.

Q11. Do you agree with the proposed planning fees?

4.8.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 10 - polytunnels. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a clear majority (68%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for polytunnels, particularly in the civil society and policy and planning groups. There was no support from the development industry.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 10 - Polytunnels?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business			29
Civil Society	10	2	16
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	11	6	23
Total	21	10	78
% of Respondents Answering Question	68	32

Q11a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.8.3 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether the method for calculating the planning fee is correct. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, the majority (69%) agreed with the proposed method. These respondents were from civil society and policy and planning groups. There was some opposition to the proposed method from civil society, development industry and policy and planning.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business			29
Civil Society	9	3	16
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	11	4	25
Total	20	9	80
% of Respondents Answering Question	69	31

4.8.4 There were 24 comments across a number of themes with the themes presented below in descending order of the number of comments received:

Fee Rates

• Several policy and planning respondents highlighted the inconsistency of fee rates between category 8 - agricultural buildings, category 9 - glasshouses and category 10 - polytunnels. See comments under 'definition' below.
• A few respondents (business and civil society) commented that the scale of increase for larger developments (98% and 115%) for over 5,065 and 10,065 sq. m. respectively seems to be particularly high. A civil society respondent felt that the proposed fee increases at the large-scale end of the range could impact on some agricultural and horticultural businesses, with consequent adverse impacts on produce and jobs within local communities. Another civil society respondent felt that the building of polytunnels should be encouraged for small businesses or private owners investing in local fruit and vegetable or tree/ornamental plant production with another civil society respondent suggesting there should be no fee for community owned polytunnels producing food for the local community.
• A few policy and planning respondents stated that there should be a fee for all applications including those up to 465 sq. m. with a fee of £500 being suggested. The comments made on the £0 fee for applications less than 465 sq. m. and DPA listed under category 8 - agricultural buildings were also made for polytunnels.
• One business respondent felt the increase in fees for applications over 5,065 sq. m. was not justified, particularly given they are moveable. Given the wide variety of polytunnel types available it might be prudent to allow for discretion in relation to permanence and impact of structures, where fees might be reduced accordingly. A civil society respondent raised the issue of how the movement of polytunnels is dealt with in planning.

Definition

• The two points listed under 'definition' for category 9 - glasshouses apply to this category.
• As polytunnels are often used as shelters for livestock (particularly sheep), one policy and planning respondent questioned if fees should be aligned with agricultural buildings but recognising that a poly-tunnel has a more limited lifespan and that fees should not be overly penal.

Method

• A few respondents (civil society, development industry and planning and policy) felt the consultation was not clear on how the proposed changes relate to the costs of determining the applications. The move from a flat system to a tiered system implies it is more expensive to determine an application, but there is no evidence to support this or whether it is appropriate (development industry). Likewise, as actual costs are not given, it is difficult to know whether the existing fee or proposed fee better meets cost (civil society).
• The point made under 'method' for category 9 - glasshouses regarding the proposed fees appearing to be linked to the use of the glasshouse were repeated for polytunnels.

Q11c. Should a separate category be established for erection of polytunnels on land that is not agricultural land?

4.8.5 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether a separate category be established for the erection of polytunnels on land that is not agricultural land. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, the majority (63%) did not agree with a separate category for polytunnels on non-agricultural land. The majority of respondents disagreeing with a separate category were from policy and planning.

Should a separate category be established for erection of polytunnels on land that is not agricultural land?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business			29
Civil Society	5	7	16
Development Industry	1	2	9
Policy and Planning	5	10	25
Total	11	19	79
% of Respondents Answering Question	37	63

4.8.6 There were 26 comments on whether a separate category should be established for the erection of polytunnels on land that is not agricultural land. The themes are presented in descending order of the number of comments received:

Method

• Several respondents from civil society and policy and planning felt there should not be a separate category as the same amount of officer time would be required regardless of whether the polytunnel was on agricultural land or not.
• As with glasshouses, a policy and planning respondent felt there are not enough applications of this kind to merit an individual category.

Definition

• A few respondents from policy and planning (who did not support a separate category) suggested category 7 (business and commercial) and category 26 (change of use) would be the most appropriate categories for polytunnels not on agricultural land.

4.9 Categories 11, 12 and 13 - Electricity Generation

4.9.1 Currently all applications for Electricity Generation fall within the plant and machinery category. Given the rise in the number of applications for wind turbines, wind farms, energy from waste plants etc. it is considered that there should be a separate fee category for these. The consultation proposes three new categories covering windfarms and turbines, hydro schemes and all other generation.

4.10 Category 11 - Windfarms - Access Tracks and Calculation

4.10.1 Applications for this type of development were previously covered under the plant and machinery category. A new category is proposed for turbines and windfarms.

4.10.2 It is proposed that a distinction is made between single wind turbines under 15m to hub height, those between 15m and 50m and those over 50m as turbines over 15m require to be screened for EIA purposes and those over 50m require significant input from determining authorities. Otherwise the fees for windfarms will be based on site size.

4.10.3 The proposed fees are:

• Where less than three turbines are to be installed and:
  • All turbines are less than 15m, the fee will be £500
  • Any one turbine is between 15m and 50m, the fee will be £1,500
  • Any one turbine is over 50m, the fee will be £5,000.
• Windfarms with four or more turbines will be charged £500 per 0.1ha up to a maximum of £150,000
• Applications for PPP will be charged at £500 per 0.1ha up to a maximum of £75,000.

Q12. Do you agree with the proposed planning fees?

4.10.4 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 11 - windfarms. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (61%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for windfarms. Of those answering the question, the majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents agreed with the proposed fees. All development industry and almost all business respondents disagreed with the proposed fees.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 11 - Windfarms - access tracks and calculation?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1	5	23
Civil Society	10	5	13
Development Industry		3	9
Policy and Planning	17	5	18
Total	28	18	63
% of Respondents Answering Question	61	39

4.10.5 There were 26 comments on the proposals for windfarms across a range of themes with the themes presented in descending order of comments received:

Fee Rates

• A few policy and planning respondents suggested the maximum fee should be greater than £150,000, possibly up to a maximum of £225,000. An increased maximum fee for more than four turbines is required to reflect the scale, complexity, requirements for specialist input, level of public interest and the potential significant costs of defending decisions at public inquiry.
• A few business respondents raised concern about the increase to the maximum fee and highlighted the need to understand the justification for the fee e.g. the number of hours required to process the application.
• A few business respondents highlighted that the Government has adopted very challenging decarbonisation targets that will require significant deployment of renewable generation in the next 15 years. Renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro will play a major role in this, but the level of fee proposed could discourage investment in new generating projects and threaten the renewable energy targets. The industry has been "hit" by a number of costs in recent years including the rise in planning fees, the loss of rates relief and the removal of market support. Concerns were raised over a further increase in fees at a time when subsidy for on-shore wind farms has been removed and the potential for further increases in costs have the potential to make some developments unviable. A civil society respondent felt that the recent uplift in fees had not proved to be a disincentive for these developments.
• A few policy and planning respondents suggested the lowest fee should be £600 for consistency with other categories as the costs of processing a single turbine application must at least be the same as that of a single dwelling house.
• A few business respondents raised the issue of increased fees. There was concern that although the guidance suggests that EIAs should only consider the likely significant effects, authorities and stakeholders often ask for an assessment of effects which are likely to be non-significant. This results in an inefficient process which adds costs for developers and time for local authorities.
• Clarification was also required that councils should not charge separate fees for borrow pit applications, which have already been subject to EIA and planning consideration as part of a full planning application, which carries its own fee (business respondent).

Method

• Several policy and planning respondents highlighted a number of areas where further clarification is required including:
  • There were questions regarding whether height was blade to tip height or hub height with height not being the sole driver of cost, particularly above 15m. It was suggested that blade to tip height is a better measure of visual or landscape impact.
  • Above 15m, the fee should be the greater of £5,000 per turbine or £500 per 0.1ha.
  • The consultation deals with proposals for "less than three turbines" and "four or more turbines" but does not cover three turbines.
  • The consultation is not clear whether the cost for less than three turbines is a per-turbine cost or a total flat rate cost.
• A business respondent suggested that 100m turbines with a hub-height of 59m are already considered by developers to be unprofitable. A sliding scale according to hub height was suggested where £5,000 (or more) is the minimum fee for 50m and rising incrementally according to the height of the hub.
• If the fee is to be related to the size of turbine, it should be more graduated as the amount of work to determine an application for a 150m turbine is substantially greater than the work for a 50m turbine (civil society).
• The distance to the energy being connected to the main grid should be taken into account as should road distance to the turbines. There is an environmental impact in the development of windfarms which should be negated (civil society).

PPP

• Several policy and planning respondents did not believe PPP was necessary for this type of development as detailed information (e.g. visual, siting, turbine design) was required for the assessment. A few civil society respondents also made this point.

Definition

• Several respondents across civil society, business and policy and planning supported separate categories for electricity generation.
• The consultation is confusing in that the category is windfarms - access tracks, but also covers proposals for 1 to 3 turbines that are not windfarms based on the definition in the regulations (policy and planning).

Q12a. Is using site area the best method of calculating fees for windfarms of more than 3 turbines?

4.10.6 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether site area is the best method for calculating fees for windfarms of more than three turbines. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, the majority (71%) agreed that site area was the best method. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the use of site area, but business and development industry respondents did not agree that site area was the best method.

Is using site area the best method of calculating fees for windfarms of more than 3 turbines?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1	3	25
Civil Society	11	5	12
Development Industry		3	9
Policy and Planning	18	1	21
Total	30	12	67
% of Respondents Answering Question	71	29

4.10.7 There were 23 comments made on whether site area was the best method of calculating fees for windfarms of more than three turbines. For respondents not supporting the use of site area, the main concerns are described below:

• A few civil society respondents stated that using site area to calculate the fee encourages applicants to draw their applications very tightly around the turbines and infrastructure which can lead to important elements of the development being omitted from the site boundary e.g. access roads. Excluding these areas may impede planning controls available to manage land. It can also cause problems later in the process if there is a design change. Drawing the line too tightly will also penalise applicants who seek permission for land that is not to be developed but will form part of a habitat management plan.
• A few business respondents highlighted that some developments may have a large area for a comparatively small installed capacity e.g. where an option area covers a hill, a large proportion of the land may be undevelopable due to gradient. In other cases, windfarm sites could be wide with large proportions of the site areas comprising access tracks and land management areas rather than the turbines themselves. Reference was made to England and Wales where planning fees are primarily based on the ground take of the associated infrastructure e.g. roads.
• A few businesses suggested that a fee of between £2,000 and £3,000 per proposed megawatt (MW) would mean that a planning application up to 50MW pays a fee proportionate to an over 50MW application under the S36 Electricity Act process.

4.10.8 For respondents supporting the use of site area as the best method for calculating fees, a few points were made including:

• Access tracks and other infrastructure should be added to the site area.
• The area of actual development would be better as the site area may include land which is not to be developed e.g. area part of a habitat management plan and developers should not be disincentivised from including large areas of land for such uses.

Q12b. If site area is not the best method, can you suggest an alternative?

4.10.9 The table below provides a summary of the support for the different approaches to calculating windfarm fees. The table presents the results by the answer given to Q12a - is using site area the best method for calculating fees for windfarms of more than three turbines. Use of MW capacity was the method supported by ten respondents while site area was supported by eight respondents. There was no business support for site area or the number of turbines.

Support for different approaches to calculating fees for windfarms of more than 3 turbines by answer to Q12a (is site area the best method)?

	No2	Yes2	Not Answered	Total
Site Area1		5 Policy	1 Civil	8
		2 Civil
MW Capacity	3 Business	2 Policy	1 Civil	10
	1 Civil		1 Policy
	1 Policy		1 Business
Number of Turbines	2 Civil	1 Policy	1 Policy	5
	1 Policy

1: Includes all area options e.g. actual development area, access tracks and other infrastructure

2: Some respondents suggested more than one option

4.10.10 A number of general points were raised about the method:

• A policy and planning respondent highlighted the potential to exclude consequential works (e.g. access tracks) from fees if using a capacity approach. The upper limit of 50MW under the Planning Act was also noted.
• Windfarms are increasingly going to be associated with proposals for battery storage and solar power. Some allowance should be made in the fees system for mixed use developments.

4.11 Category 12 - Hydro Schemes

4.11.1 In 2018 a new category was created for hydro developments which calculated the fee on the full extent of the proposed development. The current rate is £401 per 0.1ha subject to a maximum of £20,055. The regulations describe hydro developments as:

The construction of a hydro-electric generating station and the carrying out of any other operations in connection with the construction of the generating station, including the construction or installation of any means of access to the generating station, pipes or other conduits and overhead electric lines.

4.11.2 The consultation proposes a fee of £500 per 0.1ha subject to a maximum of £25,000.

Q13. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.11.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 12 - hydro schemes. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (75%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for hydro schemes. There was support for the proposed fees from all groups except development industry.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 12 - Hydro Schemes?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2		27
Civil Society	8	3	17
Development Industry		3	9
Policy and Planning	17	3	20
Total	27	9	73
% of Respondents Answering Question	75	25

Q13a. Is the definition and proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.11.4 The table below sets out respondents' opinion on whether the definition and proposed method for calculating the planning fee is correct. The majority of respondents did not answer the question but, of those who did, the majority (69%) agreed with the proposed method. There was support for the proposed method from all groups except the development industry.

Is the definition and the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2		27
Civil Society	7	4	17
Development Industry		3	9
Policy and Planning	15	4	21
Total	24	11	74
% of Respondents Answering Question	69	31

4.11.5 There were 24 comments on the proposed method for calculating planning fees, across the following themes. The themes are presented in descending order of the number of comments received:

Fees

• Several policy and planning respondents felt that the maximum threshold of £25,000 was too low given the potential issues that could arise in determining these applications including the need for specialist advice and consultation.
• A few policy and planning respondents also felt that the rate should be increased. Reasons cited included:
  • The scale, complexity and need for specialist input and the potential costs of public inquiries.
  • There should be increased fees in designated areas (e.g. Special Areas of Conservation or National Scenic Areas) where the workload will be increased if Habitat Regulations Assessments are required.
  • £500 for up to 1,000 sq. m. appears low when £1,000 for 100 sq. m. is proposed for other forms of energy generation. A rate of £600 to £1,000 for first 0.1ha was suggested with each 0.1ha at a reduced rate which would make it more consistent with other forms of development.
• Contrasting comments were received from the business group with support from one respondent while another (who did not answer the closed questions) suggested this was not a good time for fee increases as there was uncertainty over rateable values for small hydro schemes following the Tretton Review. Increased regulatory burden could undermine rural Scotland's ability to tackle climate change.
• A development industry respondent questioned the maximum level of fees when other categories (e.g. housing and other energy) have much higher levels and may not be as complex to assess. Do these fees support cost recovery given the specialist input required to assess them?
• Civil society respondents suggested exemptions for community led projects and further discussion with industry to ensure projects were not jeopardised as a result of fees.

Method

• A few respondents called for guidance on site areas (policy and planning) and guidance on how the existing fee would be applied to changes to existing operational sites i.e. adding storage or catchment diversions (business). It was suggested that the footprint of the above ground structure be used rather than a red line boundary covering buried pipework/cable.
• A development industry respondent suggested that the rationale for a per hectare approach is not clear given hydro schemes surface area will not necessarily correlate with the complexity of the assessment. It was suggested that planning effort is more likely to correlate with the ecological sensitivity of the exploited water course, and on 'high head' schemes^[3] the sensitivity of land crossed by the pipework (which may be of relatively small diameter and potentially of limited impact). Careful alignment of fee structure with specific elements in planning assessment could unlock new "low complexity" hydro schemes.
• A civil society respondent suggested that there needs to be some consideration of pipework length and the complexity of the conditions required to monitor and enforce the restoration of ground once construction is complete. For example, access tracks can affect drainage and features such as Ground Water Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems. An increased fee for monitoring would be appropriate, based on either the level of monitoring required or the level of environmental sensitivity.
• A question was also raised by civil society as to how the method would be applied to 'run of the river' schemes.^[4]

Q13c. Could the planning fee be set using site area for the generating station and equipment with a separate calculation used for pipework?

4.11.6 The consultation specifically asked if the planning fee could be set using site area for the generating station and equipment with a separate calculation used for pipework. A total of nine respondents across civil society, business and policy and planning agreed that this would be appropriate. Reasons for supporting a separate category include if the distance from source is excessive and as pipework can be extensive with significant impacts, but not result in a large surface area, it may be more appropriate to apply a fee related to the length of pipework.

4.11.7 It was also suggested from policy and planning that the introduction of a lower fee for the pipeline component of development would reduce the financial burden of identifying a pipeline corridor of sufficient scope to allow flexibility of routing in the event that constraints are identified either during the application or post consent which might necessitate a material amendment and a fresh application. Revised guidance for developers of hydro schemes should suggest that applications should identify a pipeline corridor with sufficient scope to amend the pipeline route to address potential constraints which might be unknown at the time of submission.

4.11.8 A total of ten respondents across civil society, business and policy and planning did not agree with using site area for the generating equipment and a separate calculation for pipework. Several respondents from policy and planning disagreed that this would be appropriate, primarily because it would add more complexity to the calculation of the fee and felt that pipework could result in just as much assessment work as other elements. It was suggested that an area-based fee would more accurately reflect the resources required to determine the application. It was noted that issues about EIA assessment could also apply (x-refer to Q50).

4.11.9 One business respondent cautioned against a separate fee from their experience with fish farm applications.

4.12 Category 13 - Other Generation Projects

4.12.1 Other energy generation projects which are not windfarms will be based on their site size or floor space. The proposed fees are:

• £1,000 for the first 100 sq.m. of site size/floor space to be created with £500 for every 100 sq. m. thereafter to a maximum of £150,000
• Applications for PPP will be charged at £500 for every 100 sq. m. until the maximum of £75,000.

Q14. Is the definition and proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

4.12.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 13 - other energy generating projects. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (68%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for other energy generating projects. Policy and planning was the group most in favour of the proposed changes with support from civil society and business. No respondents from the development industry were in agreement with the proposals.

Is the definition and the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct for Category 13 - Other Energy Generation Projects?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2	1	26
Civil Society	8	3	17
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	15	6	17
Total	25	12	72
% of Respondents Answering Question	68	32

4.12.3 There were 25 comments on the proposed method for calculating the fee for other energy generating projects across the following themes, with the themes presented in descending order of the comments received:

Method

• A few respondents stated that the rational is not clear for basing the fee on floorspace (business, development, policy and planning). Development industry and business suggested that a flat admin fee be introduced with additional fees to assess different impacts e.g. visual, hydrology, ecology etc. with a further split by "simple" or "complex" assessment if possible.
• A few respondents from civil society and policy and planning suggested installed capacity may be an alternative method.
• There is no rationale for using 100 sq. m. when other categories use 1,000 sq. m. This makes fees look high relative to some categories and may unfairly affect solar farms (policy and planning).
• A business respondent suggested looking at similarities between technologies and the planning efforts needed to assess them. Reference was made to polytunnels and glasshouses, which have similar characteristics to ground mount solar (i.e. both are temporary structures and cover a similar area) but have considerably lower maximum planning fees. It was suggested that the parallels between technologies should be reflected in the maximum planning fee.
• It was recognised that this is a broad category and that the method should be flexible for the type of development proposed (policy and planning) and that it could be difficult to apply a single calculation to a variety of projects (business).
• Civil society respondents made a number of suggestions including:
  • an allowance for mixed use applications for wind turbines and battery storage/solar power.
  • would there be reduced fees for solar panels located on non-agricultural land?

Fees

• One policy and planning respondent suggested the maximum limit should be increased to £225,000 while a business respondent felt the consultation suggested a bias towards other forms of renewable energy by capping fees at a much lower rate. For example, under the current proposals, solar fees (capped at £150k) will be six times the amount of hydro (category 12, capped at £25k) and thirty times more than polytunnels (category 10, capped at £5k). The proposed fee increase would be a barrier for new deployment of solar in Scotland to the detriment of the Government's decarbonisation targets. It was suggested the maximum fee should be £10,000 which would be in line with glasshouses (Category 9).
• A civil society respondent questioned the logic of an upper limit to fees, but no upper limit to the size of the potential development. There should also be exemption for community led projects
• One policy and planning respondent suggested a simpler fee structure of £600 for every 100 sq .m. or part thereof. Alternatively, another policy and planning respondents suggested the fee should better relate to other non-domestic developments and increase in increments of £500.
• There should be a fee for ground and air source heat pumps for non-domestic use (policy and planning).

Definition

• It would be useful to distinguish between different generating types e.g. a district heating scheme will require different levels of technical input from that of a solar photovoltaic farm, regardless of area. A few business respondents suggested separate categories for solar farms, energy storage developments and heat networks. A business respondent also questioned if the definition included other projects which are not electricity generation for supply but provide services to the grid (e.g. synchronous compensation sets). The term "other energy related applications" may be more appropriate than "other energy generation projects".
• A few policy and planning respondents raised issues around the definition of the category including:
  • Energy from waste developments should be excluded from this category and included in Category 7 (business and commercial) as it involves the erection of industrial buildings.
  • There should be a separate fee structure for solar panels on existing buildings. As energy storage is not energy generation it could fall within plant and machinery (Category 17) or buildings, depending on its form and design.
  • The definition requires to be clarified to specifically exclude hydro schemes and domestic micro-generation.
• A civil society respondent questioned whether community solar panels mounted on roofs would be exempt.

PPP

• One policy and planning respondent stated there should be no PPP for this category as visual information was essential to the assessment.
• Another felt it would be difficult to base the fee on the floorspace of the development at the PPP stage as this is unlikely to be known until later in the process when decisions on the specific technology to be utilised are finalised.

Q14b. Should a category be created for solar farms?

4.12.4 The consultation specially asked if there should be a category created for solar farms and the table below sets out the results. Some 66% of respondents (answering the question) agreed that a separate category was appropriate. While business and civil society respondents clearly favoured a separate category, the development industry and policy and planning groups were more evenly split on the issue.

4.12.5 It was suggested that the proposed fee structure (Category 13) would result in fees being excessive in relation to the complexity of the assessment required as solar farms developments were described as being less complex to assess than wind energy. A respondent from the business group felt that the fee system was discriminating against solar farms when other renewable technologies have separate, technology specific categories with lower planning fees.

Should a category be created for Solar Farms?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	3		26
Civil Society	9	3	16
Development Industry	2	2	8
Policy and Planning	11	8	21
Total	25	13	71
% of Respondents Answering Question	66	34

4.12.6 There were 24 comments made in response to how fees should be calculated for solar farms. In terms of suggestions for how fees should be calculated, the following comments were made:

• Several responses across policy and planning, civil society and business felt that area of land take was appropriate for calculating the fee, although one development industry respondent felt that site size did not change the planning assessment as the key issues need addressed regardless of project size. A business respondent felt that linking the planning fee to the surface area of technology was not justified. A structure which is specific and based on processing resources was suggested.
• It is not clear from the consultation why other categories with relatively equivalent visual, ecological and societal impacts have much lower fees and much lower maximum fees (e.g. Categories 8, 9, 10, 12 - agricultural buildings, glasshouses, polytunnels, hydro respectively). Solar also has a higher maximum fee than oil and gas exploration (Category 14) which should be more complex to assess.
• A few civil society respondents suggested:
  • reduced fees if on non-agricultural land or giving solar farms the benefits of agricultural land to stimulate projects.
  • Site area, access fee and generating capacity as options for fees.
  • There should be no charge for renewables to encourage renewable energy development.

Q14d. Should a category be created for energy storage developments?

4.12.7 The consultation asked if there should be a category created for energy storage developments. The table below shows that the majority of respondents did not answer this question. Of those that did, some 58% felt that there should be a separate category for energy storage developments. While there was support from business, civil society and the development industry for a separate category for energy storage developments, a majority of policy and planning respondents (answering the question) did not support this option.

Should a category be created for Energy Storage Developments?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	3	1	25
Civil Society	10	2	16
Development Industry	2	1	9
Policy and Planning	6	11	23
Total	21	15	73
% of Respondents Answering Question	58	42

4.12.8 Policy and planning reasons for supporting a separate category include the fact that this type of development can raise concerns for local communities and as energy storage developments are not energy generation, a sub-category could be justified. The category could have regard to the likely components of the development e.g. batteries. A separate category may also be appropriate if the development is separate from the energy generation site it serves.

4.12.9 A few policy and planning respondents suggested that energy storage developments should be covered by Category 17 (plant and machinery).

4.12.10 In terms of suggestions for how fees should be calculated for energy storage development, the following comments were made:

• Several civil society suggestions were made regarding fees:
  • As this technology is at an early stage of development it should be encouraged, therefore fees could be based on areas above 250 sq. m. with a sliding scale above 500 sq. m. and 1,000 sq. m. A clear strategy for the recycling and replacement of storage systems should be provided.
  • Fees should be similar to solar farms with aspects from warehousing
  • Fees should be based on the size of the buildings or area of land, structure and generating capacity.
• Planning fees should be kept to a minimum for this technology so as not to act as a further barrier to development. A few business respondents suggested the fees are calculated by volume of space occupied proportionate to the impact storage developments will have on the land area. Fees for warehousing space (Category 7) are less than for storage developments which does not seem justified given the external infrastructure is essentially the same. It was suggested that there is a discrepancy regarding the winning and working of minerals where a maximum fee of £150,000 is proposed for 109ha developments whereas the proposed fee for other energy would be £150,000 for a 2.99 ha development. The rate per 100 sq. m. rather than per 0.1ha seems high.
• A development industry respondent stated that energy storage has a very small footprint, looks similar to electrical substations (e.g. electrical transformers, switchgear, containers) and has similar planning considerations. It may be appropriate to retain energy storage under Category 17 (plant and machinery).
• A few policy and planning respondents also suggested energy storage was included in Category 17 (plant and machinery) or Category 12 (hydro).

Q14f. Should a category be created for heat networks?

4.12.11 The consultation asked if there should be a category created for heat networks. The table below shows that of the respondents answering the question, there was a majority (56%) in favour of creating a separate category for heat networks. However, while this proposal was supported by business and civil society respondents, it was not supported by development industry and evenly split for policy and planning respondents.

Should a category be created for Heat Networks?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	8	4	16
Development Industry	1	2	9
Policy and Planning	9	9	22
Total	19	15	75
% of Respondents Answering Question	56	44

4.12.12 There were 19 comments made on heat networks. A few policy and planning respondents felt that there should be a separate category for heat networks for the following reasons:

• These are different to other energy generation projects, and an important sector to encourage as part of the move away from fossil fuels.
• District heating networks often cross urban areas and public roads. This therefore involves consultation with a large number of consultees and requires notification with a very large number of neighbouring properties, which increases the cost of such an application. This would be different to other forms of energy generation projects.

4.12.13 A number of points were made about the appropriate category for heat networks including:

Definition

• A few policy and planning respondents made a number of comments about definition including:
  • Whether the pipework/plant relating to heat networks should require planning permission and if it should be considered as any other utility. Until this is resolved Category 17 fees should apply.
  • This is subject to the permitted development review so it is difficult to comment in advance of the review.
  • Heat networks will usually be covered within the context of the development to which they relate, if part of a larger application.
• A civil society respondent suggested that the hub could be covered by industrial buildings but was unclear how the buried distribution pipework would be covered.
• A business respondent felt that the proposed fees place unnecessary costs on these developments relative to high carbon alternatives which could be a disincentive for developments to choose a low carbon heating source and compromise Scotland's ability to reach its net zero target.

Fees

• A few policy and planning respondents suggested the fees should be similar to hydro developments (Category 12) with separate fees for equipment and pipework.
• Civil society respondents highlighted the need to encourage these networks and suggested the fee should be a nominal sum to reflect the cost of processing the application. There should also be exemptions for community led projects.
• A civil society respondent also suggested that fees are calculated on system output in bands and take account of the use of the heat generated e.g. 500kw could be free, 1,500kw could be £100, 1,500-2,500kw could be £250, 2,500-5,000kw could be £500.

4.13 Category 14 - Exploratory Drilling for Oil and Natural Gas

4.13.1 The consultation proposes that applications for on-shore oil and natural gas exploration will be charged according to the area of the site at a rate of £500 per 0.1ha or part thereof, subject to a maximum of £100,000.

Q15. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.13.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 14 - exploratory drilling for oil and natural gas. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a clear majority (69%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for other exploratory drilling for oil and natural gas. There was considerable support for the proposed fees from civil society and policy and planning respondents, but the proposed fees were not supported by the development industry.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 14 - Exploratory Drilling for Oil and Natural Gas?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business			29
Civil Society	9	4	15
Development Industry	1	4	7
Policy and Planning	15	3	22
Total	25	11	73
% of Respondents Answering Question	69	31

Q15a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.13.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 14 - exploratory drilling for oil and natural gas. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (68%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for exploratory drilling for oil and natural gas. There was a majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents, who answered the question, in favour of the proposed method, with all development industry respondents opposed to the method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business			29
Civil Society	8	4	16
Development Industry		4	8
Policy and Planning	15	3	22
Total	23	11	75
% of Respondents Answering Question	68	32

4.13.4 There were 18 comments on the proposed fees and method for exploratory drilling for natural gas, primarily relating to fees. These are set out below:

Fees

• Several respondents, primarily from civil society and policy and planning, were concerned that the fees proposed were not high enough to reflect the adverse effects that this activity has in contributing to climate change. The proposed fees do not provide an incentive for renewables and it was suggested that exploratory drilling is not compatible with the Government's Climate Emergency statements.
• Other specific points raised from policy and planning include:
  • The proposed base fee of £500 is unlikely to cover costs associated with an application for a 0.1ha development, given the complexity of issues anticipated. The proposed base fee is lower than that proposed for a car park (Category 18, £600) and is likely to be more complex and result in greater cost. Hence it was suggested that the base fee is £1,000 for the first 0.1ha, then a reduced scale per 0.1ha thereafter.
  • Given the complexity of issues, requirements for specialist input, level of public interest and potential public inquiry costs, it is suggested that the fees for Category 13 (other energy generation) should be used. The maximum fee should be increased to £225,000.
  • It was suggested that examples be provided of a past development to provide a benchmark.
• Development industry raised a couple of points including:
  • Inconsistency between Category 14 (oil and natural gas) and Category 19 (winning and working of minerals). These are similar processes, but Category 14 has double the fee of Category 19 for a 10ha site.^[5]
  • It was suggested that oil and gas exploration generate significantly more extensive impacts than renewable energy or housing construction and that the fees for this group are either under-recovering the costs of processing the planning application or the proposed fees for processing renewables are over-recovering planning authority costs.

4.14 Category 15 - Fish Farming

4.14.1 There are no changes in the methodology for calculating fish farming fees. However, there are proposed changes in the rates used to calculate the fees as follows:

• £200 for each 0.1ha of surface area of the marine waters which are to be used in relation to the placement or assembly of any equipment for the purpose of fish farming.
• £75 for each 0.1ha of the seabed to be used in relation to such development, subject to a maximum of £150,000.

Q16. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.14.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 15 - fish farming. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a clear majority (72%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for fish farms. There was considerable support for the proposed fees from civil society and policy and planning respondents, but the proposed fees were not supported by business and the development industry.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 15 - Fish Farming?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		3	26
Civil Society	7	3	18
Development Industry		1	11
Policy and Planning	16	2	22
Total	23	9	77
% of Respondents Answering Question	72	28

Q16a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.14.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 15 - fish farms. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (67%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for fish farms. There was a majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents, who answered the question, in favour of the proposed method, with all business and development industry respondents opposed to the method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		2	27
Civil Society	7	3	18
Development Industry		1	11
Policy and Planning	13	4	23
Total	20	10	79
% of Respondents Answering Question	67	33

4.14.4 There were 17 comments on the proposed fees and method of calculating fees for fish farms across a range of themes. The themes are presented in descending order of the number of comments received:

Fees

• It was stated by several policy and planning respondents that fish farm applications raise complex and controversial marine environmental issues which must be assessed in determining the application. They are also accompanied by substantial amounts of environmental information and the increased public scrutiny results in much more correspondence from third parties. However, while one respondent felt the proposed structure appears to recognise and reflect this, a few felt the proposed changes were not enough. One suggestion was to raise the maximum fee to £225,000 although another respondent felt that the low incremental fee value would make the proposed maximum of £150,000 beyond the scale of any fish farm proposed in Scottish waters. On this latter point, another respondent highlighted that fin fish sites are getting larger with many now coming in at the current low maximum fee.
• Several business respondents raised concerns about the proposed increase in the maximum fee from £18,270 to £150,000. This was not considered proportionate. One business respondent also felt the proposed increase in rates per 0.1ha were not acceptable.
• A civil society respondent felt the proposed fees appeared very low given the scale and intensity of impacts from fish farming, while another felt they were too high given the need to encourage and develop this sector to feed a growing population.

Method

• Splitting the fee into one for the surface area and one for the seabed was not supported by a few business respondents who referred to the proposed removal of the seabed calculation for shellfish farming (Category 16) as acceptance of the principle of this argument. They felt there should be a simpler basis for the fee and the approach to shellfish farming should apply to fin fish. A policy and planning respondent suggested a higher fee could be charged for the surface works and the seabed calculation could be removed. This would make the system clearer, simpler to calculate, safer (applicants may not try to save money by having smaller moorings than ideal), help the environment (applicants may spread cages over a larger area without costing more) and payment of fees is only for what people see. £1,400 - £1,600 per 0.1ha for surface works would generate roughly the same fees as the proposed changes.
• A few business and development industry respondents felt there was no justification given for the proposed increase in terms of the actual costs of processing applications.
• A few points of clarification/suggestions were made including:
  • Why does seabed area have a different rate considering the negative impact of effluent/food waste on seabed (civil society).
  • Guidance should clarify if the surface area is to be subtracted from the seabed area (policy and planning).
  • Tonnage may be a more appropriate measure of impact (civil society).

Performance

• A few business and civil society respondents supported the principle of a fee structure which is based on cost recovery, but it must deliver an efficient planning service. It was felt that applicants in the fish farming sector did not receive an efficient, effective or timely service. Prior to any increase in fees, there must be commitment to deliver a reasonable level of service.

4.15 Category 16 - Shellfish Farming

4.15.1 Previous consultations showed support for creating a separate fee for shellfish farms due to the differing nature of the development. The proposed change removes the seabed calculation and is:

• £250 for each 0.1ha of the surface area of the marine waters which are to be used in relation to the placement or assembly of any equipment for the purposes of shellfish farming.

Q17. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.15.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 16 - shellfish farming. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (80%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for shellfish farms. There was support for the proposed fees from all groups with the exception of the development industry.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 16 - Shellfish Farming?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	9	3	16
Development Industry		1	11
Policy and Planning	14	2	24
Total	24	6	79
% of Respondents Answering Question	80	20

Q17a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.15.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 16 - shellfish farms. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (80%) in agreement with the proposed method from all groups except the development industry.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2		28
Civil Society	10	2	16
Development Industry		1	11
Policy and Planning	12	3	25
Total	24	6	79
% of Respondents Answering Question	80	20

4.15.4 There were 15 comments on the proposed fees and method for calculating fees for shellfish farms which are presented below:

Fees

• Several respondents from civil society and policy and planning felt that the fee rate should be less than that for finfish farms as shellfish farm applications do not usually generate as much work in their determination, they are less visually intrusive and have less of a footprint (no ancillary equipment). Suggestions were made for rates of £50, £100 and £200 per 0.1ha by a few civil society respondents and £170 to £200 per 100m of line by a policy and planning respondent. The costs associated with the latter rate are felt to be equivalent to the proposed changes in the consultation document.
• A few respondents from business and civil society identified that there is no maximum fee for this category which is inconsistent with other categories. A civil society respondent suggested that £5,000 would be an appropriate maximum which would be consistent with Category 10 (polytunnels). Polytunnels are a comparable category given their use in primary food production, relative complexity of assessment and relationship to the Climate Change Emergency. A £5,000 fee could have the benefit of encouraging the development of larger scale, more efficient farms which would help meet Government targets on production.
• A civil society respondent suggested a higher fee rate because of their environmental impact.
• A business respondent felt the proposed fees were more appropriate to mussel farming as high fees in the past have prevented expansion of the industry.

Method

• Several respondents welcomed the introduction of a separate category for shellfish farming (civil society, business and policy and planning).
• A few respondents from civil society and policy and planning felt that clarification is required as to exactly how surface area is determined. For example, is it just the width of the lines or does it include the area between multiplier lines?

Definition

• A development industry respondent questioned if this category should also apply to seaweed farms. In this case, the category could be renamed "other aquaculture"

Other Matters

• It was noted by a civil society respondent that most applications are for farms in Shellfish Water Protected Areas (SWPA) with a presumption of use noted within the National Marine Plan. A shellfish farm application should therefore be restricted in the matters to be assessed. A marine licence is also required from Marine Scotland for shellfish farms and it was suggested that this should be determined within the planning application process. A nominal fee could be charged for the license (civil society).
• There should be the ability to cross subsidise planning fees where the proposed developments accord to specific national priorities. Shellfish cultivation sites could be part of programmes dealing with climate change. Fees should be waived and support sought in the subsidy of planning determinations where they contribute to local or national priorities e.g. pilot trials, carbon sequestering.

4.16 Category 17 - Plant and Machinery

4.16.1 The consultation proposes that applications for the installation of plant and machinery will be charged according to the area of the site at a rate of £500 per 0.1ha of part thereof, subject to a maximum of £150,000.

Q18. Do you agree with the proposed planning fees?

4.16.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 17 - plant and machinery. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (84%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for plant and machinery. There was support for the proposed fees from all groups except for development industry.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 17 - Plant and Machinery?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2	1	26
Civil Society	9	1	18
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	20	2	18
Total	31	6	72
% of Respondents Answering Question	84	16

Q18a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.16.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 17 - plant and machinery. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (88%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for plant and machinery. There was support for the proposed methodology from all groups except the development industry.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2		27
Civil Society	8	2	18
Development Industry		1	11
Policy and Planning	18	1	21
Total	28	4	77
% of Respondents Answering Question	88	12

4.16.4 There were 15 comments on the proposed fees and method for calculating fees for plant and machinery across the following themes. The themes are presented in descending order of comments received:

Fees

• A few policy and planning respondents suggested a rate of £600 per 0.1ha as the issues raised by this type of application would be at least as complex as a single dwelling (Category 5) or car park (category 18). It could be subject to a reduced rate thereafter and the maximum fee should be removed.
• A civil society respondent felt that a 100% increase (sites greater than 20 hectares) would not be sustainable for most companies.
• A business respondent who supported cost recovery also highlighted the cost impact on large scale developments in this category. As a regulated business, any increase in its costs are ultimately borne by the consumer. The red line boundary on applications has increased in recent years as a result of environmental factors (e.g. enhancing biodiversity) and the actual development area now forms a relatively small proportion of the area within the red line boundary (e.g. 20%). There was therefore concern that the significant fee increases promote potentially negative behaviour such as minimising red line boundaries to the detriment of biodiversity and landscaping initiatives. This could risk developers choosing not to progress these positive environmental initiatives due to the disproportionately higher increase in planning fees associated with the increase in red line boundaries these initiatives result in.

Definition

• One policy and planning respondent suggested the category should be removed while a development industry respondent stated that solar farms should not be part of plant and machinery and should have their own category.

Method

• A policy and planning respondent requested further clarity around the "site" e.g. the site should not just be the compound but also access tracks.

4.17 Category 18 - Access, Car Parks etc. for Existing Uses

4.17.1 The consultation proposes that applications for the construction of service roads, other accesses or car parks serving an existing use on a site will be subject to a flat rate of £600.

Q19. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.17.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 18 - access, car parks etc. for existing uses. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (69%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for access roads and car parks for exiting uses. There was support from all groups except for development industry.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 18 - Access, Car Parks etc. for Existing Uses?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	9	3	16
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	17	7	16
Total	27	12	70
% of Respondents Answering Question	69	31

Q19a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.17.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 18 - access roads and car parks for existing uses. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (67%) in agreement with the proposed method with support from all groups except the development industry.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	8	3	16
Development Industry		2	11
Policy and Planning	15	7	18
Total	24	12	73
% of Respondents Answering Question	67	33

4.17.4 There were 22 comments on the proposed fees for access and car parks for existing uses. The main themes raised are as follows:

Method

• Several respondents across policy and planning, civil society and business felt a sliding scale of fees would be more appropriate. The main reasons were that there can be a significant variety of applications which cover a wide range of sizes and circumstances, some of which may require traffic impact assessments and other specialist inputs. A flat fee may be reasonable for smaller scale projects, but not larger proposals.
• Several respondents from civil society and policy and planning felt that the fee should be charged on area and be more reflective of the scale of development.

Fees

• Several respondents felt that the flat fee for car parks would inadvertently encourage unsustainable development, particularly when some authorities are trying to reduce car dependency.
• A policy and planning respondent suggested a fee of £500 as this is the base fee for other non-housing.

Definition

• A development industry respondent felt that if an access road application could be assessed for £600, this should be the road component of the planning fee for other developments such as wind farms and oil or gas exploration. A business respondent also assumed that an application for access to the foreshore for a shellfish farm site would be considered under Category 18 although the shellfish farm site would be Category 16.
• The fee was not appropriate in relation to domestic dwellings which should fall under extensions and alterations to existing dwellings (Categories 2, 3, 4 and 5).

4.18 Category 19 - Winning and Working of Minerals

4.18.1 The consultation proposes that applications for the winning and working of minerals (other than peat) will be charged according to the area of the site at a rate of £500 for the first 0.1ha of the site and thereafter, at a rate of £250 per 0.1ha^[6] or part thereof, subject to a maximum of £150,000.

Q20. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.18.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 19 - winning and working of minerals. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (63%) in agreement with the proposed planning fees for the winning and working of minerals. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposed fees, but no business or development industry respondents supported the fees.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 19 - Winning and Working of Minerals?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		6	23
Civil Society	8	2	18
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	16	4	20
Total	24	14	71
% of Respondents Answering Question	63	37

Q20a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.18.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 19 - winning and working of minerals. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (63%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposed method but there was no support from the business or development industry.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		6	23
Civil Society	7	3	18
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	17	3	20
Total	24	14	71
% of Respondents Answering Question	63	37

4.18.4 There were 26 comments raised with respect to winning and working minerals as follows:

Fees

• Several respondents from policy and planning and civil society highlighted that mineral applications are highly resource intensive given their complexity (including the length of life of the permission and the long run consequences of not ensuring there are adequate controls).
• Suggestions from policy and planning include:
  • Rates of £600 per 0.1ha and £1,000 per 0.1ha with each subsequent 0.1ha or part thereof charged at a reduced rate.
  • The maximum fee should be increased to £225,000 or there should be no maximum fee.

Method

• A few civil society respondents sought clarification if it is site area or extraction area that the rate applies to.
• A few policy and planning respondents raised the following points:
  • The reduction in the rate after 0.1ha is not consistent with other categories and the issue of fees for EIA (Q50) also applies to this category.
  • No fee is chargeable for submissions relating to the Review of Old Mineral Permissions under Section 74 of the Act. Scottish Government should consider the introduction of a fee to properly resource this workstream, ensuring any scale is reflective of the complexity of the submission.

4.18.5 There were four responses from the business group which all made the same points and a further two which made four of the points. These respondents appear to have shared their response, but they are not being treated as a campaign response as they have answered other questions in the consultation in a different way. The main points raised by these businesses are:

• Scale and Threshold: all six respondents were concerned about the removal of the threshold at which the rate reduces and highlighted that this contradicts a statement from the Chief Planner in 2017. It was also suggested that there was no evidence to support the implied assumption that the complexity and burden of processing a planning application is directly related to scale on a straight-line basis. Above a threshold level, most applications would be comparable in terms of complexity and input.
• Total Planning Burden: all six respondents felt that the aggregates industry engages with the planning system at many stages which is done at considerable cost. Given the economics of the industry, it was suggested that planning is a significant and increasingly unsustainable burden particularly for small and medium sites. There is a risk that increased costs will reduce the number of local quarries leading to increased transport of minerals to meet the demand for infrastructure development.
• Comparison: the six respondents felt Scotland already had a much higher maximum fee compared to England and Wales and the proposed changes would cost Scottish businesses significantly more.
• Alternatives: the six respondents felt that the current and proposed fee structure does not reflect the differences between hard rock quarries (usually deep deposits over a small geographic area) and sand and gravel quarries (shallower deposits over a larger area). Basing the fee structure on site area places an additional burden on sand and gravel applications which are often already marginal.
• Service: four respondents felt that the increase in planning fees in 2017 had not been accompanied by an improvement in performance.
• Actual costs: four respondents wanted more evidence and discussion on actual costs of processing applications.

4.19 Category 20 - Peat

4.19.1 The consultation proposes that applications for the winning and working of peat will be charged at the rate of £300 for each hectare of the site area, subject to a maximum of £6,000.

Q21. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.19.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 20 - winning and working of peat. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a slight majority (52%) opposed to the proposed planning fees for the winning and working of peat. Civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question were evenly split over the proposed fees but a higher number of development industry respondents opposed the proposed fees.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 20 - Peat?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business			29
Civil Society	6	6	16
Development Industry	1	2	9
Policy and Planning	8	8	24
Total	15	16	78
% of Respondents Answering Question	48	52

Q21a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.19.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 20 - winning and working of peat. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (55%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposed fees, but no development industry respondents supported the proposed method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business			29
Civil Society	5	6	17
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	12	6	22
Total	17	14	78
% of Respondents Answering Question	55	45

4.19.4 There were 27 comments with respect to peat across the following themes:

Definition

• Several policy and planning respondents felt that the category should be incorporated into Category 19 (winning and working of minerals). A civil society respondent suggested a caveat whereby if the proposed extraction was for purposes other than heating, it should revert to Category 19.

Fees

• Several civil society and policy and planning respondents felt that the fees were too low (including the maximum fee of £6,000) with a policy and planning respondent suggesting the fee was low relative to other groups with regard to the complexity of applications.

Climate Change

• Given the need to address the climate change emergency, several civil society respondents felt that peat extraction should be banned or phased out.
• A few civil society respondents felt that the fees provided little disincentive for this type of development given the negative effect of peat extraction in terms of climate and biodiversity change.

Method

• A few civil society respondents suggested using the proposed cubic meters of extraction for calculating fees.
• Clarification was sought from a business respondent on whether peat movement as a result of wind farm development will result in a separate planning fee.

Q21c. In light of the climate change emergency do you agree that fees for applications relating to the winning and working of peat should continue to be considered separately from other mineral operations?

4.19.5 The consultation asked if, in light of the climate change emergency, fees for applications related to the winning and working of peat should continue to be charged separately from other mineral operations. The table below sets out the responses by group. Of the 25 respondents answering the question, 18 (72%) agreed that the winning and working of peat should be a separate category while seven (28%) felt it should not be treated separately. There was support for a separate category from the business, civil society and policy and planning groups with all respondents opposing a separate category from policy and planning.

Do you agree that fees for applications relating to the wining and working of peat should continue to be considered separately from other mineral operations?

	Yes	No	Total
Business	3		3
Civil Society	9		9
Development Industry
Policy and Planning	6	7	13
Total	18	7	25

Note: there were four other comments unrelated to the specific question

4.20 Category 21 - Other Operations

4.20.1 The consultation proposes that applications for operations for any other purpose will be charged at the rate of £400 for each 0.1ha of the site area, subject to a maximum of £4,000.

Q22. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.20.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 21 - other operations. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (71%) supportive of the proposed planning fees for other operations. A majority of business, civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposed fees but no development industry respondents were supportive of the proposed fees.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 21 - Other Operations?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1	1	27
Civil Society	7	2	19
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	17	5	18
Total	25	10	74
% of Respondents Answering Question	71	29

Q22a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.20.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 21 - other operations. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (82%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposed fees, but no development industry respondents supported the proposed method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	2		27
Civil Society	6	3	19
Development Industry		1	11
Policy and Planning	19	2	19
Total	27	6	76
% of Respondents Answering Question	82	18

4.20.4 There were 17 additional comments regarding this category with the main points summarised as follows:

Fees

• Several policy and planning respondents felt that the fees were too low with suggestions of rates of £500 per 0.1ha (2 respondents) and £600 per 0.1ha (3 respondents). Reasons cited for increasing the rate include better alignment with other non-housing rates and consistency with other categories.
• Several policy and planning respondents felt that the maximum fee should be increased. The maximum fee is reached at 1.0ha with suggested maximum fees ranging from £25,000 to £150,000 (comparable to Category 26 - change of use) to no maximum.
• One business respondent felt the proposed fees were too high and not reflective of the limited time required to assess the applications.

Method

• A few policy and planning respondents suggested guidance as to whether the category included access tracks and the need for examples of past development to illustrate the type of development in the category.
• A few civil society respondents suggested a case-by-case approach perhaps reflecting the environmental impact.

4.21 Categories 22 and 23 - Waste Disposal and Minerals Stocking (Does not cover Waste Management (Recycling))

4.21.1 The consultation proposes that applications for the disposal of waste or minerals stocking will be charged according to the area of the site with a rate of £500 for the first 0.1ha requiring a fee, followed by a rate of £300 per 0.1ha or part thereof, subject to a maximum of £4,000.

Q23. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.21.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 22 - waste and disposal and mineral stocking. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (71%) supportive of the proposed planning fees for waste disposal and minerals stocking. A majority of policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposed fees; civil society respondents were split over the proposal and business and development industry respondents did not support the proposed fees.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 22 and 23 - Waste Disposal and Minerals Stocking (Excluding Waste Management (Recycling))?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		1	28
Civil Society	4	4	20
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	18	2	20
Total	22	9	78
% of Respondents Answering Question	71	29

Q23a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.21.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 22 - waste disposal and minerals stocking. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (73%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the method for calculating fees, but no business or development industry respondents supported the proposal.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		1	28
Civil Society	5	4	19
Development Industry		1	11
Policy and Planning	17	2	21
Total	22	8	79
% of Respondents Answering Question	73	27

4.21.4 There were 13 comments on waste disposal and mineral stocking with the main points summarised as follows:

Fees

• Several policy and planning and civil society respondents felt fees should be higher. Reasons cited included the fee should be related to the type and toxicity of the waste and this type of application would be more complex than a car park which attracts a fee of £600 and it may require additional knowledge to assess.
• A civil society respondent suggested the maximum fee should be £200,000 and a policy and planning respondent suggested there should be no maximum.
• A few policy and planning respondents suggested rates of £600 per 0.1 ha and £1,000 per 0.1 ha with a reduced rate thereafter.

4.22 Category 24 - Conversion of Flats and Houses

4.22.1 Applications for the change of use of any building to use as one or more separate dwelling houses will be charged at the same rate as residential units as follows:

• £600 per house for the first 10 houses
• £400^[7] for each new dwelling house created between 11 and 49 units
• £250 per house thereafter subject to a maximum of £150,000.

Q24. Do you agree with the proposed fees?

4.22.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 24 - conversion of flats and houses. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (86%) in support of the proposed planning fees for conversion of flats and houses. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposed fees with the development industry split over the proposal.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 24 - Conversion of Flats and Houses?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	9	2	17
Development Industry	1	1	10
Policy and Planning	21	2	17
Total	32	5	72
% of Respondents Answering Question	86	14

Q24a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.22.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 24 - conversion of flats and houses. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (76%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the method for calculating fees with the development industry evenly split over the proposal.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	7	5	16
Development Industry	1	1	10
Policy and Planning	19	3	18
Total	28	9	72
% of Respondents Answering Question	76	24

4.22.4 There were 21 comments regarding this category with the main points summarised across the themes as follows. The themes are presented in descending order of the number of comments received:

Method

• A few civil society respondents felt that change of use fees should be lower than new build to incentivise re-use over new build while a business respondent felt that change of use fees appeared high given that they should be less time consuming than new build to determine.
• One policy and planning respondent felt the increase reflected the resources required to assess these applications, while another required further evidence on how the increase relates to costs.

Fees

• A few civil society and policy and planning respondents made comments on the maximum fee. Suggestions ranged from a ceiling of £200,000 to no maximum fee.
• A policy and planning respondent suggested a rate of £600 for up to 20 units.

Definition

• Several policy and planning respondents sought clarification around the use of the term "dwelling house". The term does not include flats therefore it may be more appropriate to use the term "dwelling" or "residential unit".

4.23 Category 25 - Change of Use Buildings

4.23.1 Applications for the change of use of buildings or land (other than the conversion to, or subdivision of, dwelling houses, the tipping of waste or the stocking of minerals and spoil) will be charged separately. The change of use of a building will be charged at £600 per application.

Q25. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.23.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 25 - change of use of a building. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (76%) in support of the proposed planning fees for change of use of a building. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposed fees with the development industry split over the proposal.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 25 - Change of Use - Buildings?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	10	2	16
Development Industry	1	1	10
Policy and Planning	19	7	14
Total	31	10	68
% of Respondents Answering Question	76	24

Q25a. Is the proposed method for calculating the fee correct?

4.23.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 25 - change of use of a building. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (68%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees. Respondents from all groups supported the proposed method.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business	1		28
Civil Society	8	4	16
Development Industry	1		11
Policy and Planning	15	8	17
Total	25	12	72
% of Respondents Answering Question	68	32

4.23.4 There were 21 comments regarding this category with the main points summarised by theme. The themes are presented in descending order of comments received:

Method

• Several policy and planning respondents felt that certain changes of use could give rise to sensitive, complex applications which could involve retail or traffic impact assessment. Examples included hot food takeaways, pubs, amusement arcades, retail and leisure developments. These applications would tend to be more resource intensive and may require consultation and detailed assessment of ancillary development (e.g. flues). It was suggested by one respondent that consideration should be given to charging a higher level of fee for proposed uses within a defined use class while another suggested aligning the change of use application with the relative fee for development of a new building.
• Several policy and planning respondents also felt that a scale-based approach which increased with floorspace would better address the complexities and resources required to determine the application.

Fees

• There were some suggestions regarding the fee rates including:
  • £500 to align with other non-housing (policy and planning).
  • £800 per application (civil society).
  • Fees should align with Category 26 (change of use of land) which would be £500 for the first 0.1ha and £300 for each 0.1ha or part thereof up to a maximum of £150,000.
• A civil society respondent felt the re-use of buildings should be encouraged but that the rate did not incentivise this. Another respondent also felt there should be an exception for community led projects.

4.24 Category 26 - Change of Use Land

4.24.1 Applications for the change of use of buildings or land (other than the conversion to, or subdivision of, dwelling houses, the tipping of waste or the stocking of minerals and spoil) will be charged separately. The fee for a change of use of land will be based on the site area with an initial fee of £500 for the first 0.1ha and £300 for each 0.1ha or part thereof, up to a maximum of £150,000.

Q26. Do you agree with the proposed planning fee?

4.24.2 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed planning fees for Category 26 - change of use of land. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a substantial majority (76%) in support of the proposed planning fees for change of use of a building. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the proposed fees but no business or development industry respondents supported the proposal.

Do you agree with the proposed planning fees for Category 26 - Change of Use - Land?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		1	28
Civil Society	8	3	17
Development Industry		3	9
Policy and Planning	23	3	14
Total	31	10	68
% of Respondents Answering Question	76	24

Q26a. Is the proposed fee for calculating the fee correct?

4.24.3 The table below shows whether the respondents agreed with the proposed method for calculating planning fees for Category 26 - change of use of land. The majority of respondents did not answer this question but, of those who did, there was a majority (68%) in agreement with the proposed method for calculating planning fees. A majority of civil society and policy and planning respondents answering the question supported the method for calculating proposed fees but no business or development industry respondents supported the proposal.

Is the proposed method for calculating the planning fee correct?

	Yes	No	Not Answered
Business		1	28
Civil Society	7	4	17
Development Industry		2	10
Policy and Planning	19	5	16
Total	26	12	71
% of Respondents Answering Question	68	32

4.24.4 There were 27 comments on the proposed fees and method for changes of use of land which are summarised below by theme:

Method

• Several respondents felt that charging on the basis of site area did not reflect the nature of the proposed use. The fees may penalise basic proposals (e.g. expansion of existing use into adjoining land, change of use from agricultural use to a burial ground or exercise area for horses). A number of suggestions were made including:
  • Aligning the fee with the actual use (policy and planning).
  • Adding a fee category where the fees might be a barrier (e.g. playing fields, parks etc) particularly where this is in the community interest (policy and planning).
  • Retain a flat rate fee but at a higher level (e.g. up to £600) or charge on the basis of the specific use (business).
• A few respondents in policy and planning referred to Category 21 (other operations). One questioned if the fees conflicted with those proposed for Category 21 while another suggested that the fee rate and maximum should be the same in Categories 21 and 26 with the higher rates applying.
• A policy and planning respondent also suggested the threshold for reducing to £300 is too low and inconsistent with other categories.

Fees

• Contrasting views on the fee rate were made by civil society respondents with one suggesting £500 was high, especially for extensions of domestic gardens while another felt the fees were too low. It was also suggested that fees should be reduced for the re-use of brownfield land.
• A few policy and planning respondents felt an initial rate of £600 was appropriate.
• A business respondent suggested a flat rate of £500 to £600 as the proposed fee scale could have an adverse impact on investment decisions, particularly those relating to caravan parks.
• There was some support for increasing the maximum to £200,000 (civil society) while one policy and planning respondent suggested there should be no maximum.

Definition

• A few business respondents raised concerns about whether change of use in the fish farming sector was included or excluded from this category. If included, all respondents felt the fees were inappropriate and suggested an exemption for fish farming should be maintained.

4.25 Q27. Please list any types of development not included within the proposed categories that you consider should be.

4.25.1 The consultation asked if there are any types of development which should be included. There were 26 comments received with the suggested developments shown below by group:

Business

• Hybrid schemes - more clarity required on how these will be treated e.g. a solar and wind collaboration.
• Energy network infrastructure or utilities category - clarity required on where energy network infrastructure falls. Assume it is plant and machinery and proposed fees seem excessive for sub-stations given site area thresholds listed. A new category could provide lower fees due to the developments being a required service and the declared climate emergency. Issues with red line boundaries in remote locations and the resultant fees were identified as was clarification regarding Section 37 requests.
• Number of Section 42 applications for the variation of conditions can often be associated with minor matters pertaining to the wider planning application.

Civil Society

• Should be a distinction between change of use from 'residential to other' and 'other to residential' as the former has a substantially higher impact on neighbouring residents' quality of life.
• Underground or above ground developments and associated works should have separate categories and planning fees.
• Re-use of old industrial use land to be developed for residential occupancy. Levels of residual toxicity should be actively addressed.
• Listed buildings as many owned by charities/voluntary groups. Should not be charged for development required by changes in legislation introduced by the government, particularly to address climate change and energy efficiency improvements. (Listed buildings are considered in Q31).
• Re-use of existing structures and sites should be encouraged, and consideration could be given to exemptions or reduced fees for change of use and development in areas of brownfield/vacant land.
• Agriculture requires appropriate fees when operating on an industrial scale e.g. one building housing eight hundred dairy cows has a significant impact on an area.

Development Industry

• Burying existing overhead power lines: will benefit from a cleared corridor and that any disruption from the operations to bury a line will be temporary and likely to result in a net societal benefit (more resilient power, less visual impact).

Policy and Planning

• Telecommunications: as a growth area with 5G roll-out, telecomms masts and equipment should have their own category. Two respondents.
• Modification and discharge of planning obligations. These are considered in Q40.
• Community facilities/non-residential institutions which are not businesses (i.e. NHS, fire, police) appear to be covered by Category 21, but the proposed fees would significantly reduce income and would not cover cost of assessing application.
• AMSC applications where no development is taking place and the applicant is solely submitting information to be assessed by the Planning Authority (e.g. assessments or schemes). AMSC is considered in Q28.
• Renewal of applications: consideration should be given to introducing a disincentive to prevent repeat applications for renewals which can lead to sites becoming stagnant. Development should commence within the development plan timescale. The potential fee proposal might be that the first renewal would be charged at 10% above the cost of the planning fee and would rise by another 10% each time it was renewed thereafter. The aim would be to bring sites forward for development.
• New buildings: What category would apply to new buildings which are not Category 6 or 7 e.g. a new school or mixed-use development.
• Change of Use of land: a category for uses with sizeable areas but are likely to be progressed by community groups where substantial fees could be barrier to development.
• Review of Old Mineral Permission under Section 74 of Act.
• Any submission which requires resources should attract a fee.