Permitted Development Rights review - phase 2: consultation analysis

2. Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

Given the expected scale of future demand for EVs and associated demand for charging points, the Scottish Government:

• Proposes changes to existing PDR for EV charging in off-street parking areas (Classes 9E and 9F).
• Considers changes to existing PDR and new PDR for charging infrastructure in other areas, including PDR for EV charging on or adjacent to pavements, and conversion of petrol stations to charging forecourts.

Proposed Changes to Class 9E: Wall-Mounted EV Chargers (Off-street Parking Areas)

Current Class 9E grants permission for wall-mounted EV charging points in certain off-street parking areas, sets out specifications for the size and location of charging points, and specifies conditions on nameplates and removal of redundant equipment. The consultation paper notes that PDR are largely restricted to relatively small development on existing walls in existing off-street parking areas, but do not apply in a range of areas specified in Class 9E(3), potentially limiting the effectiveness of PDR in encouraging people to switch to EV. It also asks about changes to the conditions on nameplates.

The proposal is that current restrictions on PDR in specified areas under Class 9E(3) are removed, with the option of an 'Article 4 direction'^[1] retained for locations which raise concerns requiring a planning application.

Question 1 – Do you agree with the removal of restrictions on Class 9E PDR, for wall-mounted EV charging outlets, in the specified areas currently listed in Class 9E(3)?

Responses to Question 1 by respondent type are set out in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	24	12	36
% of organisations	67%	33%	100%
Planning authority	7	9	16
Professional or representative body	2	1	3
Public body or corporation	1	0	1
Private sector	8	0	8
Energy and transport	4	0	4
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	4	0	4
Third sector	6	2	8
Active travel	3	0	3
Community Council	1	0	1
Other	2	2	4
Individuals	9	6	15
% of individuals	60%	40%	100%
All respondents	33	18	51
% of all respondents	65%	35%	100%

A majority of respondents – 65% of those answering the question – agreed with the removal of restrictions on Class 9E PDR, for wall-mounted EV charging outlets, in the specified areas currently listed in Class 9E(3). While the majority of other groups agreed, a small majority of 'planning authority' respondents disagreed.

Around 55 respondents made a comment at Question 1.

Support for the removal of restrictions

Some of those commenting agreed that greater flexibility in planning regulations around development of EV charging infrastructure will make an important contribution to meeting Scottish Government climate targets, noting the potential for a simplified planning process to encouraging more EV adoption. This included comments from 'planning authority' and 'private sector - energy and transport' respondents and was linked to a view that the removal of restrictions is likely to result in relatively minor changes within currently restricted areas.

Respondents referred to the relatively small scale of EV charging infrastructure and suggested that it is unlikely to have a significant amenity impact. There was also agreement that planning conditions, or Article 4 directions where appropriate, will be sufficient to limit the visual impact of EV chargers, for example in terms of size requirements and limits on chargers facing on to a road.

Concerns were also raised that current restrictions disadvantage households in protected areas, potentially having an impact on the desirability of these areas. A specific suggestion was that, given the reliance on single person car travel, rural protected areas should be a priority for rollout of EV charging infrastructure.

Concerns raised around removal of restrictions

Other respondents raised concerns about the potential for the removal of restrictions to have a significant detrimental impact on protected areas. There were particular concerns about smaller scale areas of historic or cultural importance such as conservation areas, World Heritage Sites and sites of archaeological interest. Some respondents suggested that Class 9E should distinguish between these areas and larger landscape areas, with the latter seen as less sensitive to further development of already developed sites.

There was a view that the argument for removal of restrictions set out in the consultation paper (that PDR would only apply to existing off-street parking areas that are already subject to development) is more relevant to larger, undeveloped areas such as National Parks and National Scenic Areas. It was suggested that this argument should not apply to conservation areas which are already developed and where the character and appearance of this development is the focus of the protected status. There was concern that even small-scale EV charging infrastructure could have a disproportionate detrimental impact on the character of conservation areas, and it was noted that off-street parking areas can form an important part of the visual realm for some conservation areas. It was suggested that planning authorities should retain the power to undertake a detailed assessment of proposed EV infrastructure in these protected areas to identify potential negative impacts and specify appropriate mitigation.

While most of those raising concerns around impacts on protected areas discussed the principle of removing all restrictions on PDR, some referenced the potential impact of changes to specific aspects of the current Class 9E. These included potential visual impacts associated with removal of restrictions on illumination of nameplates, and potential noise impacts from larger charging points. It was also noted that faster charging units could lead to higher throughput of vehicles, with associated noise disturbance. These issues were again highlighted as particular concerns for conservation areas and World Heritage Sites.

There was also some concern that individual planning authorities pursuing Article 4 directions would not ensure a consistent approach across local authority areas. Further comments included that current restrictions on PDR in protected areas have significantly reduced the need for Article 4 directions. There was concern that planning authorities do not have the resources to effectively monitor and enforce Article 4 directions.

It was also suggested that limits on PDR for EV charging should be retained to ensure that charging points are accessible to disabled motorists. This included calls for their needs to be part of a planning authority assessment of proposed EV charging infrastructure. The issue of such infrastructure blocking access, even in off-street parking areas, was also raised.

Several respondents referred here and at other questions to a need to discourage private car use, and encourage public transport, walking, wheeling and cycling. These respondents were concerned that changes to PDR for EV charging infrastructure do not support this aim, and may work against it. For example, an 'Individual' respondent suggested that proposed changes could build in reliance on car infrastructure, and hence inhibit the future transition to other modes of travel.

Suggested restrictions or exceptions

A number of respondents who felt that the proposed expansion of PDR goes too far suggested locations or circumstances where PDR should be restricted.

In terms of protected areas, there was a particular focus on areas of environmental or cultural importance. Reference was made to retaining restrictions for conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, historic sites, sites of archaeological interest, and designed landscapes. Some also suggested additional restrictions to current Class 9E PDR. This included reference to the GPDO in England^[2] as a potential model for restrictions on the location of charging points, for example restricting PDR for the settings of scheduled monuments, and within the curtilage of listed buildings.^[3]

Changes were also suggested to Class 9E(2) in relation to the size and location of EV charging infrastructure. The use of planning guidance and/or prior notification/prior approval to mitigate the impact of infrastructure, was one suggestion. There were also specific suggestions for revision to existing PDR requirements, including:

• Amending Class 9E(2)(a) to refer to maximum dimensions rather than volume.
• Strengthening Class 9E(2)(b) to require that new installations are only located on the side or to the rear of buildings, and to ensure charging points and associated cabling do not impinge on footways and pavements.
• Amending Class 9E to encourage charger casings to be black or colour-matched to buildings.

A different perspective was that the removal of restrictions should go further, for example with the removal of current 9E(2)(b) limits on the location of chargers. The value of the 2 metre specification was questioned if chargers are to be allowed within the highway curtilage.

Question 2 – Should the conditions regarding nameplates be withdrawn from Class 9E on wall-mounted EV charging outlets?

Responses to Question 2 by respondent type are set out in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	11	19	30
% of organisations	37%	63%	100%
Planning authority	5	11	16
Professional or representative body	2	1	3
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	3	2	5
Energy and transport	2	1	3
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	1	1	2
Third sector	1	5	6
Active travel	0	3	3
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	1	2	3
Individuals	6	8	14
% of individuals	43%	57%	100%
All respondents	17	27	44
% of all respondents	39%	61%	100%

A majority of respondents – 61% of those answering the question – did not think the conditions regarding nameplates should be withdrawn from Class 9E on wall-mounted EV charging outlets. Most 'planning authority' and 'third sector' respondents did not think so, with 'professional or representative body' and 'private sector' respondents more evenly divided on this issue.

Around 45 respondents made a comment at Question 2.

Concerns raised around withdrawal of conditions

A number of 'planning authority' respondents were among those raising concerns that the withdrawal of conditions could result in larger and more intrusive nameplates, including through greater use of illumination. Respondents suggested that, from an advertising perspective, it could be in the interest of charging point manufacturers to increase the prominence of nameplates. This was seen as having potential to negatively impact the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area. There were specific concerns regarding the potential impact on more sensitive sites such as conservation areas, especially if restrictions on PDR in these areas are removed.

Respondents also questioned the need for removal of restrictions regarding nameplates. It was suggested that current restrictions – for example allowing up to two nameplates each on opposite sides of the casing – should provide sufficient branding for manufacturers. This included comparison with conditions placed on other street furniture.

A number of those raising concerns around removal of conditions wished to see current restrictions on the size, siting and illumination of nameplates retained. However, some suggestions for amendment to current conditions were made, including:

• Planning guidance could be used to ensure nameplates are in accordance with local and national planning guidance, while allowing relaxation of current conditions.
• Current restrictions should be replaced with a requirement that charging points do not include any moving or scrolling images.
• Condition (d) should be removed to allow sufficient illumination for charging points to be accessible at night and in low light.

It was also noted that metres and millimetres are the standard international measurement units, and it was suggested that the wording of Class 9E is updated accordingly.

Support for withdrawal of conditions

Comments in favour of the withdrawal of conditions around nameplates included support for the simplification of current legislation and a view that the inclusion of a nameplate is unlikely to significantly change the overall visual impact of a charging point. However, concerns were raised that illumination could have a more significant impact and some respondents wished to see the restriction on illumination retained.

It was also noted that charging points may reduce in size as technology advances, further limiting the potential visual impact of nameplates. A 'private sector - energy and transport' respondent suggested that removal of restrictions could help to encourage further commercial investment in EV charging infrastructure. The issue of signage for instructions to users was also mentioned.

Proposed Changes to Class 9F: EV Charging Upstands (Off-street Parking Areas)

Class 9F grants permission for EV charging point upstands in certain off-street parking areas, sets out specifications for the size and location of upstands, and specifies conditions on nameplates and removal of redundant equipment. The consultation paper notes that PDR for upstands are largely restricted to development on existing off-street parking areas outwith a range of protected areas and, as such, may not be consistent with the projected increase in need for charging infrastructure.

The consultation paper proposes that, consistent with proposals for Class 9E, current restrictions on PDR in areas specified under Class 9F are removed, with the option of an Article 4 direction retained for particularly sensitive locations. It again asks about the issue of conditions on nameplates on such equipment. Views were also sought on a number of proposed changes to Class 9F.

Question 3 – Do you agree with the removal of current restrictions on Class 9F PDR for EV charging upstands in the specified areas currently listed in Class 9F(3)?

Responses to Question 3 by respondent type are set out in Table 4 below.

Table 4

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	19	17	36
% of organisations	53%	47%	100%
Planning authority	5	11	16
Professional or representative body	1	1	2
Public body or corporation	1	0	1
Private sector	9	0	9
Energy and transport	5	0	5
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	4	0	4
Third sector	3	5	8
Active travel	1	3	4
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	2	4
Individuals	9	6	15
% of individuals	60%	40%	100%
All respondents	28	23	51
% of all respondents	55%	45%	100%

A small majority of respondents – 55% of those answering the question – agreed with the removal of current restrictions on Class 9F PDR for EV charging upstands in the specified areas currently listed in Class 9F(3). While all 'private sector' respondents and a majority of 'individual' respondents agreed, a majority of 'planning authority' and 'third sector – active travel' respondents disagreed.

Around 50 respondents made a comment at Question 3.

Support for the removal of restrictions

Some of those expressing support for the removal of restrictions on Class 9F referred to the role of EV in delivering against climate targets, and the projected increase in need for charging infrastructure referenced in the consultation paper. It was also noted that PDR would be limited to off-street parking areas that are already subject to development, potentially including other infrastructure and street furniture, such that EV charging upstands are unlikely to have a significant additional visual impact.

There was a view that the current restrictions on the size and siting of EV upstands, and the option of Article 4 directions, are adequate safeguards to limit impacts in more sensitive locations.

Concerns raised around removal of restrictions

Those raising concerns around the removal of restrictions on Class 9F most commonly linked this to the potential for EV upstands to have a detrimental impact on particularly sensitive areas. Consistent with responses in relation to Class 9E, smaller scale areas of historic or cultural importance were identified as particularly sensitive to negative impacts. This included specific reference to conservation areas, World Heritage Sites and sites of archaeological interest where the built environment was seen as essential to the character of the area.

Some of those raising concerns noted that EV upstands can be relatively large and visually imposing, and it was suggested that the diversity of upstand design allows for options with greater visual impact; it was thought that the proposed changes to Class 9F could have greater impact than those for wall-mounted chargers at Class 9E. It was also suggested that, even with limits on size and distance from the road, the development of multiple upstands could have a significant detrimental impact on particularly sensitive sites such as conservation areas and World Heritage Sites. Concerns were also raised about the potential for unrestricted development to affect the accessibility of some pavements.

The above concerns were compounded by a view that Article 4 legislation may not be an adequate replacement for current restrictions on PDR. For example, it was suggested that Article 4 directions are less clear for users than PDR and may not ensure a consistent approach across planning authority areas.

Some of those raising concerns about the removal of restrictions suggested alternative approaches. These included that restrictions should be lifted only for some protected areas. Some respondents wished to see Class 9F take account of the specific character of different categories of protected area, including the reasons for their protection. Protected areas most commonly identified as unsuitable for PDR were conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, and sites of archaeological interest. Reference was also made to limiting PDR for historic gardens or designed landscapes, National Scenic Areas and historic battlefields.

Other suggestions included that:

• Alongside removal of restrictions on PDR, planning guidance should be introduced to ensure the size and location of upstands are consistent with local and national planning policy. This included calls for specifications for the visual appearance of upstands, for example limiting use of bright colours.
• The current geographic restrictions on PDR should be extended to limit PDR for listed buildings and their curtilage.

Question 4 – Should the conditions regarding nameplates be withdrawn from Class 9F on EV charging upstands?

Responses to Question 4 by respondent type are set out in Table 5 below.

Table 5

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	11	19	30
% of organisations	37%	63%	100%
Planning authority	4	11	15
Professional or representative body	2	1	3
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	4	2	6
Energy and transport	3	1	4
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	1	1	2
Third sector	1	5	6
Active travel	0	3	3
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	1	2	3
Individuals	2	3	5
% of individuals	40%	60%	100%
All respondents	13	22	35
% of all respondents	37%	63%	100%

A majority of respondents – 63% of those answering the question – did not agree that the conditions regarding nameplates be withdrawn from Class 9F on EV charging upstands. 'Private sector – energy and transport' and 'professional or representative body' respondents were the only groups in which the majority agreed with their withdrawal.

Around 40 respondents made a comment at Question 4, although a number of respondents simply referred back to their comments at previous questions.

Concerns raised around withdrawal of conditions

Concerns were most commonly linked to the potential visual impact of nameplates, including the potential for larger and/or illuminated nameplates. This included reference to concerns highlighted in relation to Class 9E, that removal of conditions could incentivise manufacturers to increase the prominence of nameplates as a form of advertising. It was suggested that this would have a particularly significant adverse impact on the amenity and character of more sensitive areas. This included specific reference to conservation areas and World Heritage Sites, with some respondents calling for retention of conditions on nameplates if restrictions on PDR in these areas are lifted.

Some of those broadly in favour of withdrawing conditions on nameplates raised specific concerns around illumination and wished to see this condition retained. However, others noted the common use of LED lighting on EV upstands, and suggested that care is required to ensure that any restriction of illumination of nameplates does not inadvertently limit other aspects of upstand design.

Respondents also questioned the need for removal of restrictions regarding nameplates on EV upstands, with some suggesting that current restrictions still allow sufficient scope for manufacturer branding. It was suggested that planning guidance would be sufficient to ensure that nameplates are in accordance with local and national planning guidance.

Support for withdrawal of conditions

Consistent with comments in relation to conditions at Class 9E, some of those who supported withdrawal of conditions suggested that a nameplate is unlikely to significantly change the overall visual impact of a charging upstand. It was also suggested that the visual impact of nameplates is likely to diminish as charging points reduce in size over time due to improved technology.

'Private sector - energy and transport' respondents also referred to the potential benefit of suitably angled inbuilt lighting, for example to aid use at night, and wished to see the restriction on lighting of nameplates removed to allow for this.

Question 5 – Do you agree with the proposed increase in height allowable for EV charging upstands under Class 9F PDR from 1.6 metres to 2.5 metres in all off-street parking locations, except within the curtilage of a dwelling?

Responses to Question 5 by respondent type are set out in Table 6 below.

Table 6

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	20	12	32
% of organisations	62%	38%	100%
Planning authority	9	5	14
Professional or representative body	2	1	3
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	7	1	8
Energy and transport	4	1	5
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	3	0	3
Third sector	2	5	7
Active travel	0	3	3
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	2	4
Individuals	10	4	14
% of individuals	71%	29%	100%
All respondents	30	16	46
% of all respondents	65%	35%	100%

A majority of respondents – 65% of those answering the question – agreed with the proposed increase in height allowable for EV charging upstands under Class 9F PDR. 'Third sector - active travel' respondents were the only group in which the majority did not agree.

Around 45 respondents made a comment at Question 5.

Support for an increased height allowance

Reasons given for supporting the proposed increase in height allowance included the importance of faster roll-out of charging points to support climate targets. The need to facilitate the development of higher powered chargers (HPCs) was highlighted, with two 'private sector - energy and transport' respondents providing evidence on the typical dimensions of HPCs.

It was also argued that an increased height allowance is unlikely to result in significant additional visual impacts in off-street parking areas, although it was noted that larger upstands may have a more significant visual impact in off-street parking within residential developments where these are close to residential properties. In this context, there was support for the exception for charging upstands within the curtilage of dwellings. This reflected concerns that larger upstands may have a more significant visual impact in domestic settings.

Concerns raised about an increased height allowance

Concerns about an increased height allowance for charging upstands included that such a change would potentially add to the impact on particularly sensitive locations, such as conservation areas. While there was a view that a height of 2.5 metres would be in keeping with traditional developed areas, it was also suggested that this is higher than most cars and vans and that such upstands could have a significant visual impact in more sensitive urban and rural environments. This was seen as a particular issue if the restrictions on PDR in designated areas are removed, and there was a view that the increase in height allowance should not be introduced if other restrictions are removed. A connected point was that the requirement for case-by-case assessment of proposals at this scale should be retained.

It was also suggested that larger HPCs may increase noise impacts, and could result in higher throughput of vehicles. Again, these impacts were seen as particularly significant in conservation areas and other sensitive locations.

Reflecting these concerns, respondents suggested the following amendments to proposals:

• The height increase should not apply within conservation areas, World Heritage Sites or historic gardens and designed landscapes.
• The height increase should not apply within 2 metres of the curtilage of a dwelling.
• A maximum volume should also be introduced alongside the height allowance.

A different perspective was that the height allowance should be increased further to 2.7 metres. It was suggested that this would allow for installations on existing raised pavement areas, and for further development in design of upstands. However, concern was also raised about potential for siting of equipment on plinths or raised pavements to limit accessibility for disabled people or those with mobility issues.

Question 6 – Do you agree with the proposal to introduce PDR for solar canopies and related battery storage and equipment housing for EV charging upstands in off-street parking areas?

Responses to Question 6 by respondent type are set out in Table 7 below.

Table 7

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	24	13	37
% of organisations	65%	35%	100%
Planning authority	9	9	18
Professional or representative body	4	1	5
Public body or corporation	1	0	1
Private sector	8	0	8
Energy and transport	5	0	5
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	3	0	3
Third sector	2	3	5
Active travel	0	2	2
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Individuals	11	3	14
% of individuals	79%	21%	100%
All respondents	35	16	51
% of all respondents	69%	31%	100%

A majority of respondents – 69% of those answering the question – agreed with the proposal to introduce PDR for solar canopies and related battery storage and equipment housing for EV charging upstands in off-street parking areas. All 'private sector' respondents agreed, as did most 'professional or representative body' and 'individual' respondents. 'Planning authority' respondents were evenly divided, and 'third sector' respondents were the only group in which the majority did not agree.

Around 40 respondents made a comment at Question 6, with a number referring back to their comments at earlier questions.

Support for PDR for solar canopies, battery storage and equipment housing

Some of those supporting the proposed PDR commented on the value of enabling greater use of renewable energy for EV charging. This was highlighted in terms of delivering against Scottish Government climate targets, and limiting additional demand on the electricity distribution network.

It was also suggested that the new PDR is unlikely to have a significant visual impact, particularly given proposals to limit the location and size of solar canopies. It was noted that the new PDR would be restricted to off-street parking areas, and would not apply within 10 metres of residential dwellings or in designated areas. It was also suggested that canopy structures by their nature are open, with a relatively limited visual impact. Views on specific restrictions are considered further at Questions 8 to 10.

Reference was also made to the potential for solar canopies to offer opportunities for additional benefits. For example, it was suggested that creative design could enable solar canopies to be integrated with green infrastructure or incorporate public seating areas. In this context, several respondents questioned the appropriateness of the new PDR limiting the energy produced by solar canopies to EV charging only. While there was support for the proposal, some respondents suggested that this could unnecessarily limit scope for solar canopies to support local green infrastructure, deliver renewable energy to surrounding buildings, and to provide surplus energy to the network. There were also calls for further detail on how this condition would be monitored and enforced.

One 'private sector – energy and transport' respondent referred to high powered chargers needing vast areas of solar panels, beyond what these sorts of canopies could provide.

Given the proposed conditions for the size and number of units, the potential visual impact of battery storage and equipment housing was seen as comparable with other infrastructure, such as telecommunications cabinets. It was suggested that this kind of structure would not be out of place in off-street parking areas.

Concerns raised around PDR for solar canopies, battery storage and equipment housing

Some respondents, including a number of 'planning authority' respondents, raised concerns about the potential visual impact of new PDR for solar panels and associated equipment. Respondents suggested that proposed height and size restrictions would still permit substantial development that could have a significant impact on the streetscape or character of an area. This included reference to the potential for development in parking areas forward of the principal elevation of residential buildings. It was suggested that case-by-case assessment should be retained to manage the impact of development of this scale.

The most frequently-raised concern related to the visual impact of the proposed 4 metre height allowance for solar canopies. Respondents – including some otherwise in favour of the proposals – referred to the impact of canopies with a large surface area and the potential cumulative visual impact of multiple solar canopies in close proximity. In this context there was support for the proposal to limit PDR for solar canopies within 10 metres of a dwelling – an issue considered further at Question 10. However, others felt that controls should be strengthened, for example to include restrictions on the surface area of solar canopies, with trolley shelters cited as a potential model. It was also suggested that planning authorities should retain some approval process for larger scale solar canopy development.

Respondents also referred specifically to the potential visual impact of battery storage and equipment housing, noting that this could add considerably to the overall size of EV charging points and their visual impact. The potential for increased noise impacts associated with HPCs and battery storage was also highlighted. However, some 'private sector – energy and transport' respondents suggested that proposed size criteria for battery storage and equipment housing may be overly restrictive and, in particular, that the permitted threshold for equipment housing is unlikely to be sufficient for HPCs. Another such party was concerned about the height limit and vehicle clearances. The latter point was also raised in connection with accessibility of facilities to adapted vehicles for disabled people or people with mobility issues.

Also related to the potential visual impact of a new PDR, there was a specific concern about the potential loss of trees and other landscaping as a result of installation works. There were calls for a requirement that any such loss of landscaping is replaced following completion of works.

Concerns were also raised about potential impacts on supply of parking spaces and issues of accessibility of facilities to different groups, and glint and glare near aerodromes. Potential impacts in sensitive environments not included in the list of designated areas for the new PDR were also highlighted, an issue that is discussed further at Question 8 below.

Question 7 – Do you agree with the proposal to introduce PDR for equipment housing for EV charging upstands in off-street areas where solar canopies are not provided?

Responses to Question 7 by respondent type are set out in Table 8 below.

Table 8

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	23	8	31
% of organisations	74%	26%	100%
Planning authority	11	5	16
Professional or representative body	2	1	3
Public body or corporation	1	0	1
Private sector	7	0	7
Energy and transport	4	0	4
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	3	0	3
Third sector	2	2	4
Active travel	0	2	2
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	0	2
Individuals	8	4	12
% of individuals	67%	33%	100%
All respondents	31	12	43
% of all respondents	72%	28%	100%

A majority of respondents – 72% of those answering the question – agreed with the proposal to introduce PDR for equipment housing for EV charging upstands in off-street areas where solar canopies are not provided. 'Third sector' respondents were evenly divided and were the only group in which a majority did not agree with the proposal.

Around 40 respondents made a comment at Question 7.

Support for PDR for equipment housing where solar canopies are not provided

Reasons given for supporting a new PDR included that the proposed restrictions on the size and location of EV upstands, and especially the proposed list of designated areas where PDR would not apply, would mitigate the potential impact of PDR for equipment housing. Some also compared proposed restrictions on the new PDR with regulations around electrical substations; it was suggested that the visual impact of equipment housing would be similar to other transport infrastructure and other installations such as telecommunications cabinets.

It was also suggested that flexibility is required to ensure PDR can support the range of EV upstand technologies, for example including in locations that are not suitable for solar power.

Views on specific restrictions are considered further at Questions 8 to 10.

Concerns around PDR for equipment housing where solar canopies are not provided

Consistent with views on PDR for equipment associated with solar canopies, concerns raised around the proposed new PDR for equipment housing were focused on the impacts, and particularly on the potential visual impacts, of equipment housing. It was suggested that the proposed size restrictions would still allow for relatively large structures with potential for significant visual impact. Other comments included that:

• The visual impact of future development is unclear as EV upstand technology continues to develop.
• Other impacts, such as the potential for development to restrict the number of parking spaces or lead to the removal of significant landscaping or drainage features, with the former potentially having a knock-on effect on noise impact.

While it was acknowledged that equipment housing will be necessary for roll-out of charging infrastructure, there was also a suggestion that the potential impact of these structures warrants a planning assessment of proposals.

A contrasting view, from 'private sector - energy and transport' respondents, was that the proposed size criteria for equipment housing is overly restrictive for HPCs. Examples of HPCs with equipment housing requirements that would exceed proposals for the new PDR were cited, and it was also noted that larger installations can require a substation. It was suggested that the proposal as currently set out could limit the effectiveness of introducing PDR. There was also a query as to whether electrical substations and switching gear associated with upstands are to be included within PDR restrictions.

Suggestions for additions or amendments to the proposed new PDR included:

• Increasing the number and size of cabinets permitted under the PDR.
• Including a requirement that the colour of equipment housings is selected to minimise visual impact, for example via prior agreement with the planning authority.
• Including a requirement that development does not reduce the number of available parking spaces.
• Specifying limits on the noise permitted to be generated by upstands.

Question 8 – Do you agree with the list of areas within which new PDR for such solar canopies and related battery storage and equipment housing should not apply?

Responses to Question 8 by respondent type are set out in Table 9 below.

Table 9

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	27	9	36
% of organisations	75%	25%	100%
Planning authority	13	5	18
Professional or representative body	5	0	5
Public body or corporation	0	1	1
Private sector	6	3	9
Energy and transport	4	2	6
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Third sector	3	0	3
Active travel	0	0	0
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	3	0	3
Individuals	11	2	13
% of individuals	85%	15%	100%
All respondents	38	11	49
% of all respondents	78%	22%	100%

A majority of respondents – 78% of those answering the question – agreed with the list of areas within which new PDR for such solar canopies and related battery storage and equipment housing should not apply.

Around 45 respondents made a comment at Question 8.

Views on the proposed list of areas

Many of those commenting noted their agreement that the proposed PDR could have a negative impact on the listed areas. This included a view that development allowed under the new PDR could be relatively large and visually imposing. In terms of the areas listed, there was a view that the quality and character of the most sensitive built and natural heritage areas could be adversely affected by inappropriate siting of development under the new PDR. Conservation areas and World Heritage Sites were identified as particularly sensitive to inappropriate development.

However, it was also noted that the areas in which the PDR would not apply could include specific developed sites where EV charging infrastructure would be unlikely to have a significant adverse impact. More generally, there was a view that the development of EV charging infrastructure should be supported but that there should be a more detailed planning authority assessment to mitigate negative impacts on sensitive environments. It was suggested that, to support roll-out, planning authorities should take a positive view of charging infrastructure and that the Scottish Government could assist by facilitating the sharing of knowledge around mitigation of visual impacts.

Other respondents went further, suggesting that the proposed list of areas is too wide-ranging and expressing concern that this could undermine efforts to increase deployment of EV charging infrastructure. For example, it was suggested that rollout of charging infrastructure will be particularly valuable for conservation areas and National Parks to maintain sustainable tourism in these locations. There was also reference to some planning authority areas that are subject to multiple designations, where it was suggested that rollout of charging infrastructure could be disproportionately affected by the proposed restrictions.

It was suggested that PDR could be extended to some of the listed areas without significant adverse impacts, including through use of Article 4 directions to address any concerns. This included specific reference to the potential value of PDR in conservation areas, National Scenic Areas and National Parks. A prior approval process with a default approval and deemed consent was suggested as an alternative approach to retaining a requirement to apply for planning permission in more sensitive locations, while allowing development where this will not have a negative impact.

Additional areas where PDR should not apply

Some of those raising concerns around the potential impact of development under the new PDR identified other locations which were considered inappropriate for PDR. These included:

• In the setting of listed buildings and their curtilage or, specifically, A listed buildings.
• In the setting of scheduled monuments.
• Where there are local or national landscape designations.
• The curtilage of a footway or path.

It was also suggested that suitable planning guidance will be required to ensure compliance with proposed PDR restrictions, for example with respect to the size and location of solar canopies and associated equipment.

Question 9 – Do you agree with the suggested height limit of 4 metres on PDR for solar canopies for EV charging upstands in off-street parking areas?

Responses to Question 9 by respondent type are set out in Table 10 below.

Table 10

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	22	10	32
% of organisations	69%	31%	100%
Planning authority	10	6	16
Professional or representative body	2	1	3
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	6	2	8
Energy and transport	3	2	5
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	3	0	3
Third sector	4	1	5
Active travel	2	0	2
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Individuals	10	4	14
% of individuals	71%	29%	100%
All respondents	32	14	46
% of all respondents	70%	30%	100%

A majority of respondents – 70% of those answering the question – agreed with the suggested height limit of 4 metres on PDR for solar canopies for EV charging upstands in off-street parking areas.

Around 40 respondents made a comment at Question 9.

Support for the proposed height limit

Reasons given for supporting the proposed 4 metre height limit on solar canopies included that it strikes the right balance between supporting use of renewable energy in the rollout of EV charging infrastructure and mitigating any amenity impacts.

There was reference to the importance of restrictions on the proposed PDR for solar canopies, especially limits on PDR in designated areas and within 10 metres of residential dwellings or 5 metres of a road. While it was acknowledged that 4 metre solar canopies would be substantial structures, it was suggested that restricting such development to off-street parking outwith designated areas would limit potential for adverse impacts. It was also noted that a 4 metre limit is similar to thresholds set for other PDR.

Concerns around the proposed height limit

Consistent with views on other aspects of the new PDR, concerns raised around the proposed 4 metre height limit on solar canopies were often focused on the potential impact of such development.

A number of respondents, including some 'planning authority' respondents, suggested that the proposed height restriction is too high and would still allow development of substantial structures with the potential for significant visual impact. In particular, while it was noted that structures of this size would have little impact in large scale commercial or retail parking areas, there was a concern that a 4 metre structure could have a significant impact in residential and town centre parking areas. Further comments included that:

• Existing sites may have been selected due to their limited impact at certain heights.
• The proposed height limit is higher than that for other infrastructure in residential areas, such as bus shelters (at 2.5 - 3 metres).
• The proposed new PDR would allow development within close proximity of schools and hospitals, where structures of this scale may not be appropriate.

Reference was also made to potential for other aspects of development design to add to the impact of solar canopies. This included concerns around:

• Their location, and the number of canopies installed at a single location.
• The surface area of canopies. It was noted that the proposed new PDR does not restrict surface area and it was suggested that it should.

A small number of 'private sector - energy and transport' respondents suggested that a height limit of 4 metres may not be sufficient to accommodate taller EVs. They proposed height limits of 5-6 metres to ensure that all vehicles can access charging upstands. It was noted that an overall height limit must take account of the required clearance height of the lowest point of the canopy, and the need to angle the canopy to maximise solar generation.

Other suggestions for addition or amendment to the proposed height limit for the new PDR included:

• Restrictions on the length and depth or surface area of canopies.
• Restrictions on the number of canopies installed at a single location.

Question 10 – Do you agree with the proposal that any new PDR for solar canopies, battery storage and equipment housing for EV charging upstands in off-street parking areas should not apply within 5 metres of a road and 10 metres of the curtilage of a dwelling?

Responses to Question 10 by respondent type are set out in Table 11 below.

Table 11

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	29	2	31
% of organisations	94%	6%	100%
Planning authority	16	0	16
Professional or representative body	3	0	3
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	6	2	8
Energy and transport	4	2	6
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	2	0	2
Third sector	4	0	4
Active travel	2	0	2
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	0	2
Individuals	8	6	14
% of individuals	57%	43%	100%
All respondents	37	8	45
% of all respondents	82%	18%	100%

A substantial majority of respondents – 82% of those answering the question – agreed that any new PDR for solar canopies, battery storage and equipment housing for EV charging upstands in off-street parking areas should not apply within 5 metres of a road and 10 metres of the curtilage of a dwelling. 'Private sector – energy and transport' and 'individual' respondents were the only groups in which not all respondents agreed.

Around 45 respondents made a comment at Question 10.

Comments in support of the proposed restrictions included that they will be necessary for mitigating the impact of solar canopies, battery storage and equipment housing while also enabling the appropriate rollout of EV charging infrastructure.

There was specific support for restricting PDR within 5 metres of a road with this seen as necessary to avoid potential impacts on road safety and visibility splays, as well as potential visual and amenity impacts. It was also suggested that, while development of EV charging infrastructure within these limits may be acceptable, a detailed assessment would be required to determine whether this was the case.

In relation to limiting the PDR within 10 metres of the curtilage of a dwelling, it was suggested that this kind of development in close proximity to residential dwellings could have a significant adverse impact in terms of overshadowing and loss of amenity; there was a view that a 10 metre distance from the curtilage of a dwelling may not be sufficient in all circumstances. Further comments included that:

• The potential visual and noise impacts can be greater in some locations, for example where landscaping is not present to absorb some of those impacts. In this context, there were calls for clarity on how the proposed distances have been calculated.
• Potentially sensitive locations, such as schools or hospitals, would not benefit from the proposed restriction. It was suggested that a 10 metre stand-off distance should apply to these sites.

However, some 'private sector – energy and transport' respondents described the proposed limits on PDR as overly restrictive and expressed concerns that they could constrain development of EV charging infrastructure unnecessarily. The benefits associated with use of solar power for EV charging in supporting delivery against climate targets, minimising strain on the electricity grid and reducing consumer costs were all cited. It was also argued that that:

• The definition of 'road' would include foot and cycle paths, further limiting the locations where PDR would apply.
• Allowing solar canopies within 10 metres of dwellings could enable delivery of renewable energy benefits for these dwellings.

Other suggestions for addition or amendment to the proposed restrictions on PDR within 10 metres of a residential dwelling or 5 metres of a road included:

• Alternative limits of 5 metres from the curtilage of a dwelling and 2 metres from a road.
• Clarification of the definition of 'road', for example noting that this could include verges and footways in accordance with the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

On-street/Kerbside Charging

The consultation paper notes that projected increases in EV ownership, including from people who do not have access to off-road parking, is likely to result in increasing demand for on-street charging points. It is also noted that on-street charging infrastructure could have impacts on the built and natural heritage, local amenity, and parking and traffic flows. The paper acknowledges that visual or physical obstructions in the street may disproportionately affect certain groups.

The potential for different delivery models to emerge for public EV charging infrastructure is also noted, including an increasing role for the private sector in financing, installing and operating infrastructure. While Class 30 of the GPDO (relating to structures for local authority services) could be clarified to apply to EV charging infrastructure, the relevance of Class 30 for future EV development would depend on the role of any private sector interests in delivery and administration of infrastructure. As such, and in recognition of potential access and amenity issues, this section of the consultation paper sought views rather than setting out specific proposals.

Question 11 – Would it be helpful to amend Class 30 PDR for local authorities to make clear they apply to EV charging points and any associated infrastructure?

Responses to Question 11 by respondent type are set out in Table 12 below.

Table 12

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	24	8	32
% of organisations	75%	25%	100%
Planning authority	13	5	18
Professional or representative body	3	0	3
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	6	0	6
Energy and transport	3	0	3
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	3	0	3
Third sector	2	3	5
Active travel	1	2	3
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	1	1	2
Individuals	10	8	18
% of individuals	56%	44%	100%
All respondents	34	16	50
% of all respondents	68%	32%	100%

A majority of respondents – 68% of those answering the question – thought it would be helpful to amend Class 30 PDR for local authorities to make clear they apply to EV charging points and any associated infrastructure. 'Third sector' respondents were the only group in which a majority did not think so.

Around 45 respondents made a comment at Question 11.

Support for amending Class 30 PDR

Issues raised by those supporting the amendment of the Class 30 PDR included that a clarification would be welcome and should help to minimise the potential for confusion, including because Class 30 does not currently include any explicit reference to EV charging. A 'planning authority' respondent noted that their Roads Authority does not currently adopt EV charging points after installation.

There was also support for a consistent approach across Scotland and for enabling local authorities to install and operate EV infrastructure. It was suggested that an amendment could not only enable business opportunities for local authorities but also ensure more widespread provision of EV charging infrastructure. It was also thought that a co-ordinated approach to delivery of charging infrastructure by, or on behalf of, the local authority, could be more cost efficient.

Concerns raised around amending Class 30

Other respondents did not see any need for clarification of Class 30 PDR, with further comments including that the current Class 30 is clear in providing planning authorities with broad powers. It was suggested that the PDR does not need to be exhaustive in terms of the types of development covered, and that making specific reference to certain types of development could actually be unhelpful, potentially creating uncertainty when assessing other types of development.

There were also concerns about any use of PDR to enable development of on-street EV charging infrastructure and it was suggested that EV charging should be limited to off-street parking and roadways. There was reference to the potential for additional 'pavement clutter' to have an adverse impact on certain groups, such as disabled people. While it was acknowledged that EV charging development would still be subject to existing consent requirements, it was also suggested that:

• These requirements have not been effective to date in preventing obstructions caused by other PDR.
• Planning authorities may not have the resources necessary to ensure that any negative, equality-related impacts are mitigated.

In relation to on-street EV charging, it was suggested that appropriate controls would be required to ensure access routes are not adversely affected by EV charging development. It was also thought that clear guidelines for commercial operators delivering roadside charging infrastructure would be beneficial.

Question 12 – Do local authority PDR need to be amended to take account of emerging models for financing, delivering and operating EV charging infrastructure, and the changing nature of private sector involvement?

Responses to Question 12 by respondent type are set out in Table 13 below.

Table 13

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	24	4	28
% of organisations	86%	14%	100%
Planning authority	13	4	17
Professional or representative body	3	0	3
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	6	0	6
Energy and transport	3	0	3
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	3	0	3
Third sector	2	0	2
Active travel	0	0	0
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	0	2
Individuals	4	6	10
% of individuals	40%	60%	100%
All respondents	28	10	38
% of all respondents	74%	26%	100%

A majority of respondents – 74% of those answering the question – thought that local authority PDR do need to be amended to take account of emerging models for financing, delivering and operating EV charging infrastructure, and the changing nature of private sector involvement. A minority of 'planning authority' and a majority of 'individual' respondents thought they did not.

Around 40 respondents made a comment at Question 11, with some referring back to previous answers, and others commented only that change is not needed.

Support for amending PDR to take account of emerging models

In addition to general comments in support of an amendment, a frequently-made point was that amendments could enable planning authorities to work in partnership with third parties, including private providers. There was comparison with provisions for statutory undertakers, which allow PDR to apply to third parties working on behalf of the statutory undertaker. In this context, it was suggested that clarifying Class 30 to allow for partnership approaches would be valuable across a range of local authority-led development and would not need to make specific reference to EV charging.

Those in favour of amending PDR highlighted potential benefits of allowing new forms of private sector involvement. These were primarily focused on the need for greater flexibility and agility in the rollout of charging infrastructure to encourage private investment and support more universal access, with particular reference to the anticipated future scale of need for EV charging. Reference was also made to opportunities for EV charging points to provide a revenue stream for public benefit. Consistency of development standards was also a particular concern for some respondents, with a call for planning legislation and guidance to ensure a consistent approach, both across Scotland and across different models of funding delivery and operation.

Reasons why amendment is not required

Some respondents, among them some 'planning authority' respondents, did not think that amendments are required. Comments included that the existing PDR allows for works to be carried out by private developers on behalf of the local authority, and that joint arrangements between local authorities and partner bodies are commonly used across other forms of development.

Issues or concerns to be addressed

In terms of issues to be considered if an amendment is taken forward, suggestions included that some degree of public oversight of EV charging infrastructure development is required. It was suggested that this public oversight should be maintained either through private contractors working under the control of local authorities, for example through region-wide agreement for a private operator to manage the assets, or by retaining planning control for any fully private development.

In relation to a greater role for the private sector, there was a concern that allowing multiple providers to develop EV charging could lead to a proliferation of charging points and furniture, negatively impacting accessibility for street users. It was reported that PDR for private development of other infrastructure has resulted in a worsening of pedestrian access in places.

There were also questions about how the local authority PDR could be amended effectively if the nature of future models of financing, delivering and operating EV charging infrastructure are not yet known. There was thought to be a need for a detailed assessment of emerging models to identify any issues, and to ensure any associated PDR are framed properly.

Question 13 – Should PDR for EV charging infrastructure in roads apply to parties other than local authorities? Please explain your answer.

Responses to Question 13 by respondent type are set out in Table 14 below.

Table 14

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	12	17	29
% of organisations	41%	59%	100%
Planning authority	4	11	15
Professional or representative body	1	2	3
Public body or corporation	1	0	1
Private sector	5	1	6
Energy and transport	2	1	3
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	3	0	3
Third sector	1	3	4
Active travel	0	2	2
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	1	1	2
Individuals	8	6	14
% of individuals	57%	43%	100%
All respondents	20	23	43
% of all respondents	47%	53%	100%

A small majority of respondents – 53% of those answering the question – did not think PDR for EV charging infrastructure in roads should apply to parties other than local authorities. While a majority of 'private sector', 'public body or corporation' and 'individual' respondents thought it should apply, a majority of 'planning authority', 'professional or representative body' and 'third sector' respondents thought it should not.

Around 40 respondents made a comment at Question 13.

Reasons why a PDR should not apply to other parties

A number of respondents gave reasons for why they did not think a PDR should apply to other parties. These included the risk of 'clutter' on roads and other public spaces. It was suggested that other PDR for in-road development have already caused issues in some locations, and there was reference to ongoing efforts by local authorities to improve the design, appearance and usability of town and city centres.

The associated concern was that proposed restrictions on PDR and other non-planning controls are not sufficient to ensure in-road EV charging infrastructure is properly designed and located. Although the role of non-planning controls was acknowledged, including that they could be sufficient to ensure that charging points themselves do not cause an obstruction, there were thought to be other issues. For example, it was noted that parked cars using the charging points may also cause obstruction or other adverse impacts, and there was concern that controls will not be sufficient to avoid development in locations where this may be a problem.

In this context, there was concern that non-local authority PDR could lead to a proliferation of inappropriately located and designed EV charging infrastructure. There were particular concerns in relation to more sensitive locations such as conservation areas and World Heritage Sites, with several respondents calling for any extension of PDR to be restricted in these areas. It was suggested that Article 4 directions would not be sufficient to limit the impact of wider PDR on these areas, including concerns that planning authorities lack the resources required to implement Article 4 directions for each conservation area.

A specific issue raised in relation to amenity was the potential for EV charging infrastructure to restrict accessibility for wheelchairs, mobility vehicles and pushchairs/prams; an associated point was that other parties may not be subject to the equalities duties that apply to planning authorities and other statutory undertakers.

Some respondents also referred to the risk of unsafe infrastructure remaining in the public realm, for example if third party operators cease to trade. In this context, there were calls for clarity on which parties would have longer-term responsibility for EV charging infrastructure in roads, including removal of obsolete infrastructure.

In addition to the above concerns around the potential adverse impacts of EV charging infrastructure delivered under PDR, reference was also made to the importance of a co-ordinated approach to the location and design of charging infrastructure. This was described as essential to ensure integration with other facilities and transport infrastructure, and ultimately to encourage more sustainable travel choices. It was noted that delivery of EV charging should take account of patterns of demand for EV charging, the accessibility of charging infrastructure, and opportunities for EV charging to be co-located with other facilities and transport links. Respondents cited examples of ongoing work by local authorities to develop a strategic approach to EV charging as part of a wider model shift towards more sustainable travel. There was concern that extending PDR to other parties could undermine this work.

Finally, several of those opposed to PDR for other parties suggested that the change would be premature, noting that new models of delivery are yet to emerge. It was suggested that new PDR should be formulated as delivery models involving other parties develop, with both responsibility for EV infrastructure and the process for providers seeking to obtain the required consents among the issues to be considered.

Reasons for PDR to apply to other parties

Reflecting views covered at Question 12, some of those in favour of new PDR for other parties saw this as necessary to deliver the scale of new EV charging infrastructure required to meet anticipated future demand. It was also suggested that future delivery of EV charging infrastructure will require a greater role for the private sector, and that PDR will be required to minimise barriers to private sector investment.

Those in favour of new PDR also referred to other protections, including roads legislation; it was argued that these protections safeguard the amenity of public spaces and ensure that safety implications are considered. It was suggested that the planning system should not seek to duplicate these controls. Reference was also made to restrictions on existing local authority PDR and that development must not create obstruction to the view of road users.

Existing PDR for statutory undertakers within public roads were cited as a potential model for a new PDR for other parties in relation to EV charging. Respondents also wished to see PDR reflect other potential delivery models, such as private providers developing charging infrastructure on local authority land, with the local authority retaining control through its internal management. In terms of specific parties or sectors to which PDR could be extended, it was suggested that electrical transmission companies would be competent to ensure installation to a consistent standard and type across local authority areas.

Proposed restrictions on any PDR for other parties

While some respondents referred to the role of existing regulation and other controls to minimise the impact of development in roads and public spaces, it was also acknowledged that careful formulation of PDR will be required. In particular, it was stressed that PDR must not allow inconsistent standards of installation by private providers, including because of the potential for negative impacts on the wider public network.

Specific suggestions for conditions and restrictions to be applied to any new PDR for other parties included:

• Use of prior notification/prior approval or other authorisation process to retain some planning authority control on the impact of EV charging points.
• Restrictions on PDR in designated locations, including conservation areas and World Heritage Sites.
• Restrictions on the number of charging points within a specified area.
• Conditions to ensure footways are maintained.
• Conditions to ensure all EV charging infrastructure meets accessibility standards, and does not impede accessibility of public places.

Question 14 – If so, would such PDR for other parties need to be linked to some arrangement with local authorities or other form of authorisation? Please explain your answer.

Responses to Question 14 by respondent type are set out in Table 15 below.

Table 15

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	22	2	24
% of organisations	92%	8%	100%
Planning authority	13	1	14
Professional or representative body	3	0	3
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	4	1	5
Energy and transport	2	0	2
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Third sector	2	0	2
Active travel	0	0	0
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	0	2
Individuals	9	2	11
% of individuals	82%	18%	100%
All respondents	31	4	35
% of all respondents	89%	11%	100%

A substantial majority of respondents – 89% of those answering the question – thought that if PDR were to be introduced, it would need to be linked to some arrangement with local authorities or other form of authorisation. All but one 'planning authority', one 'private sector - other' and two 'individual' respondents agreed.

Around 25 respondents made a comment at Question 14. Those who had not agreed and who commented tended to refer to their answer at the previous question.

Issues raised by those who agreed sometimes reflected concerns raised at the previous question in relation to 'clutter' and adverse impacts on the amenity, accessibility and safety of public streets. Reference was also made to a need for consistency in standards of in-road development.

Respondents also highlighted the role of the Roads Authority and roads legislation in relation to in-road development. This included a view that roads legislation and consent would be sufficient to address issues relating to public safety, visibility and equality. However, it was also suggested that these controls are unlikely to be sufficient to mitigate potential visual amenity impacts.

Several suggestions were made for potential mechanisms to ensure appropriate authorisation or control of EV charging infrastructure development by third parties. These included:

• Instruction or approval by the local authority as a condition of any PDR for third party development of EV charging infrastructure. However, concerns were also raised around the potential additional burden on local authorities, and that limited resources could lead to delays in development of EV charging infrastructure.
• Authorisation or control managed through partnership or contractual agreements with third parties. This included reference to potential for local authorities to establish overarching agreements to allow designated operators to install infrastructure within their local authority area.
• Prior notification/prior approval, for example to address matters of visual amenity. The approach to telecommunications development was referenced as a potential model, although a concern was also raised that use of prior approval in relation to Class 67 telecommunications applications can lead to confusion amongst members of the public.

Question 15 – What conditions and limitations would need to be placed on any additional PDR for EV charging infrastructure in roads?

Around 30 respondents made a comment at Question 15, with most suggesting conditions or limitations for additional PDR.

Restrictions were seen as essential to manage the impact of EV charging infrastructure and to ensure that development is part of a co-ordinated approach that also incorporates active travel and public transport. There was also a call for integration of EV charging infrastructure with car-dependent land uses such as car parking which, it was argued, would be consistent with promoting walking and cycling in town centres, in line with the 20-minute neighbourhood approach.

Other general comments included both that the relationship of the planning system to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 needs to be clarified, and an expectation that Road Openings Consent would still be required. Some respondents proposed a role for prior notification/prior approval, with suggestions that this would allow both consultation with transportation on public highway impacts and an opportunity to mitigate potential effects on non-designated historic environment assets.

There was also a call for Scottish Government best practice guidance to inform development.

Suggested conditions for any additional PDR

In terms of specific suggestions for restrictions on any additional PDR, restrictions on location were most commonly raised in relation to sensitive areas. Specific suggestions included the designated areas set out at Classes 9E and 9F, listed buildings and their curtilage, and the setting of these and of scheduled monuments.

A range of respondents called for restrictions to ensure that development does not hinder active travel by obstructing either footways or cycleways, with specific concerns raised with respect to maintaining safe access for older people, people with disabilities and people using buggies. Suggested restrictions to ensure access to footways is protected included that:

• A minimum width of footway and appropriate visibility splays should be retained.
• Chargers should be placed on the carriageway not the footway.
• Chargers should be placed at the kerbside to avoid trip hazards being created by trailing cables and foundations should be flush.
• Footways and kerbs should be reinstated after installation.
• Obsolete equipment should be removed.

It was also argued that chargers should not be placed either on existing cycle ways or such that opportunities for future cycle lanes or other active travel infrastructure are reduced. In this context, it was suggested restricting charging points to side roads would allow future installation of protected cycle lanes on arterial routes or high streets.

The importance that road widths, visibility splays, surfacing, accessibility and safety should not be compromised was highlighted, as was the need for agreement on the stand-offs for cable connections around parking spaces. Consideration of how any PDR would take account of resident parking permit schemes was also recommended.

Respondents also suggested restrictions to limit:

• The visual impact of EV charging infrastructure, including the dimensions or colour of charging equipment. Again, restrictions set out at Classes 9E and 9F were suggested as a model for restrictions on additional PDR.
• Noise associated with EV charging infrastructure. It was reported that some on-street broadband and telecoms infrastructure units generate excessive noise, and it was argued that the risk that EV infrastructure generates similar noise should be considered.

Question 16 – In relation to extending PDR for EV charging infrastructure in roads, what issues need to be considered regarding existing PDR, and rights to access the roads network, for infrastructure which are available to other sectors, such as electricity undertakers?

Around 35 respondents commented at Question 16.

A range of respondents highlighted the importance of the relationship between development of EV charging infrastructure and other infrastructure. Most comments referenced essential utilities such as electricity, water, gas and telecommunications, although links with other travel infrastructure such as cycle ways were also noted.

Respondents noted the potential for conflict between development of EV charging infrastructure and other utilities and infrastructure, including competing interests for available road space, both above and below ground. Robust processes and regulation were sought to avoid conflict, including defined clearances between EV charging points and other infrastructure to ensure safe access.

Some respondents highlighted the extensive PDR already in place for statutory undertakers or its relevance to EV charging, for example in terms of connecting infrastructure to the electricity network and below ground installation of infrastructure.

Simplification of the current regulatory processes around in-road development, and/or production of guidance on the interaction of existing powers were suggested as a means of dealing with potential conflicts between PDR. There were also calls for clarification of the relative priority of existing and new PDR, including Roads Authority PDR, the requirement to maintain the road and public right of passage, and utilities' PDR. For example, it was suggested that Roads Authority and/or utilities PDR should be prioritised over provision of EV charging infrastructure, with a suggestion that changes to Roads Authority plans can be costly.

Some respondents saw a need for a co-ordinating role, both to ensure that EV charging development under any additional PDR will not affect other infrastructure, and to minimise impacts and costs. There were concerns that requiring planning authorities to co-ordinate in-road development rights would add significant burden to the planning system and it was suggested that Roads Authorities would be suitable for this co-ordinating role.

Some also saw potential for a more co-ordinated approach to infrastructure delivery to consider opportunities to streamline infrastructure. This included reference to potential for sharing of apparatus, and for new development to consider extending existing infrastructure where possible.

Reflecting the range of issues identified above, respondents made several specific suggestions for approaches that could help to minimise or deal with any conflict with existing PDR and rights to access the roads network. These included that:

• All EV infrastructure should be recorded to ensure statutory undertakers have access to this information.
• Any new PDR for EV charging infrastructure should include a requirement for the responsible organisation to consult with relevant statutory undertakers before commencing works, to ensure that existing and planned infrastructure is not affected.
• Technical guidance and/or a code of practice should be agreed by local authorities, providers of EV charging infrastructure, and other statutory undertakers. Existing guidance, for example on cable depth and marking was also referenced.
• Existing PDR for other infrastructure should exclude EV charging, such that EV charging infrastructure sits under a single class of PDR.
• Further PDR for district network operators should be considered to ensure supply of mains power to EV charging units.

Changes to Existing Petrol Stations

The consultation paper notes that existing stations providing petrol and/or diesel may, in the future, wish to convert to EV charging hubs and that this is likely to require a change to the buildings and structures on each site, for example to provide solar canopies and battery storage.

Additional PDR are therefore being considered to allow such conversions. It is proposed that any such PDR would be subject to conditions and limitations that: (i) the area of physical development is not increased; (ii) replacement buildings or structures are no higher than those they are replacing; and (iii) no changes to access arrangements to the road would be allowed without planning authority agreement.

Question 17 – Do you agree in principle with having PDR for changing existing petrol/diesel stations to EV charging only?

Responses to Question 17 by respondent type are set out in Table 16 below.

Table 16

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	28	4	32
% of organisations	88%	12%	100%
Planning authority	16	3	19
Professional or representative body	4	0	4
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	5	1	6
Energy and transport	3	0	3
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Third sector	3	0	3
Active travel	1	0	1
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	0	2
Individuals	10	4	14
% of individuals	71%	29%	100%
All respondents	38	8	46
% of all respondents	83%	17%	100%

A substantial majority – 83% of those who answered the question agreed in principle with having PDR for changing existing petrol/diesel stations to EV charging only.

Around 40 respondents provided an additional comment.

Support for PDR for converting petrol stations to EV charging

Several of those expressing support for the proposed new PDR highlighted the potential benefits of converting filling stations to EV charging, both in terms of meeting the anticipated increase in demand for EV charging and achieving a transition to net zero. It was also suggested that delivering additional EV charging infrastructure through conversion of existing stations could help to ease pressure on available capacity for on-street development.

A range of respondents referred to specific benefits associated with delivering EV infrastructure through conversion of existing infrastructure, rather than 'new' development. This included suggestions that conversion to EV charging is likely to have little additional visual impact relative to existing petrol stations, and would represent continuation of an established vehicle refuelling land use on sites that are already in appropriate locations. It was suggested that the PDR could help to sustain the operation of existing stations as use of petrol and diesel are phased out, and that other options for redevelopment of these sites could be more challenging.

It was also thought that there may be circumstances where change of use is required – for example if stations wish to incorporate more café/restaurant facilities for customers to use while waiting for cars to charge. It was suggested that PDR could allow limited Class 3 Food and Drink use, for example for consumption on-site and within a floorspace threshold.

There were differing views on whether a prior approval process might be appropriate – both that it is not needed and that it should be considered for new structures.

Concerns or limitations around PDR for converting petrol stations

A small number of respondents took a view that conversion to EV charging is potentially a significant change that should require planning permission, or that not all existing locations may be suitable for EV charging infrastructure. These respondents saw a need for full planning scrutiny to be retained. There was also a narrower point, that the PDR should not apply to additional structures for retail purposes, which should be subject to planning controls.

It was also suggested that, since EV charging will take significantly longer than filling a vehicle with petrol/diesel, the space available in existing forecourts may be limited, creating potential traffic and road safety issues.

Some respondents considered that restrictions or conditions are required to avoid inappropriate development. Examples included limits on the scale of any replacement buildings or structures, or on changing access arrangements. It was also noted that change of use could lead to changes in noise impact, and there were calls for this to be reflected in any new PDR. Views on the need for any additional restrictions or conditions are considered in more detail at Question 18.

Additional concerns were highlighted around potential for loss of petrol/diesel supply in remote and rural areas, where these were described as 'lifeline facilities'. Continuing fossil fuel demand from agricultural vehicles was noted in particular.

Hybrid stations

Although the question references changing 'to EV charging only' some respondents saw potential in the short to medium term for 'hybrid' stations, combining both fossil fuels and EV charging and there was a call for PDR to allow for development of any EV charging infrastructure on these sites, rather than only for wholesale conversion to EV charging.

However, concerns were also expressed with respect to safe operation of EV chargers on stations that continue to sell petrol. It was noted that there is currently no requirement to notify the Petroleum Enforcement Authority (PEA) that EV chargers are being installed, so they may receive this information only when asked to respond to a planning application. If the opportunity to advise on safe installation at the planning stage is lost, it was argued that the risk of later PEA enforcement action may increase.

Question 18 – If so, what, if any, further specification of the conditions and limitations identified, or additional ones, would be required for such?

A total of 35 respondents provided comment at Question 18, with many of these raising points for clarification and/or suggesting restrictions on any additional PDR. This reflected the perceived importance of restrictions on PDR in managing the impact of development, including support for restrictions set out in the consultation paper to limit the overall development area, the scale of EV charging infrastructure, and changes to access arrangements. It was suggested that a new use class for EV charging stations may be useful in enabling planning authorities to manage the development of these facilities over time.

Some respondents raised specific concerns regarding the proposed condition that there should be 'no changes to the access arrangements to the road, unless otherwise agreed with the planning authority'. How this would be controlled in the absence of a formal planning process was queried.

Other conditions and limitations

Specific suggestions for conditions or limitations on the proposed PDR included:

• Restrictions in sensitive areas, such as those listed at Classes 9E and 9F.
• Restrictions to ensure PDR only permits change of function from fossil fuels to EV charging, and excludes any ancillary development such as car wash bays or cafes.
• Conditions to ensure that sufficient visitor space for retail uses is retained.
• Restrictions on any significant visual changes to existing petrol stations, including controls on advertising and any change to the colour or design of sites.
• Restrictions to limit adverse visual impacts from glint and glare. Whether the new PDR proposed for solar canopies and battery storage would apply to these sites was queried.
• Restrictions on any additional noise impacts, with particular concerns around potential noise impacts associated with fast charging units. It was argued there should be additional noise assessments and acoustic barriers, or restrictions on hours of operation where noise is an issue.
• A requirement for removal of obsolete canopies, including for example where businesses cease trading.
• A requirement to locate facilities a certain distance from the perimeter of the site.

Safety concerns were also highlighted, both where sites combine fossil fuels and electrical charging and where storage of fossil fuels is discontinued. In the first case it was suggested that filling station operators should be instructed to take advice (preferably from the PEA) regarding potential effects on the safe storage of petrol on site and that that chargers should be located at a certain distance from petrol pumps and car washes. Incorrect installation of EV chargers was reported to be taking place even under current planning restrictions.

When storage of fossil fuels is discontinued it was thought important that operators are aware of their obligation to follow notification procedures under the Petroleum Consolidation Regulations 2014, to ensure proper decommissioning before installation of EV chargers. A requirement to ensure proper consideration of underground structures associated with existing fossil fuel stations was also highlighted.

Among other safety risks identified were that:

• Longer charging times could result in queuing traffic on public roads.
• Solar glare could impact flight paths and aviation safety. A requirement to notify the Civil Aviation Authority of any proposed development incorporating solar canopies in the vicinity of an aerodrome was proposed.

Some 'planning authority' respondents highlighted issues in relation to potentially contaminated land, with a call for any new PDR to reflect requirements under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) and Planning Advice Note (PAN) 33 relating to site investigation and remediation, and prevention of pollution or risk to human health. One 'planning authority' respondent noted that they would require a planning application for sites at high risk of contamination to ensure proper assessment of any remediation measures that may be required.