Permitted Development Rights review - phase 2: consultation analysis

3. Changes of Use in Centres

The consultation paper notes that, in respect of planning, the core recommendations of the Town Centre Review Group^[4] focused on policy-based measures rather than deregulatory tools such as PDR or the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (UCO). In particular, it advocated strengthening national planning policy status of centres through the fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4).

NPF4 was published in draft by the Scottish Government in November 2021 for a period of public consultation. The document contains several policies that are intended to support the resilience and recovery of Scotland's centres (Policy 24: Centres, Policy 25: Retail, Policy 26: Town Centre First Assessment and Policy 27: Town Centre Living).

The planning system in Scotland is plan-led and NPF4 will be part of the statutory development plan against which planning applications are determined. Accordingly, the NPF4 is considered the most important lever for achieving the Scottish Government's long-term planning policy objectives for our city, town and local centres. Nevertheless, given the scale of the challenge and reflecting the commitment (made in the joint Scottish Government/COSLA response to the Review Group's Report, the Scottish Government is seeking views on how UCO or PDR changes could support recovery.

Potential changes to the UCO

The Town Centre Review Group suggested that the Scottish Government should consider "the desirability of a revision perhaps to a more general Town Centre Use Class". However, the UCO is not a spatial tool and therefore any changes would therefore apply in all locations, not just in centres. A "general town centre use class" would involve the establishment of a new class which brings together a variety of uses which are commonly found in (or associated with) city, town and local centres but which currently sit in separate use classes.

The consultation paper notes that, if a new, merged use class were to be taken forward, a critical consideration is what uses should be included within it. It suggested that, arguably, uses falling within Class 1 (shops), Class 2 (financial and professional services), Class 3 (food and drink), Class 4 (business), Class 7 (hotels and hostels), Class 10 (non- residential institutions) and Class 11 (assembly and leisure) can be characterised as "town/city centre uses". It also notes that a number of sui generis^[5] uses (e.g. theatres, pubs, hot food takeaways, flats and student accommodation) are also features of centres, as are residential uses within Classes 8, 8A and 9.

Question 19 – Do you consider that a merged use class bringing together several existing classes would help to support the regeneration, resilience and recovery of Scotland's centres? Please explain your answer.

Responses to Question 19 by respondent type are set out in Table 17 below.

Table 17

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	26	14	40
% of organisations	65%	35%	100%
Planning authority	6	8	14
Professional or representative body	4	1	5
Public body or corporation	0	1	1
Private sector	10	0	10
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	4	0	4
Other	6	0	6
Third sector	6	4	10
Active travel	3	0	3
Community Council	0	1	1
Other	3	3	6
Individuals	8	2	10
% of individuals	80%	20%	100%
All respondents	34	16	50
% of all respondents	68%	32%	100%

A majority of respondents – 68% of those answering the question – considered that a merged use class would help to support the regeneration, resilience and recovery of Scotland's centres. All 'private sector' respondents supported a merged use class, as did most 'professional or representative body' respondents. 'Planning authority' and 'third sector' respondents were divided on this issue.

Around 50 respondents made a comment at Question 19.

Support for a focus on town centres

A number of respondents, including both those who supported a merged use class and those who did not, noted their support for a focus on the recovery of Scotland's town centres. Further comments included that the built environment has a significant role to play in supporting regeneration of town centres as they look to the future and post-pandemic recovery. There was reference to their value as a focus for economic, cultural and social interaction and their regional and national functions as activity hubs.

It was suggested that planning regulations and policy should proactively support the creation of sustainable and accessible town and city centres that have the range of amenities which means people both need and want to visit. There were also general observations about the essential role planning services play in supporting town centres, for example through the preparation of Local Development Plans (LDPs), Local Place Plans, site briefs, Town Centre Management Plans and, potentially, through emerging Masterplan Consent Areas (MCAs).

Some 'planning authority' respondents referred to their own policy approaches, including applying the Town Centre First Principle to put the health of town centres at the heart of proportionate and best value decision making.

However, there was also a view that proposals to merge use classes might be pre-emptive without first evaluating the existing use class categories as to whether they are fit-for-purpose for the modern era.

Reasons for supporting a merged use class

The most-frequently given reason for supporting the creation of a merged use class related to increasing flexibility and adaptability, including to help building owners manage their properties in a way that keeps them in use.

It was suggested that the current UCO system is built on the idea that property uses remain largely static but that, with this no longer being the case, a merged class would allow landlords and to respond to the market and adapt properties to ensure their continued viability.

There was a concern that the need for property uses in town centres to evolve, sometimes quickly, is putting immense stress on the UCO system. The hope was that a merged use class would potentially reduce barriers by removing the potential delays and costs associated with obtaining planning permission. It was noted that at present, until planning permission is granted, the proposed occupier cannot risk undertaking fitting out premises or other works, and this can cause a lengthy delay to the opening of the new use. However, there was also a view that, as an application for planning permission forms only part of the investment and decision-making process, the creation of a merged use class of itself may not be particularly significant.

Nevertheless, and from a whole-system perspective, suggested benefits included:

• Reducing overall void and vacancy rates.
• Making it easier for new uses to develop. There was specific reference to addressing issues with new uses which do not fit neatly into the UCO, including new business models that deliberately blend uses to find value.
• Helping with the creation of 20-minute neighbourhoods, hybrid working spaces and opportunities for outdoor learning and socialising.
• Ensuring that centres are more flexible when dealing with climate targets.

There was also specific reference to benefits for the retail sector; it was suggested that the greater focus on the shopping 'experience' is necessitating increased flexibility of use within traditional retail locations. There was reference to ensuring that the expected amenities are provided, including for the increasing number of hybrid trading models. It was also suggested that enabling pop-up uses could bring benefits.

In terms of further benefits that could flow from greater flexibility, it was suggested that removing barriers to higher levels of occupancy will enable wider investment opportunities across Scotland's high streets, and that this could help support a vibrant economy in both the day and evening, to the benefit of residents and visitors.

However, there was also a view that no single policy can, on its own, create sustainable, liveable places and that, while a merged use class could support the regeneration and resilience of centres, it should not be seen as a substitute for effective, locally-centred planning policies like those outlined in the draft NPF4.

Reasons for not supporting a merged use class

Other respondents did not think a merged use class would support regeneration or have an overall and/or positive impact on town centres. Issues raised included that it is not clear how much of a barrier the requirement to change class use is to regeneration and adaptability. One 'planning authority' respondent commented that while there are some vacant units in their area, it is not thought that they are vacant due to the allocated use class or the burden of the requirement for planning permission to alter these.

Another suggested that achieving planning permission for appropriate town centre uses such as Classes 1, 2 and 3 is generally fairly straightforward and unlikely to pose a significant obstacle to new occupiers. They were among those commenting that other issues, such as rent or rates levels, are likely a more significant consideration.

It was also suggested that there are more effective ways of ensuring the continued adaptation and development of commercial centres through the plan-led system. The 'planning authority' respondent making this point referred to the success of their approach of producing detailed guidance which is tailored to the specific characteristics of each commercial area. Their preference was for the regeneration and recovery of commercial centres to be managed and encouraged through supplementary guidance and the local plan process, rather than an amendment to the GPDO to create a new class.

Another 'planning authority' respondent had a similar perspective; they were wary of changes that could impact on their ability to produce guidance that is locally appropriate and that is capable of acting as an effective lever in promoting sustainable regeneration. They went on to comment that addressing challenges through the uniformity of UCO runs the risk of operating counter to the place based agenda that is being reinforced by NPF4.

Other issues or concerns raised, some of which are discussed further at the next question in relation to risks, included that a merged use class could:

• Cause issues with the delivery of NPF4 and LDPs and, specifically, impact on the 20-minute neighbourhood objectives of NPF4.
• Undermine the collaborative approaches being taken to understand and support long-term plans for town or city centres.
• Undermine the ability of local decision-makers to be considerate of and responsive to context and needs. A 'planning authority' respondent reported that their city, town, and neighbourhood centre policy already encourages changes of use within town centres subject to various public contact and residential amenity criteria. They considered that these changes of use are best considered through the planning application process.
• Depending on the use classes to be included, contradict the objectives of town centres being healthy or pleasant places to live.
• Be less suited to the needs of smaller town and neighbourhood centres.

There were also some concerns that, rather than simply being of limited if any positive benefit, a merged use class could be problematic. It was noted that these problems could be created for those town centres that are currently relatively vibrant and not in need of measures to support regeneration.

In terms of the types of problems that could arise, it was suggested that while a merged use class might benefit specific property owners or businesses, this might not be in the wider interests of the whole town centre. It was reported that under the current system there are already many examples of new occupiers moving into premises without requiring any planning permission and their activities having a very different impact on others – for example relating to noise – than had been the case for their predecessors. The 'planning authority' respondent highlighting this issue went on to report that it can result in existing residents complaining to the local authority or other statutory bodies such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).

Further comments relating to the potential impact on those residing in town centres included that:

• There can often be significant impacts to residential properties located above or overlooking premises with Class 3 use due to noise, odours, and waste storage issues unless they have been properly located and designed.
• While the use of outdoor spaces can help make places more vibrant and welcoming, they also create unwanted and significant noise and anti-social behaviour close to residential areas. There was a query relating to enforcement powers to allow local authorities to address any such issues, along with what means will be available to the community to demonstrate any negative impact.

In addition to residents, there were also concerns about the potential impact on blind and partially sighted people. These related to the impact on people with visual impairment when business locations change from those they may have already familiarised themselves. It was reported that, prior to the pandemic, the streetscape was already challenging for people with sight loss and that that this has adverse consequences for many blind and partially sighted people.

A suggested alternative to the creation of a merged use class was to increase permitted changes within use classes. There was also reference to permitting changes of use from Class 4 to Class 2.

Application in all locations

Both those supporting and not supporting the creation of a merged use class commented on the implications of it applying to all locations and not just town centres. This issue is covered further at the next question but, in summary, it was suggested that consideration should be given to limiting the benefit of such a merged class to town centres rather than in all circumstances.^[6] There was also a call for additional safeguards to be put in place for certain areas, for example areas of historic interest.

Views on classes to be merged

Some of the comments at Question 19 focused on which use classes should be included in any merged use class. Some of these comments addressed the risks associated with certain classes being included; these issues are covered in greater detail at the next question.

In terms of issues to be taken into account, it was noted that care will be needed when deciding which classes might be included, with consideration of:

• The extent to which merging classes might affect the overall character of the townscape and the vibrancy of the high street.
• Any impacts on neighbours and on public amenity.
• How to prevent a monoculture of only single uses classes within an area.
• The availability of both the existing and proposed uses locally and the impact of the potential loss of the existing use on the 20-minute neighbourhood.

There were also references to other planning-related issues to be considered alongside and/or as part of any creation of a merged use class. These included supporting infrastructure for active travel. There was specific reference to flexibility and ease of planning requests to install adequate cycle parking and storage.

In relation to the specific use classes to be included, one 'planning authority' respondent reported that, currently, almost all planning applications in their town and city centres for changes of use between the use classes set out in the consultation paper are approved.

Classes 1-3

Some respondents noted their support for bringing together Classes 1-3, with further comments including that the properties in these classes would tend to be easily interchangeable from the perspective of potential tenants. It was also suggested that incoming businesses are less likely to give rise to significant impacts on amenity compared to those that would fall into other use classes.

However, others did see potential problems for town centre residents from the inclusion of Classes 1-3, particularly around the inclusion of class 3 uses (see Question 20 below). Reflecting the concerns, some 'planning authority respondents were amongst those suggesting that only Class 1 and 2 should be included, with Class 3 excluded because of the potential to introduce an additional adverse impact on residential amenity.

Further suggestions were that a merged use class should consist of Class 1 and Class 2 uses only, but could also contain foodbanks, art galleries, museums and libraries, as these uses, which can added to the vitality of our centres, can normally be implemented without the risk of harmful impact arising.

Classes 10 and 11

In terms of Classes 10 and/or 11, there was some support for their inclusion, including because of a view that these uses almost always have either unique physical or space requirements, or simply cannot compete in commercial terms to displace prime retail.

However, there were some reservations around the inclusion of cinemas (from Class 11); this was connected to the prevalence of cinemas on out-of-centre retail parks, and the potential for an uncontrolled move to Class 1 (Shops), for example, to undermine centres and mark a departure from the long-established town-centre first principle in Scottish Planning Policy.

A specific issue raised in relation to Class 10 was around flood risk. It was noted that Class 10 includes Most Vulnerable development types such as nurseries and schools^[7]. Given the potential community impact caused loss or damage of such facilities during a flood event, and the vulnerability of the occupants to flooding, it was suggested that the Class 10 aspect of the proposed merged use class should be removed.

Sui generis uses

Views relating to sui generis uses included that they should be kept as such, but with the principle that they are acceptable in identified town centres, subject to appropriate controls on amenity. There was specific reference to uses that are more likely to have significant impacts on those around them (also known as 'bad neighbour' development, as per GDPO Schedule 2) remaining subject to planning control. Another suggestion was that controls relating to proximity to residential properties would need to be introduced.

There were also comments relating specifically to pubs or licensed premises. They included both support for and opposition to including licensed premises in a new merged use class. Reasons given for supporting their inclusion were that to do otherwise could both prevent vacant pubs being transformed and deter potential investment in Scotland's high-streets if there are vacant shops or restaurants that have the potential to become a viable pub business.

An alternative view was that pubs should not be included in a merged use class, including because this could lead to further closures of pubs without local communities being able to have a say over their future. There was reference to the vital role played by pubs in town centres and urban settings, including as a centre for social interaction, promoting community cohesion and the wellbeing of residents. Given the continued rate of pub closures and loss of amenity to the communities those pubs serve, there was a call for the Scottish Government to ensure that pubs can only be converted to another use, or demolished, by obtaining planning permission.

Question 20 – What do you consider to be the key risks associated with such a merged use class, and do you think that non-planning controls are sufficient to address them?

Around 50 respondents made a comment at Question 20.

General comments included that, while consideration of risks is important and helpful, the overall benefits from the proposed changes are likely to be greater than any disbenefits. As at the previous question, there was reference to the potential to stimulate occupier activity, remove barriers to short-term/temporary uses of units and reduce vacancy levels.

Negative impacts on amenity, residents or other businesses

The most-frequently identified potential risk centred on changes of use and, particularly, the risk that changes from commercial use such as retail to cafes or takeaways have a negative impact on local amenity. A number of respondents noted possible issues, particularly in relation to a change from another class to Class 3.

There were concerns about the impact, particularly on residents, of planning authorities having less control over issues such as operating hours, noise levels, smell and parking. There was also reference to issues around refuse storage and collection and outdoor seating areas. One 'planning authority' respondent noted that removing controls would present a particular set of challenges in an area such as theirs, where most town centres are tenemental high streets with residents 'living above the shop'.

It was reported that, under the current approach, the planning stage is often the first opportunity to identify possible issues and potentially avoid any problems arising. It was noted that, at present, potential problems can potentially be mitigated by conditions or design improvements through the planning process, and that current controls allow planning to ensure that amenity is protected when assessing uses that may bring noise or disturbance into units in close proximity to residential properties. A 'planning authority' respondent reported that Environmental Health are regularly consulted on Class 3 proposals and that, in many cases, initial proposals for filtration and ventilation of kitchen odours are inadequate or, in some cases, almost non-existent.

In terms of avoiding negative impacts, there was reference, for example, to the role of noise impact assessments in considering noise created during hours of operation, noise and vibration from plant including commercial extraction systems, and noise from the collection of waste and deliveries. Further points raised included that, under the current arrangements, planning can consider whether the creation of commercial premises, such as gyms, that are structurally attached to noise sensitive properties could generate significant levels of amplified music and vocals.

There were concerns about the impact on residents in particular if these powers are lost to planning authorities. It was also noted that a prevention-focused approach reduces the risks of:

• Residents or other businesses having to wait for what may be some time before issues are addressed.
• Planning authorities incurring significant enforcement-related legal costs.
• Businesses that are found to be causing problems incurring costs associated with remedial action or a move of premises. It was suggested that the impact on businesses that become the subject of enforcement action for Statutory Nuisance (discussed further below), is likely to be particularly significant.
• Potential knock-on effects for the property owner (if they are different to the operator of the business).

Loss of amenity and change in character

A number of respondents identified loss of diversity, and the potential clustering of types of uses, as a potential risk associated with a merged use class; part of the concern was that removing planning control over change of use could mean that town centres increasingly come to be dominated by whatever activities deliver the highest rental value to property owners. The associated concern was that a clustering of profitable uses that will not necessarily make centres 'better' places.

There were particular concerns about the loss of retail provision within certain locations, including to the detriment of residents. Linked to NPF4 and the creation of 20-minute neighbourhoods, a 'planning authority' respondent reported that they are currently in the process of developing their 20-minute neighbourhood strategy, which aims to ensure that all residents can access necessary services within a 20-minute round trip on foot or by public transport. They were concerned that a merged use class could undermine the ability to deliver their strategic aim.

It was also reported that some planning authorities still identify core retail areas, where there is a presumption against a loss of Class 1 uses, in order to ensure the centre continues to have a strong retail offer. In addition to seeking to retain certain uses, it was noted that some planning authorities operate policies to prevent the clustering of certain uses,^[8] and that this too might not be possible with a town centre use class.

Other comments focused on the potential for 'unplanned' changes to the character of centres. In terms of the nature of possible changes, there was reference to:

• Local community spaces, such as cafes and sports facilities, being converted into space for financial services or office space; it was suggested that such changes could alter the character of centres, particularly if replicated over several developments.
• Specific risks to the unique character of some conservation areas and World Heritage Sites. For example, for a town or city centre where a historic high street is characterised by its shop uses and associated vibrancy, there was a concern that the creation of a merged use class could result in a harmful change, including through the loss of public facing businesses.
• The impact that changes to business use can have on overall footfall in centres, and the potential for a drop in footfall to hamper regeneration and recovery.

Connected to concerns about the types of businesses that could move into centres was a concern that businesses could also be diverted away from potential development of land that is allocated for Class 4, 5 and 6 uses.

Application in all locations

There were also references to possible risks connected to a merged use class applying in all areas and not just in designated town and city centres. It was suggested that those uses grouped together as being interchangeably desirable in town centres may not all be equally desirable in other locations.

There was particular reference to Class 10 and 11 uses, where these are located outwith the centre, being changed to Class 1 and to this having a knock-on and negative impact on town centres. For example, it was suggested that the conversion of a large gym to a shop in an out-of-town location could adversely impact on a town centre. Specifically, there was a concern about the loss of highly valued local retail which, in many instances, will be protected by LDP policies against which change of use applications would currently be assessed, especially in smaller neighbourhood centres and villages.

The link was also made to the location of some of the uses in Class 10, such as schools and nurseries, and the catchment area for active travel. It was suggested that a school or nursery may be well located within its catchment, but not well located for changing to a Class 1, 2, 3 or 11 use.

Effect on plan-led approach and effective place-making

A number of respondents, including some 'planning authority' respondents, commented on how a merged use class could affect locally-driven, plan-led place-making. Comments include that the changes would decrease the control local authorities have to shape the offer of their place; it was suggested that, in areas where there is an up-to-date plan or a strong understanding of issues such as demographics, local need and strategic clustering of uses, the relaxation of the UCO system could be unhelpful.

Other concerns included that the creation of a merged use class is contrary to the 'agent of change' principle enshrined in planning legislation, and is at odds with the broad principles within PAN 1/2011: Planning and Noise. It was also suggested that the creation of a merged use class would:

• Remove opportunities for communities to engage in the planning decision-making process. It was suggested that the absence of planning consultations would take away a route through which communities can influence decisions about what is best for their regions now and into the future.
• Reduce local accountability for decisions made through planning application processes.
• Undermine planning authorities' ability to deliver on amenity principles, including in relation to the 20-minute neighbourhood and town centre living objectives set out in NPF4.
• Potentially create a conflict with wider government policy on ensuring the right to food for all citizens. It was suggested that the loss of local retail provision may make it more difficult to provide good food to those individuals with limited means of access to larger out of centre retail units, or those who cannot order their shopping online.

Impact on land values

A 'professional or representative body' respondent raised a specific issue about a merged use class having the potential to increase land values, noting that this can have implications for the viability of certain types of housing development and citing experience in Ireland as an example. They called for a mechanism whereby a proportion of any uplift could be regained through, for example, the tax system.

Sufficiency of non-planning controls

One perspective was that non-planning controls - such as licensing, Building Standards and Environmental Health - will ensure adequate protections remain to mitigate all or some of the perceived impacts from a merged use class. Further comments included that:

• Planning permission would still be required for physical works which may be required to turn a retail unit into a functional restaurant, meaning that planning controls will remain in place to ensure adverse impacts are duly considered at the appropriate juncture. However, there was also a query as to whether associated infrastructure such as flues, extracts and ventilation would still require planning permission?
• Some of the risk may be mitigated by the listed building consent process and conservation area appraisals in conservations zones and heritage areas. However, there was also a query as to whether new PDR rights would apply to sites located in conservation areas?
• For licensed premises, there are sufficient controls in place, primarily through the licensing regime, which would address any risks, including sound management and hours for use of the premises and any associated outdoor areas.

However, there was also a view that, while non-planning controls might be sufficient, local authorities do not have the resources to enforce these controls. The 'professional or representative body' respondent making this point went on to comment that many 'breaches' would go unchallenged and, even if challenged, would lead to costs to the public purse that would not be reimbursed.

Others raised concerns about whether the non-planning controls are indeed sufficient and/or appropriate to address the possible risks. The focus was often on the role of Environmental Health and the amenity-related risks discussed above, and that Environmental Health powers can only mitigate impacts and cannot address any concerns regarding the location.

There was also a concern about whether current Environmental Health legislation and licensing regimes could be relied upon to protect surrounding amenity. It was suggested that the only non-planning controls that would be relevant to noise or odour would be the Statutory Nuisance provisions of the EPA.

Although the standard for Statutory Nuisance was described as very high, it was also noted that:

• It is less onerous than for loss of amenity; it was suggested that even when the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of Environmental Health, some complainants may be left unsatisfied and having to continue suffering a loss of amenity due to noise and odour.
• The controls available to Environmental Health are based on the assumption that a business is entitled to exist at a location, whereas the planning process will look at whether that business is actually appropriate for that location.
• Under the EPA there is a statutory defence of Best Practicable Means (BPM) whereby if a business can demonstrate they have employed BPM to mitigate against noise, odour etc., they would have a defence in any proceedings even if the matter continued to constitute a Statutory Nuisance.
• The costs of retro-fitting noise mitigation controls in an emerging Nuisance situation are likely to be far higher than designing them into the development at an application stage.

It was also reported that Statutory Nuisance-related enforcement can be lengthy and costly and does not guarantee an absolute result. There was a view that removing planning controls on Class 3 would lead to an increase in complaints and that, reflecting a point made above, this would have an impact on resources for Environmental Health services.

A 'planning authority' respondent reported that their Environmental Health colleagues consider that there are no non-planning controls sufficient to address the number and range of environmental impact complaints which will arise from these proposed changes to the present change of use planning application requirements for town centres. There was a view that potential nuisances are best avoided rather than dealt with retrospectively.

Other issues to be considered

One 'planning authority' respondent raised the particular issue of the key role of the planning system with regard to contaminated land, and that whether confirmed or suspected, contamination is a material planning consideration. They went on to note that, where there is a change of use to more sensitive uses, it is essential that the potential for contamination is considered in its broadest sense. They considered that the contaminated land regime, and the requirement of PAN 33: Development of contaminated land, need to be suitably integrated into PDR provisions in order to ensure issues are considered during development considerations.

Respondents also highlighted issues for consideration if a merged use class were to be introduced. In terms of possible solutions or mitigating measures to address some of the concerns raised above, suggestions included defining the locations where the merged use class would apply, for example only in town and city centres defined in the LDP. A similar suggestion was that permission for change of use between specified classes could be granted within defined areas via MCAs.

Other suggestions included that:

• At a minimum, it should be made clear that PDR only relate to the use of the premises, and that other associated matters such as alterations to shop frontages and the installation of plant/ventilation machinery still require full planning permission.
• In terms of conservation areas and urban World Heritage Sites and non- designated buildings, the Scottish Government could develop best practice guidance relating to external changes.
• The use of restrictions in conservation areas and World Heritage Sites, and/or the use of prior notification/prior approval, could be considered.
• The role of Town Centre Management Plans should be considered. It was suggested that by bringing property owners, local authorities, businesses and communities round the table, a consensus on change can be developed, reducing the risk of conversions that are unsatisfactory to others who rely on the town centre.
• Some form of permit system could be considered, perhaps through other regulatory regimes, with a requirement for the installation of approved noise mitigation measures or fume extraction equipment. However, this would add another layer of regulation and would have resource implications for local authorities.
• If changing from the other uses without specific planning permission, Class 3 uses could be restricted to opening no later than 8 pm. Some uses in Class 10 and 11, such as disco and gym uses, may also require restrictions on opening hours and size.

As at Question 19, there were also comments about the types of use that should or should not be included in any merged use class. Points raised included that:

• If a merged use class is taken forward, it should initially extend only to Classes 1, 2 and 3.
• Arts, community and cultural uses, along with others that are currently sui generis, should not be included. It was argued their financial value could make them vulnerable to loss if planning controls were relaxed, and that this would be counterproductive to the wider aspiration of supporting town centres. Existing theatres, music venues, nightclubs and other noise-generating uses could be impacted by incoming sensitive uses, such as residential. Equally, they could result in unacceptable impacts on the amenity of existing occupants should they be permitted to locate to new premises without control or assessment.
• Alternatively, that a merged use class of Class 1 and 2 could include foodbanks, art galleries, museums and libraries as these uses can add vitality to town centres.

Question 21 – Are there any other changes to the UCO which you think would help to support Scotland's centres?

Responses to Question 21 by respondent type are set out in Table 18 below.

Table 18

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	14	12	26
% of organisations	54%	46%	100%
Planning authority	7	10	17
Professional or representative body	3	1	4
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	2	0	2
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	2	0	2
Other	0	0	0
Third sector	2	1	3
Active travel	0	0	0
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Individuals	3	4	7
% of individuals	43%	57%	100%
All respondents	17	16	33
% of all respondents	52%	48%	100%

A small majority of respondents – 52% of those answering the question – thought that there are other changes to the UCO that would help to support Scotland's centres. 'Planning authority' and 'individual' respondents were the only groups in which a majority did not think so.

Around 20 respondents made a comment at Question 21.

Points made by the small number of these respondents who did not think other changes would help, and who commented further, included that no changes are required to the current approach, including to PDR, or that the proposed changes to PDR appear to be extensive enough.

General suggestions made by those who did think other changes would help included that a full review of existing UCO is needed. Connected comments included that many modern-day uses do not fit neatly within the use categories and that a planning system that reflects current operations would be more relevant and effective. It was also suggested that further understanding of the views of businesses or would-be investors would help judge whether or not planning control is a barrier.

In terms of changes, rather than the proposed merged use class, there was a call for a 'town centres use class'. It was thought that such a class could sit well alongside work on how to most effectively regulate short term lets. It would also provide an opportunity to look at balancing flexibility for town centre occupants with proactive efforts to improve the sustainability of centres.

Comments and suggestions relating to particular uses or use classes included:

• Merging suitable groups of use class, such as Class 1 and 2, to further streamline the system.
• Potentially a permitted change from Class 4 to Class 2, up to a specified footprint of premises. It was suggested that this could increase the number of public-facing facilities within town centres.
• Allowing for additional flexibility in the ability of Class 1 to go to Class 2 under PDR. Also some sui generis uses, such as tattoo parlours or betting shops, could be covered by the PDR.
• PDR for change of use of upper floor offices or retail storage areas to residential flats. It was suggested that this should only apply to one- or two-bedroom flats and should only be permitted where they are entirely above Class 2 offices, retail uses or an existing residential use.
• Removing certain uses, for example museums, public halls, concert halls, cinemas, bingo halls and discotheques/nightclubs, from Classes 10 and 11. It was suggested that this would help give greater protection to such facilities which are important in contributing to the diversity of centres and meeting the social and cultural needs of local people.
• Considering additional protections for uses such as doctors, dentists and post offices. It was noted that these are critical services for residents and that UCO relaxations could cause problems with the development of 20-minute neighbourhoods.

Provision for a formalised temporary change to allow for short-term uses, such as pop-up shops, art exhibits or foodbanks within units that are unoccupied or awaiting planning permission, was also proposed.

Other suggestions related to possible additional requirements or controls that could be put in place in the event of a change of use. These included:

• Temporary changes of use, for example for a three-month period, could be a way to test alternative uses while minimising impacts on neighbours and public amenity.
• Use of prior notification, rather than unrestricted permitted development, for some change of uses. It was suggested that this could add a suitable level of control whilst making the process of application more certain and faster.

There were also general suggestions relating to town centre regeneration including:

• Focusing on proactive and collaborative policy making and implementation. It was reported that there are many examples where local authorities, communities and businesses have worked together to improve the viability of town centres.
• The use of design coding. It was reported that this practice is becoming more widely used in the planning process in England and can play a key part in shaping vibrant highstreets and in ensuring consistent, high-quality design that puts people and place at the heart of planning.

Masterplan Consent Areas

The consultation paper notes that MCAs can grant planning permission (and other consents) for specified forms of development and have the potential to offer similar flexibilities to the UCO or PDR. However, these would only apply to the particular area or site covered by the MCA scheme and so can be tailored to the specific needs and pressures it faces.

Question 22 – Do you agree that MCAs could be a useful tool to provide more extensive planning freedoms and flexibilities in Scotland's centres?

Responses to Question 22 by respondent type are set out in Table 19 below.

Table 19

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	24	5	29
% of organisations	83%	17%	100%
Planning authority	15	2	17
Professional or representative body	3	1	4
Public body or corporation	1	0	1
Private sector	2	1	3
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Third sector	3	1	4
Active travel	0	0	0
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	3	1	4
Individuals	7	2	9
% of individuals	78%	22%	100%
All respondents	31	7	38
% of all respondents	82%	18%	100%

A substantial majority of respondents – 82% of those answering the question – agreed that MCAs could be a useful tool to provide more extensive planning freedoms and flexibilities in Scotland's centres. There were no groups in which the majority of respondents did not agree.

Around 40 respondents made a comment at Question 22.

Reasons why MCAs could be a useful tool

A small number of respondents who agreed that MCAs could be a useful tool had not agreed with the creation of a merged use class. Further comments from these respondents included that MCAs seem to be a much more appropriate tool to revitalise town centres, including because it allows for a more focused approach to increasing flexibility whilst avoiding unwanted consequences. However, it was also noted that it will be important for any approach to remain relevant and not result in harmful legacies or precedent setting. Other comments were that:

• Care would have to be taken to ensure the approach is transparent, accountable and that consultation is inclusive.
• While MCAs are a possible option, there are also alternatives, with one 'planning authority' respondent reporting that their existing plan-led system to improve existing commercial centres is proving successful.

Those who had agreed with the introduction of a merged use class and also that MCAs could be useful tools often raised similar issues; they were most likely to comment that MCAs would bring flexibility, including because the approach could be targeted at areas where it would be effective, with MCAs offering the opportunity for a nuanced, place-specific approach to determining what is appropriate development in an area. A specific point was that MCAs could be a better mechanism to help ensure any new uses are not increasing flood risk.

It was also suggested that the MCA would provide an important framework in which changes to UCO would sit, and could avoid the blunt effect of implementing change nationally and having unintended consequences on areas where such changes are not required. However, it was also noted that with less control potentially comes less regulation and that setting standards would be fundamental to any MCA.

Reservations or concerns about the usefulness of MCAs

Respondents also raised reservations, including that MCAs are new and still untested and that it is difficult to judge whether they would be of use in this context.

Those who did not agree that MCAs could be a useful tool included some who had agreed with the introduction of a merged use class (at Question 19). Their further comments included that the current proposal seems at odds with the intention behind MCAs;^[9] it was reported that the intention is that planning issues have been worked through in advance, applying all relevant protections, not that planning protections are removed. In the context of the removal of protections it was noted that MCAs can include assets that have local and national protection, including listed buildings, conservation areas, and green belt areas.

Other concerns also focused on the loss of useful controls and the potential to undermine the quality and vitality of centres, amenity of places, and the delivery of the 20-minute neighbourhood concept and focus on town centre living included in the draft NPF4.

There was also a concern that the application of MCAs could differ across Scotland, with unpredictable timescales to prepare, consult upon and implement MCAs in different planning authority areas introducing more uncertainty into the process than the proposed change to the UCO.

Resource implications

Finally, some of those supporting or not supporting the use of MCAs pointed to their resource implications for Planning Authorities. Further comments included that they could result in a loss of income to the planning authority at the same time leading to increased resourcing requirements to enact and monitor individual schemes. It was suggested that resourcing challenges would need to be addressed before MCAs can become an effective tool. There was also a call for Scottish Government guidance on the adoption of MCAs, with capacity and resourcing considered as part of that guidance.

PDR for provision of workspace

The consultation paper explains that the Scottish Government is considering the case for providing greater flexibility to change the use of existing buildings to offices/workspaces. Although not minded to include Class 4 in a merged use class, an alternative approach could be to support provision of workspaces through a new PDR granting planning permission for a change of use to Class 4 (but not the other way round).

Question 23 – Do you think that a PDR providing for a change of use to Class 4 (business) would help to support the regeneration, resilience and recovery of centres – as well as the establishment of 20-minute neighbourhoods?

Responses to Question 23 by respondent type are set out in Table 20 below.

Table 20

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	18	7	25
% of organisations	72%	28%	100%
Planning authority	8	6	14
Professional or representative body	4	1	5
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	3	0	3
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	3	0	3
Third sector	3	0	3
Active travel	1	0	1
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	0	2
Individuals	9	0	9
% of individuals	100%	0%	100%
All respondents	27	7	34
% of all respondents	79%	21%	100%

A majority of respondents – 79% of those answering the question – thought that a PDR providing for a change of use to Class 4 (business) would help to support the regeneration, resilience and recovery of centres – as well as the establishment of 20-minute neighbourhoods. However, 'planning authority' respondents were divided on this issue, with only a small majority thinking it would help.

Around 40 respondents commented at Question 23.

Reasons for supporting a PDR providing for a change of use to Class 4

As in relation to other changes to PDR, some respondents commented that providing for a change of use to Class 4 would offer flexibility, including to reflect changing work patterns and the greater demand for more flexible office space. It was noted that Covid-19 has led to changing needs and that the built environment will need to adapt in order to support post-pandemic recovery and improve the social, economic and environmental health of Scotland's centres. Specifically, it was suggested that it could support the quicker delivery and occupation of a range of new workspace formats in units which may no longer be attractive from a retail point of view, as well as having the potential to use upper floors of larger shop units which become surplus to requirements.

In terms of other benefits that this PDR could bring to town or city centres, there was reference to:

• Generating additional footfall within town centres.
• Supporting the development of 20-minute neighbourhoods and being in line with the mixed use policy set out in documents such as 'Designing Streets' and 'Manual for Streets'.

It was also noted that smaller scale offices closer to workers' places of residence would also serve to encourage a move to sustainable travel modes such as walking and cycling, and such uses often do not raise the same kind of amenity or vehicle movement concerns as larger offices.

Some of those who were supportive of the PDR being introduced did identify possible risks associated with the approach. These often reflected the concerns of those who did not support the PDR and included that the vitality of town centres could be undermined in some locations if there were large scale changes from Classes 1, 2 and 3 to Class 4. In particular, it was noted that the loss of shops and cafes may be of concern in some traditional high streets.

It was also noted that there is an issue of proportionality and that, if many shops were changed into offices the impact, whether positive or otherwise, would be greater. The associated point was that a blanket policy offers this potential but does not afford statutory authorities or the community any influence.

Reasons for not supporting a PDR providing for a change of use to Class 4

While those supporting a PDR for change of use to Class 4 tended to think that, on balance, it would benefit town centres, others thought it would not. Concerns included that this PDR would result in loss of the range and diversity of facilities within a centre, with key facilities such as convenience stores, cafes or banks being replaced with office use. There were also concerns, as raised at previous questions, that if Class 4 offices were given freedom to move into town centres, the spaces freed up in out-of-centre office parks could then be occupied by other businesses, including retail businesses, moving out of town and city centres.

It was noted that the loss of the types of uses that attract visitors to town centres would have a harmful impact on vitality and vibrancy; this concern was raised in particular in relation to smaller neighbourhood centres and smaller town centres and villages. It was also suggested that, since 20-minute neighbourhoods are fundamentally to provide locally accessible services, the PDR could undermine their viability.

Connected to the loss of Class 1, 2 and 3 uses was the loss of active shopfronts; it was noted that the defining feature of a Class 4 office, and what distinguishes it from a Class 2 office use, is the lack of a commercial frontage. One 'planning authority' respondent explained that, to maintain high footfall uses that are open to passing trade and visiting members of the public, the prime retail frontages in their towns are limited to use Classes 1, 2 and 3. They reported that this approach has been implemented successfully for many years, has not led to vacancy of properties, and has contributed to a healthy mix of these uses.

Another 'planning authority' respondent reported that their policies look to maintain 'active frontages' on established shopping streets; they described active frontages as easy to achieve with Classes 1, 2 and 3, but perhaps less so with Class 4.

Overall, the concern was that there is a fine balance of uses in a healthy and vibrant town centre, and that the loss of any of Class 1, 2 or 3 uses to Class 4 (or other uses) could quickly have a negative impact. It was felt that the negatives stemming from the loss of active frontages would outweigh any benefits resulting from increased employment in the centre.

The potential impact on sites allocated for employment within the LDP was also highlighted. The concern was that developers are already seeking non-employment uses for some of these sites based on lack of demand, and that they would be likely to argue there is even less demand if there was PDR for offices on sites not allocated for this purpose.

In addition to concerns about the vibrancy of town centres were those about the impact of possible noise and emissions issues if Class 4 businesses were to be located in town centres. It was suggested that any problems would require reactive control from Environmental Health, raising similar concerns to those raised in regard to a merged use class.

Issues to be considered

Both those supporting or not supporting the PDR suggested issues to be considered, or measures that might be required, should the PDR be taken forward. General comments included that a plan-led approach to new developments should be retained, and that there should also be some limitations or controls for existing buildings.

Specific comments or suggestions included:

• Supporting infrastructure for active travel would need to be considered and could be encouraged by the creation of Town Centre Management Plans.
• Some Class 4 uses can generate large numbers of vehicle movements and require significant parking space provision. Safeguards should be considered to protect against situations where large numbers of vehicle movements are directed through town centres, possibly at the expense of pedestrian safety and movement permeability.
• As Class 4 relates to business use which can be carried on without detriment to the amenity of an area, it would be important to define clearly what is meant by 'without detriment'.
• A degree of screening, of the kind currently performed by the planning assessment, would be required with some of the Class 4 categories of use. Clarification is required around the controls available in situations where a Class 4 business does create problems with emissions.
• Care must be taken in the structure and process of any changes taken forward to avoid harm to the characteristic uses and qualities of conservation areas and World Heritage Sites.

Other comments concerned the relationship between Class 4 and other uses, and included that:

• The PDR should apply to change to, but not from, Class 4.
• In contrast, that it could include a change of use from Class 4 to Class 2, up to a specified floorspace. It was suggested this could introduce more visitors to a town centre area, which could assist other businesses.
• The ability to change from a Class 4 use to a Class 6 use (for areas of no greater than 235 square metres) would need to be removed to close a potential loophole for development that could otherwise be incompatible with town centres.

Question 24 – If a PDR of this nature were taken forward, what existing uses should it apply to?

Around 35 respondents commented at Question 24, although a small number only to restate that they did not support the changes proposed. However, many of those who commented agreed with the consultation paper's reference to a PDR to change from uses in Class 1, 2 and 3 to a Class 4 use. Their further comments or suggestions included that:

• The loss of shops under this PDR may be problematic in some areas, including through a loss of activity at street level. There was a suggestion that only Class 1 and 2 uses would most likely be most appropriate for change of use.
• A PDR would need to ensure that 'bad neighbour' uses were not included. Business uses should be compatible with existing neighbour and public amenity.
• It should also be geographically defined so that it benefits only town centres designated in LDPs, as opposed to any existing Class 1, 2 or 3 premises.

A small number of alternative suggestions to Classes 1-3 were made. These included that:

• There should be no specific restrictions, as one footfall generating use would just be replaced with another.
• Any PDR should apply to the proposed 'general town centre use' class.
• Any PDR should not include Class 1.
• Any PDR should not include Class 5.
• Any PDR should not apply to pubs, or to arts, community and cultural uses.

Question 25 – Would 300 square metres be an appropriate maximum floorspace limit?

Responses to Question 25 by respondent type are set out in Table 21 below.

Table 21

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	14	4	18
% of organisations	78%	22%	100%
Planning authority	10	2	12
Professional or representative body	2	0	2
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	2	0	2
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	2	0	2
Third sector	0	2	2
Active travel	0	0	0
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	0	2	2
Individuals	7	1	8
% of individuals	88%	12%	100%
All respondents	21	5	26
% of all respondents	81%	19%	100%

A substantial majority of respondents – 81% of those answering the question – thought that a 300 square metres would be an appropriate maximum floorspace limit. All but two 'planning authority', two 'third sector - other' and one 'individual' respondent agreed with the proposed limit.

Around 25 respondents made a comment at Question 25, although some only to note that they did not agree with the proposed PDR.

Respondents who supported a 300 square metres maximum sometimes noted that a limit would be required, including because larger scale developments could result in disruption to the character of an area. Other comments included that a limit would:

• Prevent larger shops or other facilities being lost.
• Protect dedicated office areas where large floor spaces are provided, and address some planning authority concerns about changes to PDR undermining established office locations.

Although the 300 square metre limit was described as reasonable or useful, there was a query as to why this has been chosen. It was noted that, for comparison, the average three-bedroom house is around 120 square metres, if the conversion of residential properties is being considered. It was also noted that there is already a maximum floor area of 235 square metres for change from Class 5 to Class 4. It was suggested that a consistent approach would be helpful, and that a key consideration should be what the market would support; the associated query was whether the creation of 300 square metres of business premises would be a worthwhile investment and would create premises that would be attractive to users?

It was also suggested that the limit may be too large, or too large in many town or village centres, or that it will need to be (re)considered where smaller units are the norm if wholescale change is to be avoided. There was a view that it is very difficult to be prescriptive due to the variety of settlement types, and that a 300 square metre limit could have a significant impact on small towns or villages, with the existing few units becoming non-retail.

In terms of alternatives, or the potential for a degree of flexibility, suggestions included that, if the intention is to avoid significant office floorspace emerging in smaller centres, a Cumulative Impact Assessment may be required. Alternative limits or specific restrictions suggested included that:

• 250 square metres may be more appropriate to start with to ensure larger shops are not lost from high streets.
• There should be controls to ensure that larger units, such as retail parks, cannot be sub-divided into multiple units each with their own 300 square metre provision.
• Rather than applying a blanket maximum floorspace limit, a prior approval process should apply for proposals above a certain floorspace threshold.

Question 26 – What (if any) additional conditions or limitations should such a PDR be subject to?

Around 30 respondents made a comment at Question 26, with a number returning to issues they had raised previously. These included that there are no conditions or limitations that would make the PDR changes proposed acceptable within centres, or that any PDR should apply only to designated town centres as set out in LDPs. There was again a call for Scottish Government best practice guidance relating to any changes to PDR.

Other comments focused on the recurring issue of the impact on neighbours and public amenity, with suggestions including that:

• In the event of a change to Class 3 use, appropriate ventilation to minimise odour to neighbouring residential properties should be installed.
• A minimum storage area for refuse bins must be available and must not restrict pedestrian movement or car parking.
• The implications for parking should be considered, both in and out of centres. In relation to centres, the implications of additional employees parking for long periods, as opposed to passing traffic utilising retail and commercial premises in the area, was highlighted.

The most-frequently made point, reflecting concerns raised by some respondents at Question 23, was that consideration should be given to preventing the loss of shop frontages in order to protect the appearance of the street. Suggestions included that:

• There might need to be consideration of an exemption for consumer facing businesses on the ground floor to maintain the character of a town centre. On a similar theme, any PDR should only be introduced for upper floors of buildings.
• Any physical changes in a shop or unit frontage should still require planning permission in order to retain some control over the appearance of streets.
• Premises changing to Class 4 (business) should be required to maintain an active frontage.

As at previous questions, other comments also addressed which uses and/or use classes should be covered by any changes to PDR. Suggestions included that:

• Careful consideration should be given to whether the PDR should apply to conservation areas and World Heritage Sites. The use of restrictions and/or the use of prior notification/prior approval was also suggested and the importance of aligning any policy changes to the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland was highlighted.
• Changes of use from Class 1 to Class 4 should not be included. In relation to Class 1, it was suggested that protecting shops in the main town centre thoroughfares is critical but would be impossible if shops were merged with other use classes.

Sometimes connected to issues of amenity, there were also comments relating to prior notification or certification. These included that there should be:

• Prior notification for certain uses with associated amenity issues.
• Prior approval process for proposals above a certain floorspace threshold
• A version of the current Section 50 certificate that is used for licencing etc. It was suggested that this would ensure that local authorities are aware of changes to the premises, including in relation to rates to be levied.
• Proof of a need and use for the PDR in question.

PDR for moveable outdoor furniture

The consultation paper notes that the requirement for greater physical distancing during the pandemic saw many cafés, restaurants and other businesses make use of outside areas, in some instances placing moveable furniture on pavements. The Scottish Government issued guidance which encouraged planning authorities to relax planning control and take a pragmatic approach to enforcement action, but this guidance is expected to be withdrawn at the end of September 2022.

It is proposed a new PDR should be introduced to permit the placing of moveable furniture on a public road adjacent to food and drink premises (Class 3). Placing furniture on a road (the definition of which includes the pavement) would continue to require consent under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, even if planning permission were granted through a PDR.

Question 27 – Do you agree with the proposed introduction of a PDR for moveable furniture placed on the road outside of (Class 3) food and drink premises?

Responses to Question 27 by respondent type are set out in Table 22 below.

Table 22

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	27	11	38
% of organisations	71%	29%	100%
Planning authority	9	6	15
Professional or representative body	2	1	3
Public body or corporation	0	1	1
Private sector	10	0	10
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	3	0	3
Other	7	0	7
Third sector	6	3	9
Active travel	3	0	3
Community Council	0	1	1
Other	3	2	5
Individuals	7	7	14
% of individuals	50%	50%	100%
All respondents	34	18	52
% of all respondents	65%	35%	100%

A majority – 65% of those who answered the question – agreed with the proposed introduction of a PDR for moveable furniture placed on the road outside of (Class 3) food and drink premises. Organisations were more likely to agree than 'individual' respondents, at 71% and 50% respectively. While all 'private sector' respondents who answered the question agreed with introduction of the proposed PDR, 'planning authority' and 'third sector' respondents were more divided.

Around 55 respondents made an additional comment at Question 27.

Reasons PDR for moveable furniture should be introduced

Reasons given in favour of a PDR for mobile furniture included that it would:

• Increase the vibrancy of the local area. Improvements to health and wellbeing brought about by measures such as road closures and outdoor dining were also noted and it was suggested the pandemic has brought about a cultural shift with respect to outdoor hospitality in many towns and cities, with many people now preferring to sit outside.
• Provide support and flexibility to aid the post-pandemic recovery of businesses in the hospitality sector allowing operators to welcome more guests at peak times.
• Be a sensible approach that avoids duplication in the consenting processes for planning, roads and licensing regimes.
• Remove one of several regulatory processes and so reduce the administrative burden on operators. Removal of fees for use of outside seating was also requested.

Some respondents agreed in principle with a PDR for moveable furniture but suggested that controls would be required, for example that access and safety for people walking, wheeling and cycling must not be compromised. Suggested conditions or limitations on a PDR for mobile furniture are covered at Question 28.

Other respondents argued that the provision should be extended beyond that being considered at present and should apply to bars and public houses. Potential uses that a PDR should apply to other than Class 3 food and drink premises are covered at Question 29.

Reasons a PDR for moveable furniture should not be introduced

Some respondents argued against a PDR for mobile furniture, taking a view that this should remain under planning control. It was suggested that the proposed PDR could be a significant change in some areas and that the proposed change should be the subject of further consultation. One 'planning authority' respondent reported that experience of taking a relaxed approach to control and enforcement of the use of roads and footways during the pandemic has confirmed their view that planning control is required in this area. They also noted the number of elements of design and layout that are negotiated as part of a planning application, arguing that it would not be practical to address such measures within the terms of a PDR.

Respondents also argued that mobile furniture permitted by the proposed PDR will cause obstruction. Concerns were raised with respect to access for older people, people with impaired mobility or vision, and for pedestrians and wheelers – with prams and buggies, wheelchairs and mobility scooters all referenced. Reducing both obstacles on pavements and street clutter was highlighted as important for those who rely on sighted assistance, canes, and guide dogs. It was reported that temporary permissions during the pandemic did create barriers for disabled people, often resulting in disabled people staying away from areas that were too difficult for them to navigate. Reduced safety standards, loss of confidence for disabled people and reduced inclusivity were all cited as reasons the PDR should not be introduced. Concerns were also expressed that, if multiple adjacent businesses made use of PDR, whole sections of footway could be lost and that businesses may exploit the increased flexibility to the detriment of public amenity.

Specific issues were raised in relation to noise, including because a seating area may not always be directly in front of the business premises. A 'third sector – Community council' respondent was among those who highlighted experiences of residents of the village of Luss on Loch Lomond where, it was reported, temporary approval for use of outside space has contributed to noise and nuisance for neighbouring properties. Respondents argued both that the temporary arrangements put in place during the pandemic should not be made permanent, and that a blanket PDR would be inappropriate for small towns and villages and for conservation areas.

Issues relating to the appearance and visual impact of mobile furniture were also raised in the context of conservation areas and World Heritage Sites and it was argued PDR in designated areas would be in contravention of legislation and policy protecting the historic environment. It was also noted that the updated Sustainability Appraisal (published with the consultation paper) identifies potential for negative effects on the setting of both designated and undesignated cultural and historic assets if furniture is placed insensitively. An alternative perspective was that a PDR applying only to moveable furniture could apply both in conservation areas and within the curtilage of listed buildings as there would be no permanent impact on their character and appearance.

Clarity on the nature of the proposals

A number of 'planning authority' respondents commented on whether the placement of movable furniture constitutes 'development' under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (the 1997 Act), with one suggesting that it is the change of use of the land to 'outdoor seating area' that would require planning permission. It was suggested both that a PDR would need to ensure that such a change of use is covered, but also that a requirement for planning permission for any structures such as canopies or decking that would constitute development should be retained.

It was also thought there should be clarity that the proposed PDR alone would not be sufficient to allow moveable furniture to be placed on a roadway.

Adequacy of control under other legislation

'Planning authority' respondents in particular commented on the extent to which impacts of moveable furniture could be controlled via other legislation. Points raised included that:

• It could be appropriate to deal with moveable furniture under roads, licensing and/or environmental health legislation.
• The apparent duplication in planning, licensing and roads legislation actually deals with specific issues.
• PDR for moveable furniture would only be appropriate where licensing conditions apply and can be used to control impacts.

It was also noted that control via regimes other than planning would be reactive rather than proactive, potentially creating uncertainty for business operators.

Roads Scotland Act 1984

Reflecting the consultation paper, respondents observed that Section 59 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 requires that a permit is obtained from the Roads Authority before placing furniture a roadway, and it was argued that this requirement could mitigate any potential impacts on access. It was also observed that permits under Section 59 would regulate the hours of operation of outdoor areas, as would liquor licences.

A less positive view was that the Roads (Scotland) Act consenting process does not consider wider amenity or residential amenity in the way the planning process would. It was also argued that planning department staff may have greater awareness of public realm design principles than those in a highways department, and that appropriate design guidance and public sector design skills are needed to mitigate potential problems.

Licensing and Environmental Health

There was a suggestion that both hours of operation and any maintenance requirements could be controlled via the licensing process but also concern that, if licensing controls were not adequate to prevent disturbance to neighbours, Environmental Health officers would need to use Statutory Nuisance provisions to control noise. There were views both that noise could, or could potentially, be controlled by Environmental Health legislation, and that limited noise mitigation measures could be implemented. One 'planning authority' respondent thought it unclear whether noise arising from the use of the public pavement could be actioned as a Statutory Nuisance, while another reported the view of colleagues in Environmental Health that there is no reason to change planning policy with respect to outdoor seating areas in town centres since potential noise impacts from such areas have not changed.

Question 28 – Are there any conditions or limitations that you think such a PDR should be subject to?

Responses to Question 28 by respondent type are set out in Table 28 below.

Table 23

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	25	4	29
% of organisations	86%	14%	100%
Planning authority	13	2	15
Professional or representative body	3	0	3
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	3	2	5
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	0	1	1
Other	3	1	4
Third sector	6	0	6
Active travel	2	0	2
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	4	0	4
Individuals	8	2	10
% of individuals	80%	20%	100%
All respondents	33	6	39
% of all respondents	85%	15%	100%

A large majority – 85% of those who answered the question – thought that there should be conditions or limitations on a PDR for moveable furniture.

Around 40 respondents made an additional comment at Question 28.

Among respondents who disagreed, two 'planning authority' respondents did so on the grounds that such a PDR should not be introduced at all. Otherwise, very much a minority view was that individual licensees are best placed to make decisions in respect of outdoor seating, working together with local communities, residents and the local authority. Other respondents who commented suggested conditions of some kind.

Limiting locations

Suggestions included that the PDR might not be acceptable in all locations, or that planning consent might be required within a certain distance of a sensitive receptor, although that this would be difficult to quantify. A 'third sector - other' respondent highlighted conservation areas and World Heritage Sites as locations where PDR should not be available, while a 'public body or corporation' respondent noted that the Sustainability Appraisal suggests mitigation involving prior notification/prior approval in conservation areas. They proposed that the same principle could be extended to include World Heritage Sites and the setting of scheduled monuments and listed buildings.

Limiting conditions

As at Question 27, respondents often emphasised the need to ensure inclusive access is maintained. It was suggested an assessment of pedestrian and traffic safety impacts should be required or that an Equality Impact Assessment should be carried out. Requirements for local authorities to comply with both the substantive duties of the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty were highlighted.

A number of respondents noted that the width of the footway should be specified, with a suggestion that a 2 metre minimum width should be retained and that this should be wider in areas of high footfall. It was argued that, if this cannot be achieved, planning permission should be required. UK Government guidance Inclusive Mobility A Guide to Best Practice on Access to Pedestrian and Transport Infrastructure was reported to specify a width of 2 metres as the minimum needed to allow two wheelchair/mobility scooter users to pass. Regulation of positioning of furniture relative to kerbs, pavements and ramps was also recommended.

Other conditions that respondents thought should be applied to the proposed PDR included:

• Hours of operation. It was suggested that there could be a significant impact on residential amenity and that opening hours could be linked to distance from residential property, although also that residents in a town centre cannot expect the quiet of residential areas. One 'planning authority' respondent suggested that hours should be limited to 9am – 9pm with the area to be vacated by 9pm. Although comments often applied to noise, consideration of the potential impact of light pollution through the introduction of outdoor lighting was also suggested.
• Size and location of seating area. It was argued that there should be a restriction on the size of an area and/or the number of tables, and that any outside space should not increase beyond the capacity of the internal premises since sanitary facilities will still be required. Restriction to the section of road immediately outside the premises was suggested, as was a requirement that the outdoor seating area should be within 10 metres of the principal elevation of the premises. It was also suggested that one business should not be permitted to unfairly take outside space from competitors.
• Demarcation of seating area. Clear demarcation of the seating area was highlighted as important for visually impaired people. A specific proposal was that highly visible, moveable barriers (such as decorative planters) should be used to contain moveable furniture when in use.
• Design. It was argued that design codes should ensure not only that visual impact is considered (especially in conservation areas) but also that furniture is inclusive, well designed and sustainable.
• Furniture must be genuinely moveable. It was argued that furniture that is fixed in place should require planning permission.
• Furniture storage. Furniture should be removed and stored safely and securely when not in use.
• Cumulative development. The potential impact on amenity of cumulative development was noted, both where outdoor space is constrained and where there are residential neighbours.

Other suggested conditions included that there should be restrictions or bans in relation to: tents, marquees or other similar installations; amplified music; smoking; advertising; use of external heaters; and storage of commercial waste bins.

Question 29 – Are there any uses other than (Class 3) food and drink premises which you consider such a PDR should apply to?

Responses to Question 29 by respondent type are set out in Table 24 below.

Table 24

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	9	16	25
% of organisations	36%	64%	100%
Planning authority	2	11	13
Professional or representative body	0	4	4
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	5	0	5
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	3	0	3
Other	2	0	2
Third sector	2	1	3
Active travel	0	0	0
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Individuals	3	8	11
% of individuals	27%	73%	100%
All respondents	12	24	36
% of all respondents	33%	67%	100%

A majority of respondents – 67% of those who answered the question – did not think that there are any uses other than (Class 3) food and drink premises that a PDR for moveable furniture should apply to. All 'professional or representative body' respondents and majority of 'planning authority' respondents did not think the proposed PDR should apply to other uses, while all 'private sector' respondents thought it should.

Around 25 respondents made an additional comment at Question 29.

Pubs and bars

The most frequent suggestion was that the PDR should apply to public houses, to pubs and bars (sui generis use) or to all licensed premises. 'Private sector – hospitality' respondents were among those who argued the PDR should apply to pubs and bars since:

• Such businesses need ongoing help to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic and many have invested in development of innovative outdoor spaces.
• In practice, there may be little difference between Class 3 food and drink businesses and sui generis licensed premises.
• Excluding pubs and bars would give an unfair advantage to businesses that may be competing for the same customers.

It was also argued that increased capacity could improve viability of the community pubs and social clubs that play an important social role.

Some 'planning authority' respondents noted that public houses may offer similar food and drink availability to Class 3 uses, that public houses may seek to be included in the PDR, or that there is a case for their inclusion. However, they sometimes took a view that a planning application should be required in this case. It was argued that the nature of a public house could result in additional amenity implications over Class 3 use with later operating hours, noise and disruption, and risk of anti-social behaviour all referenced. If public houses were to be included in the PDR it was suggested there would need to be strict controls over hours of operation and the size of the size of the area permitted.

Other suggestions

Respondents also suggested a number of other potential uses for the proposed PDR although the 'planning authority' respondents who did so, sometimes also highlighted potential concerns or reasons these should not be pursued. Two general points were that:

• Other potential changes of use outside Class 3 are likely to be of a temporary nature and would require consents not covered within PDR.
• The purpose of the road is to provide a public right of passage and further uses should require a planning application.

Class 1

Potential uses: Retail premises including local food shops, sandwich/ice cream shops, market stalls/pop up shops, or charity shops. For example, it was suggested that limited displays outside shop fronts could bring vitality to town centres.

Concerns: Design parameters should be considered to minimise visual impacts.

Class 7

Potential uses: Hotels and hostels, which may provide food and drink similar to Class 3 uses.

Concerns: Impact on residential amenity would need to be assessed.

Class 10 and 11

Potential uses: Premises such as museums or concert halls, which sell food and drink.

Concerns: Again, impact on surrounding amenity.

Sui generis uses

Potential uses: Hot food takeaways.

Concerns: Hours of operation would need to be restricted. Other reservations were similar to those for public houses.

Alternative approaches

Rather than extending PDR, it was suggested that, as in England, a streamlined system for pavement licences for outdoor seating could be considered.

Another suggestion was that, for pedestrianised urban centres, a 'one stop shop' approach could allow planning permission for a whole area to be obtained, with details of each seating areas/outdoor furniture defined in advance. It was proposed that one application could cover licensing, Section 59 roads occupation and planning permission.

Some 'private sector – hospitality' respondents called on the Scottish Government to go beyond consideration of moveable furniture and to replicate changes to PDR in England that allow pubs, restaurants and cafes to erect moveable, non-permanent structures (such as marquees) without the need to apply for planning permission.

Question 30 – Do you agree that important matters such as safety and inclusive access could continue be controlled through other regimes that would continue to apply?

Responses to Question 30 by respondent type are set out in Table 25 below.

Table 25

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	27	6	33
% of organisations	82%	18%	100%
Planning authority	11	5	16
Professional or representative body	4	0	4
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	7	0	7
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	2	0	2
Other	5	0	5
Third sector	5	1	6
Active travel	3	0	3
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Individuals	7	4	11
% of individuals	64%	36%	100%
All respondents	34	10	44
% of all respondents	77%	23%	100%

A majority – 77% of those who answered the question – thought that matters such as safety and inclusive access could continue be controlled through other regimes that would continue to apply. Most of those respondents who disagreed at Question 30, including several 'planning authority' respondents, had also disagreed at Question 27.

Around 40 respondents made a comment at Question 30.

Points raised often echoed issues covered at Question 27, with several respondents highlighting the importance of safety and inclusive access and some 'third sector - active travel' respondents emphasising that moveable furniture should not take space away from walking, wheeling and cycling.

Whether control of safety and inclusive access is possible

Some respondents argued that safety and inclusive access are likely to be compromised without appropriate planning controls, or that it is not clear how other regimes can control these matters. A 'third sector – other' respondent reported their own experience that outdoor eating structures cause a range of issues, including with respect to safety and inclusive access.

However, the majority view was that controlling safety and access via other regimes is possible. While a small number of respondents pointed to licensing arrangements and/or Environmental Health regulation, many more referenced the Roads Authority or the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 as providing such control. It was also suggested that a streamlined system for pavement licences could be developed to ensure that clear access routes on the highway are maintained.

Other implications

Although agreeing that control by other regimes would be possible, some respondents noted that this would not involve an assessment of wider impacts on amenity (including visual amenity) or character, and that the current process provides scope for Planners to consider unforeseen issues. It was also thought that the proposed PDR would require:

• Additional training for staff in other departments, who may lack a Planner's experience in public realm design.
• A significant change to many Roads Authorities' procedures.

Conditions to be met

Some respondents proposed additional conditions to ensure safety and inclusive access, including that a safety audit should be carried out and should demonstrate both that the Roads Authority has been consulted, and that their views have been taken into account. In the event of an objection from the Roads Authority it was argued the PDR should not apply. Other suggested conditions included:

• A requirement for inclusive access to be set out in the PDR wording or, specifically, a requirement for a 2 metre wide footway to be kept clear at all times.
• Where possible, placement of moveable furniture on the carriageway, parallel to the kerb and in line with other street furniture. As well as maintaining pavement widths it was suggested this could reduce potential trip hazards arising from trailing cables and other equipment.

PDR for provision of residential accommodation

The consultation paper notes that the draft NPF4 encourages and supports town centre living, making clear that proposals for new residential development in city/town centres should be supported. However, it also notes that there have been concerns about the quality of properties developed under PDR, particularly where offices are converted to residential accommodation, and that developer contributions cannot generally be sought where development is authorised under PDR.

The Scottish Government is not minded to introduce new PDR providing for the conversion of shops, offices and other 'town centre' uses to residential units, taking the view is that development should be plan-led, with proposals assessed through the planning application process.

Question 31 – Do you agree that new residential development in Scotland's centres should be plan-led rather than consented through new PDR?

Responses to Question 31 by respondent type are set out in Table 26 below.

Table 26

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	32	2	34
% of organisations	94%	6%	100%
Planning authority	18	0	18
Professional or representative body	5	1	6
Public body or corporation	2	0	2
Private sector	0	1	1
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	0	1	1
Third sector	7	0	7
Active travel	3	0	3
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	4	0	4
Individuals	10	2	12
% of individuals	83%	17%	100%
All respondents	42	4	46
% of all respondents	91%	9%	100%

A substantial majority of respondents – 91% of those answering the question – agreed that new residential development in Scotland's centres should be plan-led rather than consented through new PDR. Only one 'professional or representative body', one 'private sector - other' and two 'individual' respondents did not agree.

Around 40 respondents made a comment at Question 31.

A number of those who supported a plan-led approach simply noted that they agreed with the explanation set out in the consultation paper. Further comments included that planning control is essential, with a plan-led approach allowing development to be located in the best areas, supporting the creation of 20-minute neighbourhoods, and allowing potential use conflicts to be addressed at an early stage. In relation to possible conflict, it was reported that in England, where such PDR rights already exist, there have been conflicts between incoming residents and existing noise-generating venues. Also with reference to the experience in England, there was reference to poor quality living environments and sub-standard housing.

Other advantages that respondents connected to the plan-led approach included that it:

• Allows for a local response, including by creating consultation opportunities.
• Allows for the impact on infrastructure and local public services, including schools and medical facilities, to be taken into account. It also allows for the consideration of changes in streets.
• Can help ensure equitable and flexible access to town centre living irrespective of an individual's age or mobility/ability and transport requirements.
• Can help with managing environmental impacts, including allowing for the balanced consideration of flood risk issues.
• Allows for issues that will directly affect those living in the properties – such as the provision of daylight, communal bin storage and provision of outside space – to be taken into account.

As at earlier questions, there were also references to the impact on the vitality and viability of town centres, including by supporting high footfall uses. An associated point was that residential accommodation will always be a more lucrative option for owners and introducing PDR for residential development in town centres would lead to a significant risk of altering the nature of town centres and encouraging out of town retail developments.

Issues raised by those who did not agree that new residential development should be plan-led, and who supported PDR, included that lessons have been learned from the experience in England. They reported that minimum space standards and tighter building control regulations are now required, and that a better regulated PDR would be an option for Scotland. It was suggested that a PDR could help promote diversity, reduce vacancy rates and would reflect the changing retail landscape in the post-pandemic world. In terms of how a PDR could work there was reference to space standards and housing quality criteria being satisfied.

Question 32 – Are there any other PDR changes which you think could support the regeneration, resilience and recovery of centres? Please explain your answer.

Responses to Question 32 by respondent type are set out in Table 27 below.

Table 27

Respondent type	Yes	No	Total
Organisations	18	10	28
% of organisations	64%	36%	100%
Planning authority	9	7	16
Professional or representative body	4	1	5
Public body or corporation	0	0	0
Private sector	1	1	2
Energy and transport	0	0	0
Hospitality	0	0	0
Other	1	1	2
Third sector	4	1	5
Active travel	2	0	2
Community Council	0	0	0
Other	2	1	3
Individuals	1	7	8
% of individuals	12%	88%	100%
All respondents	19	17	36
% of all respondents	53%	47%	100%

A small majority of respondents who answered the question – 53 % – thought there are other PDR changes that could support the regeneration, resilience and recovery of centres. Organisations were much more likely to identify other potential changes than 'individual' respondents at 64% and 13% respectively, with the majority of 'planning authority' respondents identifying potential for other changes

Around 25 respondents commented at Question 32, with the majority suggesting other possible PDR changes, although there was also a view that planning is best left to regional decision makers who understand the challenges in their communities.

Temporary use

The most frequent suggestion was that consideration should be given to allowing temporary use of buildings, and that this could be for 28 days or for up to 3 months. Respondents suggested that a PDR might apply to buildings and their curtilage, up to a limited floor area. Some respondents specified that their proposal would apply to vacant buildings. Among potential benefits identified were: reducing vacancies; flexibility – for example to adapt to changing circumstances; promoting entrepreneurship and allowing businesses/owners to test different options before applying for planning permission; permitting pop-up shops or 'good neighbour' town centre uses; and providing support for events.

A specific suggestion for temporary changes was between Classes 1, 2, and from a 1 or 2 to a Class 4.

A change to Class 15 PDR which allows the temporary use of land and the erection of moveable structures for up to 28 days a year was also suggested. For example. it was argued extending the duration to 45/60 days a year could remove the need for a number of planning applications associated with the Edinburgh Festivals.

Other suggestions

Respondents also proposed a number of other circumstances where PDR might provide support for centres, including by facilitating access to secure cycle storage and cycle parking and, more generally, by supporting the sustainable travel hierarchy.

Suggestions with respect to commercial uses included:

• Alterations to shopfronts (outside of conservation areas and excluding listed buildings) to remove a barrier for businesses to establish.
• Part change of use allowing Class 1 premises to increase hot food, so restaurants can increase takeaway sales.
• Some sui generis uses where there may be scope for interchangeable use. The example given was change from public house to night club (or vice versa), where regulation through licensing controls might be appropriate.
• Opening use of long-vacant buildings to Class 1, 2, 3, or 10 use. This could be dependent on a building being vacant for three years or more and on any impact on residential amenity.

In terms of potential residential use in centres, there was a general suggestion of using PDR to manage town centres for a mix of uses, including residential amenity. Specific suggestions included:

• With limitations, upper floor conversion from office or retail storage use to residential flats.
• Allowing premises where the prior or original use was as a residential property to revert back to that use, with restricted application to a single dwellinghouse, but not for the formation of multiple flats.

Finally, there was a request to close what was seen as a loophole in the current planning system that allows pubs to be demolished without planning permission, thereby preventing communities from objecting to such plans.