RTPI Scotland's Response to review of Permitted Development Rights

Phase 2 consultation

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

There is difficulty in finding the right balance between simplifying the consenting regime to support delivery of EV charging to meet net-zero targets whilst still undertaking the necessary checks and controls to protect public and private interests. The consenting regime and delivery environment for EV charging installation is complex and planning has been cited as a key factor in the slow roll-out of such technology[1]. However, RTPI Scotland are aware of concerns from stakeholders that extending PD with the removal of restrictions in the specified areas currently listed in Class 9E(3) could result in insensitive development that could have either individually or cumulatively have a significant negative impact on the character and appearance of certain areas. A compromise between these two differing positions could be achieved through aligning with provisions in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (Schedule 2, Part 2, Classes D) (PD rights)[2] which offers a reduced set of restrictions as follows:

(a) exceed 0.2 cubic metres; (0.5 cubic metres in Scotland)

(b) face onto and be within 2 metres of a highway;

(d) be within the curtilage of a listed building.

Furthermore, as set out in the consultation where particular locations raise concerns requiring the consideration of a planning application then the option of an 'Article 4 direction' can be considered e.g. to restrict development in conservation areas.

Should the conditions regarding nameplates be withdrawn from Class 9E on wall-mounted EV charging outlets?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland support the intentions of simplifying the legislation where possible.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

Again, as with the answer to Q1, there may be a compromise to be made following provisions set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (Schedule 2, Part 2, Classes E) (PD rights)^[3] which offers a reduced set of restrictions as follows:

(a) exceed 1.6 metres in height from the level of the surface used for the parking of vehicles;

(b) be within 2 metres of a highway;

(d) be within the curtilage of a listed building; or

(e) result in more than 1 upstand being provided for each parking space.

Again, as set out in the consultation where certain locations raise concerns requiring the consideration of a planning application, then the option of an 'Article 4 direction' can be considered.

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

Yes

Please Explain your answer:

Removal of such conditions is considered to be reasonable and likely to having minimal impacts.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer

RTPI Scotland support this modification to accommodate changes in technology.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland support this proposal and are confident that restrictions set out in Para 2.24 and 2.26 would provide an appropriate level of control for such developments.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland agrees with the conclusion set out in the consultation, stating that these are not insubstantial developments and will not be acceptable in all locations. However, we are confident that restrictions set out in Para 2.24 and 2.26 would provide an appropriate level of control for such development.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

The proposals would hopefully ensure that such developments would not impact upon highways, especially visibility splays and make a significant contribution to the protection of residential amenity.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

Should PDR for EV charging infrastructure in roads apply to parties other than local authorities?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland does, however, share concerns with other stakeholders that unsafe infrastructure could be left in the public realm if third parties cease to trade.

If so, would such PDR for other parties need to be linked to some arrangement with local authorities or other form of authorisation?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

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

Further conditions and limitations need to be placed on any additional PDR for EV charging infrastructure in roads to ensure that they do not take impinge on any active travel infrastructure and do not diminish future opportunities to retrofit streets through pedestrianisation or developing protected cycle lanes and priority bus lanes. This could be done through, for example, restricting development on key arterial routes or high streets. Any additional PDR could be subject to prior notification/prior approval on siting to allow consultation with transportation in terms of public highway impacts. Careful consideration regarding the design of any prior notification process to ensure that it would genuinely streamline the planning process and a fee should be made payable to cover the costs of processing such applications.

RTPI Scotland note that included in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (Schedule 2, Part 2, Classes E) (PD rights) are conditions for the removal of redundant charging points.

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

Please explain your answer:

Unless full consideration is made prior to extending PDR for EV infrastructure, RTPI Scotland would envisage a number of conflicts associated with the competing interests for the available road space, including concerns expressed in response to Q15. Furthermore, RTPI Scotland would consider the relationship between EV charging infrastructure and other utility infrastructure critical and will therefore need robust processes put in place to avoid conflict.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

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

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland would wish to see some limitations placed on the scale and size of the replacement development to ensure it is comparable the existing petrol stations. We would also advocate for control of transport access points to ensure highway safety concerns are addressed.

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?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

Fundamentally, discussions of 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. Therefore, RTPI Scotland calls the upon Scottish Government to undertake a review, and if deemed necessary, undertake an overall of the entire use classes legal framework.

RTPI Scotland also wishes to stress the essential role planning services play in supporting town centres and believe that to achieve successful places, a plan-led approach will lead to the best outcomes. Through the careful preparation of Local Development Plans, Local Place Plans, site briefs, Town Centre Management Plans and potentially through emerging Masterplan Consent Areas, a tailored approach can be set out which recognises the challenges, needs and opportunities of different places. Notwithstanding above comments, RTPI Scotland understands the intent from proposals to increase the flexibility and adaptability of our towns, but caution needs taken to identify any unintended consequences from proposals.

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?

Please explain your answer:

Whilst the need to provide flexibility for businesses and landlords to adapt more rapidly to changing circumstances is clear, and has the potential to reduce vacancy rates of high streets, there are risks associated with this approach. Without planning control, the mixture of uses in an area could be negatively impacted upon with, for example, loss of retail leading to reductions in footfall which effects the viability of retail locations in the area as a whole. Amenity issues such as noise and smell could arise from a number of proposed uses such as restaurants, which might conflict with other policy intentions to encourage town centre living. Although proposed as a general town centre use class, the proposals would have implications for changes of use regardless of the location, which necessitates careful consideration. For example, if class 10 and 11 were to be included in the merged use class large gyms outside of town could be converted into retail which could potentially undermine town centres.

Are there any other changes to the UCO which you think would help to support Scotland’s centres?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

As set out in response to Q19, RTPI Scotland believes a full review of existing UCO is necessary to ensure they are fit-for-purpose. This could be beneficial for town centres in a number of ways with, for example, providing flexibility through exploring the merit of merging sandwich shops and cafes into the same use class, as has been done in England under Class E.

Do you agree that MCA could be a useful tool to provide more extensive planning freedoms and flexibilities in Scotland’s centres?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

As discussed in response to Q19, RTPI Scotland believes that Masterplan Consent Areas, alongside a range of plan-led approaches, could provide a far more effective and targeted approach to town centre regeneration. However, to ensure that proactive planning can be delivered to provide tailored solutions for town centres, ensuring the right development in the right place and providing the future vision through the preparation of LDPs, site briefs and masterplanning, the planning system needs to be resourced effectively. To understand the resourcing needs of the planning system we need to take cognisance of the context of diminishing resources and increased workloads in planning authorities with recent research from RTPI Scotland^[4] showing that:

Nearly a third of planning department staff have been cut since 2009
Planning authorities’ budgets have diminished in real terms by 42% since 2009
In 2020 local authorities only spent 0.39% of their total net revenue budgets
Planning application fees only cover 66% of their processing costs
There are 91 new and unfunded duties in the Planning (Scotland) Act, which could cost between £12.1m and £59.1m over 10 years
Over the next 10 to 15 years there will be a demand for an additional 680 to 730 entrants into the sector

Whilst we welcome the recent increases to planning fees, as set out in recently published research^[5], RTPI Scotland does not believe this will bring in the appropriate amount of resource necessary for the planning system to undertake its statutory duties and deliver the positive change we wish to see in town centres. Furthermore, to deliver the new array plan-led approaches including MCAs and LPPs, entirely new resources will need to be brought in to planning services to support development planning teams. RTPI Scotland is particularly concerned that MCAs will result in considerable workloads for planning services without fair remuneration from planning fees. We will closely engage with impending draft guidance and regulations on the matter in due course.

RTPI Scotland believes that more proactive use of Compulsory Purchase Orders and Compulsory Sales Orders could have a pivotal role in town centre regeneration and we will welcome the opportunity to engage closely in early consultations on reforms ahead of the Community Wealth Building Bill planned for later in the parliamentary term.

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?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

Read the above answer as unsure, not either yes/no. Whilst such changes could support the regeneration, resilience and recovery of centres and establishment of 20-minute neighbourhoods, they could also undermine it as we have set out in response to Q20.

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

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland wishes to first see a full and comprehensive review of the existing use classes to ensure they are fit for purpose before exploring additional PDR rights. RTPI Scotland does, however, understand the laudable intentions from such proposals to provide landlords with greater flexibility and help deliver more flexible office space. If applied to classes 1, 2 and 3 there could be negative consequences in certain locations, with reducing retail and hospitality offerings impacting upon footfall.

Would 300 square metres be an appropriate maximum floorspace limit?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

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

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland would advocate for conditions or limitations that prevent the loss of shop frontages to maintain the character of streets.

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?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

Whilst RTPI Scotland believes enabling more ‘al fresco’ offerings can provide much needed support to hospitality and town centres we are concerned that such changes could lead to issues of safety and inclusivity for persons using walkways especially disabled people, older people and people pushing prams. Another approach which could explored would be a streamlined pavement license system, similar to what has been created in England in response to the COVID-19 pandemic[6].

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

Appropriate design codes would need put in place, especially in conservation areas, alongside limitations on using such extended areas for storage of commercial waste bins.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

A streamlined licensing scheme could be developed to ensure that clear access routes on the highway will need to be maintained, taking into account the needs of all users, including disabled people.

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

Yes

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland supports the managed increase in town centre living but believes that the planning system is a critical means by which quality developments are delivered and necessary social infrastructure provided through Developer Obligations. To help manage this necessary change for town centres we need to ensure the planning system is resourced effectively, as discussed in response to Q22.

Are there any other PDR changes which you think could support the regeneration, resilience and recovery of centres?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland supports the careful exploration of PDR for temporary pop-up ‘meanwhile’ uses of vacant units.

Do you agree that, with respect to the PDR, there should be a level playing field between English and Scottish ports?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

With respect to the amendments in England (see Box 5), what do you think the practical effect of making an equivalent change to Class 35 PDR would be – in terms of developments/activities that would be permitted which are not currently?

Please explain your answer:

No comment

Do you think there is potential to widen the scope of Class 35 PDR further?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

Do you agree that MCA could be a useful tool to provide more extensive planning freedoms and flexibilities in Scotland’s ports?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No further comment.

What are your views on the findings of the Update to the 2019 Sustainability Appraisal Report at Annex A? (Respondents are asked to avoid restating their views on the November 2019 and Phase 1 consultations, as these views have already been taken into account)

Please explain your views:

No comment.

Do you have any comments on the partial and draft impact assessments undertaken on these draft Phase 2 proposals?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland understands that the increase in PDR is intended to reduce burdens on planning authorities, allowing them to focus resources on more strategically important and complex cases. However, the resulting reduction in applications would lead to a reduction in planning fee income for planning authorities. An estimation should be undertaken to ascertain how much income could be lost and any potential impacts this could have on planning services. It should also be noted that if relaxations are limited to prior notifications in practice this would still require significant resources from LPAs.

Do you have any suggestions for additional sources of information on the potential impacts of the proposals that could help inform our final assessments?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

No comment.

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1065576/taking-charge-the-electric-vehicle-infrastructure-strategy.pdf

[2] Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015

[3] Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015

[4] https://www.rtpi.org.uk/research/2021/june/resourcing-the-planning-service-key-trends-and-findings-2021/

[5] https://www.rtpi.org.uk/research/2021/november/funding-the-planning-service-2021/#_ftn3

[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pavement-licences-draft-guidance/draft-guidance-pavement-licences-outdoor-seating-proposal#:~:text=A pavement licence is a,was made, for certain purposes.