Consultation Question 1 Do you support the proposed number of classes in the Schedule of Major Developments?
Group | Yes | Add | Reduce | Other Comments | No Comment |
|---|
Businesses & developers | 4 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
|---|
Planning & national park authorities & joint plan teams | 15 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|---|
Planning and related professionals | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
|---|
Individual | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
|---|
National & regional agencies | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|---|
Community councils | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|---|
Environment & heritage groups | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|---|
Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|---|
TOTAL | 29 (32%) | 38 (42%) | 2 (2%) | 1 (1%) | 20 (22%) |
|---|
% of those expressing a view | 41% | 54% | 3% | 1% | - |
|---|
Table 2 Figures are for number of responses
Views were split as to whether the right number of classes were proposed. Of those expressing a view on this question:
- 41 % agreed with the number of classes;
- 54 % suggested there should be additional classes
Figure 2
ADDITIONAL CLASSES
Of the respondents looking to add an extra class/es of major development there was a mix of comments, with different respondents looking for different additional classes, including suggestions for classes on:
- aquaculture,
- retail and leisure
- minerals
- infrastructure related developments,
- ports and
- other types of development for which it was suggested may have a greater impact eg tall buildings, developments affecting protected sites.
Summaries of the comments on these suggested additional classes are provided below.
Aquaculture
Marine fish farm operations were brought within the definition of development and hence under planning control in the 2006 Act. The draft hierarchy regulations did not include explicit provision for fish farms. Seven responses from representatives and members of the fish and shell fish industries, highlighted concerns that aquaculture developments were not adequately provided for in the hierarchy. No respondents from other sectors identified aquaculture as an issue.
The respondents from the fish farming industry suggested there should be another class of major development covering 'aquaculture and fish farming', with Mull Aquaculture and Fisheries Association and Scottish Sea Farms highlighting " Aquaculture does not readily fit within terrestrial planning regulations and definitions." Mainstream Scotland indicated they " fully recognise the need for regulation to be in place in terms of planning hierarchy, yet find the proposals made to be disproportionate to our industry in relation to other potential projects that are headed under the same development category." Fassfern Mussels commented aquaculture developments should not be treated as major developments, but if they were they should be in a separate class.
Major aquaculture developments - level of threshold
The industry assumed it's activities could fall within the 'All Other Development' class where the threshold is 2ha or 10,000sqm. Fassfern Mussels commented this would be inappropriate for aquaculture developments as not " giving due consideration to the realistic requirements of the operational scale of a shellfish farm and its resultant impacts". This view was shared by the Scottish Salmon Producers' Organisation ( SSPO), who noted " The proposed size limitation for 'All other developments' (ie: fish farms) is restrictive, and may result in the majority of new applications (if not all, given industry plans for site consolidation) being subject to a statutory twelve-week pre-application discussion stage. Instead of streamlining the planning process as this is intended to do, the effect will be to greatly extend the process where applications for new fish farms and aquaculture facilities are concerned."
The SSPO suggested that the proposed thresholds for 'business and general industry, storage and distribution' developments at 20,000sqm, or the site exceeds 4 hectares would be a more appropriate category for aquaculture developments. They commented this would be less restrictive on the industry's plans for site consolidation allowing fish farming to continue to be economically viable.
Aquaculture - means of expressing threshold
In terms of expressing an appropriate threshold for major marine fish farms a number of issues were raised by the industry, highlighting the different size and characteristics of aquaculture developments.
- by cage/equipment above surface area / beneath the surface area (mooring spread)
The SSPO and Lighthouse Caledonia Ltd highlighted in their response that " the proposed size threshold does not make the distinction as to whether this limitation applies to the sea surface or the seabed. This is critically important since aquaculture facilities tend to occupy a greater area on the seabed than on the surface, due to the presence of mooring lines, anchors and other essential equipment." Scottish Sea Farms and Mull Aquaculture and Fisheries Association also made this point commenting " If mooring spread is included almost all would be in excess of two hectares, including shellfish farms, with their minimal environmental impact. This is likely to have a disproportionate impact on small businesses " Clarification was sought on whether the definition of a major development would cover cage/equipment surface area, or extent of moorings.
- new sites / amendments / site consolidation
Two members of the industry commented " In the case of completely new finfish sites, it may be appropriate for many proposals to be classed as major developments. However, many aquaculture applications are for amendments to existing sites. In cases where the development already exists, it should not be necessary to classify changes such as addition of extra cages, change in cage type, moderate increase in area occupied, installation of ancillary equipment, minor change in cage position as major development. These are unlikely to be of a scale and nature which makes them of more than local significance." Generally the industry felt that amendments to the type of equipment/ additions of a small number of cages etc should not be classified as major developments, whereas it may be appropriate for completely new sites to be classed as major developments.
- rural waterbody / urban waterbody
Marine Hharvest suggested the " affects of a fish farm in a rural waterbody will be far less than in an already over-used urban waterbody. These changes should be reflected in the legislation."
Minerals
The draft regulations proposed that EIA Schedule 1 developments would be major developments. EIA Schedule 1 development includes minerals "Quarries and open-cast mining where the surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares, or peat extraction where the surface of the site exceeds 150 hectares". However the threshold for 'All Other Development' is 2 hectares, and the industry's assumption was that they would be covered by that threshold, and this difference between the 25 ha and 2 ha was reflected in some of the responses.
Five responses from Scottish Coal, Coal Pro, British Aggregates Association, SNH and James Barr suggested minerals should be a separate class of major development. CoalPro noted that the 'All Other Development" threshold " is extremely low for minerals extraction developments" and should be increased to 25 hectares, either by identifying a new class or by an explicit exception within the 'All Other Development' class. A threshold of 25 hectares would then be the same as that for mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment for minerals projects. These members of the minerals industry suggested that this would " maintain the essential purpose of the proposals as a whole whilst avoiding unintended consequences".
Retail
The consultation paper indicated that the "All Other Development" 10,000 sqm threshold appears in the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007 where reference is made to major retail development. However 17 respondents suggested there should be a separate class for major retailing / shopping centres, although there was not consensus on what the appropriate threshold would be, the range of suggested figures are shown below.
Table 3 Respondent suggesting additional retailing class | Suggested threshold for major retail | Reason for suggested threshold |
|---|
James Barr | Large scale retail / shopping centre | "Consider that large scale retail / shopping centre uses would merit their own category given the issues they often raise at the planning application stage" |
Perth & Kinross Council | 10,000sqm / 2 ha | |
Dundee City Council | Below 10,000 sqm | |
ASDA Stores Ltd | 7,000 sqm | "Smaller developments can be considered to be of major significance, especially within smaller communities. We would suggest that a threshold of 7,000 sqm would be more appropriate in order to seek greater efficiency in determining retail proposals, which, in our experience, can take on average a minimum of one year to determine." |
Forth Ports | 5,000 sqm | "would seem a realistic threshold for an application to be considered 'major'" |
Scottish Property Federation | 5,000 sqm | "Reduction in the retail threshold, perhaps by up to half" |
East Lothian Council | 5,000 sqm | |
The Highland Council | 2,500 sqm | "Given that this scale of development is likely to require a retail impact assessment." |
Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland | 2,500sqm | "An appropriate threshold for retail development might be 2500 sq metres, given that this scale of development may require a retail impact assessment." |
Halliday Fraser Munro Planning | 2,500 sqm | "The point indicated in SPP8 as the point where Retail Impact Assessments are required." For retail and commercial leisure uses |
City of Edinburgh Council | " relatively small scale well below the threshold currently proposed for major development " | "Retail developments are often of significant interest beyond local areas, even at a relatively small scale, well below the threshold currently proposed for major development" |
North Ayrshire Council | 1,858 sqm (20,000 sq ft) | "The agreed Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan threshold for consultation on retail development is 20,000 sq.ft, which would appear to be a more appropriate level." |
Glasgow City Council | 1,000 sqm | "To accord with the threshold for significant retail development within the Scottish Government's Proposed Draft Modifications to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006" |
Taylor Wimpey | - | "given the contentious nature of retail development and the clarity that might be required to ensure that these developments are allocated the appropriate resources, there may be scope to include this as a stand alone class of major development." |
West Dunbartonshire Council | - | " retail development should have a separate category as it often creates significant interest in an area and is often one of the main types of major development of significant interest to the local and wider area." |
North Lanarkshire Council Architecture + Design Scotland Individual | - | Suggested there should be a specific class for retail, although no threshold was suggested |
Two of the large supermarket operators ( ASDA and Tesco), responded to the consultation their views differed as to whether or not there should be a specific class for retail. Tesco agreed with the proposed number of classes noting that retail development will fall in the 'All Other Development' class. Tesco suggested the 2ha threshold be lowered to 1ha, as " a level more commensurate with a major application particularly in rural parts of Scotland." ASDA noted the controversy that can surround retail proposals of all sizes. They strongly recommend the introduction of a new class specifically for retail, and suggest this would have a lower threshold at 7000sqm which they feel " would be more appropriate in order to seek greater efficiency in determining retail proposals, which, in our experience, can take on average a minimum of one year to determine."
Sports & Leisure
The Scottish Property Federation noted that "the government may wish to consider if for example sports and leisure facilities, among other buildings, are adequately covered by Class 7 'all other developments' and if these developments ought to fall within the major development regime." A planning consultancy also suggested that the 2,500 sqm threshold indicated in SPP8 for Retail Impact Assessments for retail and commercial leisure uses should be reflected.
Public Infrastructure & Utilities
The hierarchy includes a class for transport and infrastructure, which mentions aqueducts and pipelines. A selection of respondents called for additional classes of major development relating to public infrastructure and utilities.
Public Infrastructure & Utilities | Scottish Power suggested " It is not clear whether the development of certain infrastructure, say, sub station or overhead lines may be included in this definition. It may be that there is an additional classification under "Public Infrastructure & Utilities" that could include electricity transmission and distribution / transformation, water distribution / pumping, gas storage, transportation / distribution, etc." Electricity distribution lines equal to or greater than 11kV and secondary substations (400v/11kV) should be set as a threshold |
Waste Water Treatment | James Barr suggested Waste Water Treatment that are not Schedule 1 EIA Development may merit their own category given the issues they often raise at the planning application stage. |
Water and Drainage Infrastructure | SEPA suggested " there may be merit in including an additional class which relates to water and drainage infrastructure". Scottish Water commented it was unclear which categories their developments would fall into and that they could fall into Classes 5, 6 or 7, they argued this " could lead to inconsistencies between planning authorities and inevitably lead to delays in the provision of Scottish Water development." |
Gas Pipelines | National Grid noted that while the hierarchy includes EIA Schedule 1 developments (which includes gas pipelines with a diameter of more than 800mm and a length of more than 40km) that other proposed gas transmission infrastructure developments, such as shorter / smaller sections of pipeline or developments at above ground installations, would be classed as 'local developments'. National Grid believe that all developments to their gas transmission network and associated infrastructure should be classed as major they particularly wish to maintain the appeal route to Scottish Ministers. |
Underground Storage of Natural Gases, Fossil Fuels Etc | RSPB suggested there is a gap in relation to underground storage of natural gases, fossil fuels and in terms of carbon capture and storage. They suggested that as these activities require a relatively large development footprint that general inclusion within the 'All other development' category would not be appropriate. |
Ports development
SNH suggested that port developments is a possible additional class where greater clarity would be helpful.
Developments with Environmental Impacts/ Affecting Protected Sites
A number of respondents suggested developments in protected / conservation areas could have more significant environmental affects and consideration should be given to a class of major development for such proposals. These responses tended to concentrate on the environmental impacts of the proposals rather than necessarily the scale and complexity of processing them.
The RTPI recommended consideration be given to having " a Class of Proposals Affecting Protected Sites including, say, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Ancient Monuments, National Parks, National Scenic Areas, World Heritage Sites, IGDLIS (and its annexes) sites, and their settings." Glasgow City Council and A+DS also commented that no reference had been made to the impact developments in conservation areas where even modestly scaled developments can have an impact on amenity and the environment. Additionally A+DS sought guidance on where listed building applications might fall in the hierarchy.
Other Developments having major impact inc Tall Buildings
Dundee City Council noted it was unclear whether the Regulations cover tall developments with relatively small footprints on small sites which may have a significant environmental impact on more than a localised community. Helensburgh Study Group and Helensburgh Community Council also made this point in relation to large towers or masts which might have a small area site and low floorspace but have impacts on the area. They also suggested that " a facility which is noxious, ugly or dangerous could be major in its impact, even if if its floor space and area are below the class 7 thresholds."
Applications on land owned by local authorities, public bodies and institutions
Taylor Wimpey suggested greater transparency may be ensured by having all applications for proposals on land is owned by local authorities, public bodies or institutions considered as a class of major development.
SUGGESTIONS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CLASSES
Only two of the responses to the consultation made suggestions about reducing the number of classes of major development. These were from The Law Society of Scotland, who suggested a general simplification measure by using the 10,000 sqm threshold for all types of development and Scottish Environmental Services Association, who suggested there is little merit in a separate class for waste management facilities and also limiting major developments to EIA developments.
The consultation questions then moved onto the level of the thresholds for major development.