Chapter 1: Information about you
Contact details and publishing consent:
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Unticked
Individual
Radio button:
Ticked
Organisation/Group
Organisation/Group name*
(Required)
GVA Grimley Ltd
Organisation/Group address**
Quayside House
127 Fountainbridge
Edinburgh
127 Fountainbridge
Edinburgh
Organisation/Group postcode**
EH3 9QG
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Community organisation
Radio button:
Unticked
Third sector / equality organisation
Radio button:
Ticked
Private sector organisation
Radio button:
Unticked
Representative body for professionals
Radio button:
Unticked
Local government
Radio button:
Unticked
Community Planning Partnership
Radio button:
Unticked
Public Body, including Executive Agencies, NDPBs, NHS etc
Radio button:
Unticked
Academic or Research Institute
Radio button:
Unticked
Other – please state…
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
Publish this response
Radio button:
Unticked
Do not publish this response
Radio button:
Unticked
Your name along with your response
Radio button:
Unticked
Just your response (anonymous)
Radio button:
Unticked
Please do not publish my response at all
Chapter 2: Listing and Scheduling
1. Do you agree with the approach taken in the Regulations covering the notification of Listing and Scheduling?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
Chapter 3: Consent - 3.1 Scheduled Monument Consent
2. Do you agree with the general approach taken in the Regulations covering SMC?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
3. Do you agree with the approach to publish all applications and decisions?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
Enter comments here
Please refer to supporting letter for comments.
4. Do you agree with the decision to no longer issue a provisional view?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Ticked
Undecided
Chapter 3: Consent - 3.2 Listed Building and Conservation area Consent
6. Do you agree with the approach taken in the Regulations covering applications for LBC/CAC?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
7. Do you agree with this administrative approach?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
8. Do you agree that a freestanding access statement should be the exception rather than the rule?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
9. Would you like to offer any comments, for example in relation to thresholds for such a requirement?
Would you like to offer any comments, for example in relation to thresholds for such a requirement?
We consider that a suitable threshold would be those applications that are considered ‘Major’ developments, as defined by the The Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009. This would ensure consistency with related planning legislation set out by The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, where the Scottish Government has previously established the scale of development proposal that requires this form of supporting document.
Chapter 4: Appeals - 4.1 Appeals against Listing And Scheduling
10. The draft regulations for appeals against listing and scheduling set out the procedural details for making an appeal. Do you agree with the approach taken in the regulations?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
Chapter 4: Appeals - 4.2 Grounds of Appeal
11. Do you agree that this approach will provide a suitable basis for grounds of appeal against scheduling and listing?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
Are there further areas/ grounds for appeal which should be considered? Please give details.
No. We consider that the grounds of appeal need to extend beyond the narrowness of the current draft proposal.
Based on our extensive experience and previous discussions with Historic Scotland on the matter, we strongly believe that this should also include considerations of exceptional economic and physical condition prohibitions, where listing might significantly impact on the prospects for future use/redevelopment of such a building. It is important that viability considerations are taken into account within the appeal process by Reporters to deliver a more pragmatic and fairer consideration of the merits of the listing in the context of the
future realistic use of the building.
If it is the case that the grounds for appeal remain as drafted, we recommend that the appointed Reporter be required to provide suggested paths to dialogue on extenuating circumstances and how to explore other options for re-development, linked to an updated SHEP policy test, as previously outlined in discussions with Historic Scotland officers.
Based on our extensive experience and previous discussions with Historic Scotland on the matter, we strongly believe that this should also include considerations of exceptional economic and physical condition prohibitions, where listing might significantly impact on the prospects for future use/redevelopment of such a building. It is important that viability considerations are taken into account within the appeal process by Reporters to deliver a more pragmatic and fairer consideration of the merits of the listing in the context of the
future realistic use of the building.
If it is the case that the grounds for appeal remain as drafted, we recommend that the appointed Reporter be required to provide suggested paths to dialogue on extenuating circumstances and how to explore other options for re-development, linked to an updated SHEP policy test, as previously outlined in discussions with Historic Scotland officers.
Chapter 4: Appeals - 4.3 Scheduled Monument Consent
12. The draft regulations for appeals in relation to scheduled monument consent set out the procedural details for making an appeal. Do you agree with the approach taken in the regulations?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
Chapter 4: Appeals - 4.4 Scheduled Monument Enforcement Notices Appeal
13. The draft regulations for appeals in relation to scheduled monument enforcement notices set out the procedural details for making an appeal. Do you agree with the approach taken in the regulations ?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
Chapter 5: Other areas of change
14. Do you agree with the removal of the requirement to consult The Scottish Ministers on EIA’s and the new requirement to send a copy of the environmental statement to the Minister for information?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
Chapter 5: Other areas of change - 5.4 Scheme of Delegation
15. Do you have any comments on this approach?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
Chapter 5: Other areas of change - 5.5 Transitional Arrangements
16. Do you have a preference for which option should be taken forward?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Option 1
Radio button:
Unticked
Option 2
Radio button:
Unticked
Undecided
17. Are there any particular issues in relation to ongoing cases during the transition phase which you feel might particularly affect you or your organisation?
Enter additional comments
We favour Option 1, which we consider would offer a more sensible and pragmatic approach to enacting the new legislation for both local authorities and the development industry.
Although we agree that the new legislation will bring forward new provisions that improve how the planning system interacts with the historic environment, the current preferred option (Option 1) could lead to a highly confusing determination process for applications already in the system and we suspect would lead to delays in application submissions until the new legislation came into force. This would have clear consequential impacts on development timescales, delivery and potential negative effects on the economy to avoid a challenging
period where the legislative provisions would cross-over.
We also consider that Option 1 is more consistent with other periods of major change to legislation such as the implementation of the Planning etc. Scotland Act 2006, which our experience of that period suggested was a successful transition process overall.
Although we agree that the new legislation will bring forward new provisions that improve how the planning system interacts with the historic environment, the current preferred option (Option 1) could lead to a highly confusing determination process for applications already in the system and we suspect would lead to delays in application submissions until the new legislation came into force. This would have clear consequential impacts on development timescales, delivery and potential negative effects on the economy to avoid a challenging
period where the legislative provisions would cross-over.
We also consider that Option 1 is more consistent with other periods of major change to legislation such as the implementation of the Planning etc. Scotland Act 2006, which our experience of that period suggested was a successful transition process overall.