Scottish Government Review of Permitted Development Rights - Phase 3

It is important to balance the need for green energy with the aesthetic of our built environment. Giving permitted development rights beyond what we have already risks upsetting that balance. I would suggest that a Green Energy application could be formulated so that the balance is tested for each case on its merits. The application cost should be limited to covering costs only.

No, as above.

I agree in principal, however would add a requirement for equipment to emit less than agreed amount of noise at the boundary. Older heat pumps can be noisy an this will affect the amenity ogf neighbours. By limiting noise at the boundary the owner can choose a suitable location.

similar to air source, equipment should have an agreed noise level at the boundary.

All seems reasonable.

I think it unfair to exclude those living in these areas as tests exist through planning notification. Allow all to be included, but reject those what may cause an issue.

In principal its fine, but again noise at the boundary should be limited.

Biomass is not an efficient heating type when you look at whole life cycle carbon data. We should be phasing this out as it is just another fad.

Yes.

Allow commercial buildings to get as much solar as they can. What are the CAA and airports views on the distances, can a non-reflective finish be obtained if reflection is the issue?

Car park solar is the simplest and safest type of install and is used widely in the EU. Also allows us Scots to get rain cover when parking,

Subject to the same tests being applied to buildings which neighbour domestic households as for domestic installations.

eassist type of install, no reason to not allow this.

Power output will be limited by our ageing national grid......

Yes, subject to noise issues for building users and at the boundary being applied. As we strive to use natural ventilation an open window will be an issue if a pump is too close.

Seems reasonable. Again noise from equipment to be limited.

Would the replacement be subject to a Building Warrant and therefore to adhere to the technical standards for safety and energy efficiency?

As above subject to technical handbook and relevant BS's.

Keep it simple.

Who will regulate this. It seems to be the case that the grid and electric companies make things up as they go along, so some king of reporting and certification must ne included.

Limit noise output at the building envelope.

I would propose that any replacement or new lines be installed underground. The technology exists and the cost is minimal. I would also consider banning all new where a suitable secure internet connection can be used negating the need for any infrastructure at all for communications purposes.

All new to be via secure internet with no built infrastructure allowed.

All works to be subject to a desktop archeological study scrutinised by Archeology Scotland and where appropriate the works to be attended by an Archeologist. Other relevant sudies as required for the location such as habitat for badgers etc.

All works require to be fully reinstated.

If the work is required then carry it out, but safely and using the studies noted in the answer to 24. Deep excavations require security.

Seems sensible.

Planning should always be consulted and have a say in the aesthetic.

Permitted development should be limited to small scale standard building types which have been approved. There should never be the opportunity to sidestep the planning system.

Local authorities should be charged with providing suitable locations within their areas be it town, village or city. There are so many vacant shops that they could easily be combined into RVM areas where yo could return all manner of recyclables at once. Having to travel at least 400m to dispose of different recycling is plain daft, especially for those with mobility issues.

"6.2.2 It has been brought to our attention that these provisions might be used to establish temporary firing ranges comprising the provision of fixed targets associated with the use of firearms."

The above quotation shows the lack of understanding. The the whole point of the exemption is to allow the use of the land for shooting if the owner sees fit. Shooting is substantially less dangerous than many sports and seems to be targeted by name rather than any fact based argument. Noise is a statutory nuisance controlled by current legislation.

There is no justification for removing target shooting from the permitted use based on it being a fixed target, noise is noise is noise, however 28 days a year is no great issue when your neighbor may be learning to play the drums day in day out.....

If anything the PDR could be altered to have the 28 days limited to a max of two days in any seven and say before 8am till max 8pm, or sunset, whichever is earliest. Society should be encouraging lawful pursuits, not trying to wipe them out.

Adding this to the other consultations on energy seems to be a bit strange. It should be a stand alone subject....

Reverse vending and firing ranges should not have been added, they should have been separated from the main emphasis of the Report. Things will only get clouded by having these included.

There is no mention of the impact that removal of the PDR for shooting ranges would have on those who participate or those businesses which may be associated. This is a disgrace. The amendment should be removed an the Scottish Government should start a proper, above board, consultation to firstly establish if these is an issue (it appears that there is not given the wording used) and then address any remedies which may be available. Leaving out any assessment of impact on shooting is shoddy work to say the least.

SCTA
SSRA
SRA
Scottish Shooting

Try talking to them about noise and, safety and THEN consult with the wider community from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.