1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.1.1. Increasing the types of minor development which are exempt from the need for planning permission (i.e. have the status of 'permitted development' ( PD) under planning legislation) is central to the aims of planning reform and, in the case of micro-renewable energy devices, to the facilitating of responses to climate change in Scotland.
1.1.2. Amendment to the General Permitted Development Order ( GPDO) in 12 March 2009, accompanied by circular 2/2009, introduced classes 6A to 6F of PD, dealing with solar photovoltaic ( PV) or thermal equipment on a building, free-standing solar, biomass flues, ground source heat pumps, water source heat pumps and combined heat and power ( CHP) flues. Prior consultation had sought views on certain distance and dimensional criteria for micro wind turbines ( MWT) and distance criteria for air source heat pumps ( ASHP) but concluded that these would not be covered in the order pending further research.
1.1.3. This research 1 was carried out in 2009 and made recommendations for defining permitted development rights but also concluded that there were still unknown issues with regard to these technologies and their environmental effects at local level, especially noise. It suggested a three year review of the order once in force. The use of product and installer certification was explored for use in the planning process but prior notification procedure was rejected as an option for planning control.
1.1.4. In the meantime, the current provisions for classes 6G and 6H, which are based on a prior notification procedure with planning authorities, were included in the GPDO amendment made in February 2010 as an interim measure to meet a deadline required by section 70 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.
1.1.5. This report deals with responses to the latest consultation (issued on 5 February 2010 and closed on 30 April 2010) carried out in recognition that the February amendments do not go as far as they could to achieve aims of effective release of microrenewables from planning control. The consultation sought to expand the scope of permitted development with a view to a further amendment to classes 6G and 6H of the GPDO. The scope of the consultation continued to place emphasis on the criteria for amenity, distance, cumulative effect and protection of environmental designations included in the March 2009 order but added more detailed dimensional criteria, use of the noise calculation, product and installer standard criteria under the Microrenewable Certification Scheme ( MCS) and permitted development rights for anemometers. It was predicated on the withdrawal of the prior notification arrangements and of the general condition relating to amenity of the current provisions.
1.2 Summary of the proposals
1.2.1. The Scottish Government summarised the main features of the proposals to be included in classes of PD in the following table contained at Annex 1 of the consultation paper, to complement the questions on the substantive issues sitting behind them.
Type of Microgeneration Technology | Normal Domestic Buildings | Buildings in Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites. Within the curtilage of listed buildings |
|---|
Wind turbines on building | Permitted if height above roof ridge does not exceed 3m. (including blades) and subject to a maximum diameter of 2.2m or swept area of 3.8 sq.m. Must achieve noise at nearest curtilage of < 45 dB (A) and < 30 dB(A) within any neighbour's habitable room by MCS noise calculation. Subject to MCS product and installer. One MWT per dwelling. Removal when no longer required for microgeneration. | Not Permitted. |
Wind turbines (free-standing) of up to 3.5 m diameter (or 9.6 sq.m. swept area.) | Permitted if height on mast (including blades) does not exceed 11.1 m. and installed at a distance > 100 m. from neighbour's curtilage. Must achieve noise at nearest curtilage of < 45 dB (A) and < 30 dB(A) within any neighbour's habitable room by MCS noise calculation. [Must be installed at > 11.1 m. from neighbour's curtilage * ]. Subject to MCS product and installer. One MWT per dwelling. Removal when no longer required for microgeneration. | Not permitted. Additionally, not permitted within SSSIs and sites of archaeological interest. |
Wind turbines (free-standing) of up to 2.2 m diameter (or 3.8 sq.m. swept area.) | Permitted if height on mast (including blades) does not exceed 11.1 m. Must be installed at > 11.1 m. from neighbour's curtilage and must achieve noise at nearest curtilage of < 45 dB (A) and < 30 dB(A) within any neighbour's habitable room by MCS noise calculation. Subject to MCS product and installer. One MWT per dwelling. Removal when no longer required for microgeneration. | Not permitted. Additionally, not permitted within SSSIs and sites of archaeological interest. |
Anemometer masts | Permitted in the circumstances of a wind trial for a MWT. Not to exceed 3m above roof if building-mounted or 11.1 m free-standing. Subject to a 12-month limit and removal thereafter. | Not permitted. |
Air source heat pumps | Permitted if not visible from road in a conservation area. Subject to MCS product and installer. Subject to vibration attenuation installation. Must achieve noise at nearest curtilage of < 45 dB (A) and < 30 dB(A) within any neighbour's habitable room by MCS noise calculation. One ASHP per dwelling or flat. Removal when no longer required for microgeneration. | Subject to proposal in the box to the left; not permitted. |
[* This sentence included in error, see text below.]
1.2.2. An unintended contradiction came to light in that part of the table relating to 'wind turbines (free-standing) of up to 3.5 m diameter' which included criteria for distance separation from a neighbour's curtilage of both 100 metres and 11.1 metres in error. The 11.1 metre distance was only intended to apply as a topple distance safeguard for those other situations where the 100 metre separation was not to apply. It should be noted that the correct impression of the proposal was given by the actual question on the matter (question 11) in the consultation paper. It is clear from the responses that the respondents acted in one of three ways a) relied on question 11 and not the annex as the basis of the response, b) realised the nature of the error and responded accordingly or c) it did not significantly affect the essential points they wished to make about this section.
1.3 Objectives and methods
1.3.1. The aim of the analysis is to provide Scottish Ministers with a concise but comprehensive summary and interpretation of the responses received to the consultation, showing the range and depth of the views provided both in response to specific questions in the paper and as offered as general or supplementary points. This will enable the Scottish Government to progress to the finalising of the appropriate amendment order for introduction to the Scottish Parliament and provide a clear basis on which to respond to the results of the consultation and indicate how the views of respondents have been taken into account.
1.3.2. There were 23 specific questions in the consultation paper. The questions were of both an open and a closed nature offering the opportunity to make both definitive answers and substantive statements. Analysis has been carried out of both types of response. In addition, several questions were asked specifically for justification or evidence to support the responses and these were carefully noted for the analysis. Spreadsheets were created to collect the responses by each respondent to each question and on each general or supplementary topic raised thereby assisting analysis and leading to identification of the clear themes arising.
1.3.3. The main elements of the analysis contribute to the structure of the main parts of the report - general issues, the key themes emerging, other issues raised and issues raised by the specific questions.
1.3.4 In view of the significant number of abbreviations and acronyms used, a glossary is included at Annex 1.
1.4 Profile of respondents
1.4.1 The consultation attracted 57 responses (3 of which were confidential in substance and have been analysed only for unattributable content) of which 18 were from the local authority sector (mainly in their role as planning authorities but also in their environmental health role) and national park authorities (as planning authorities), 10 were from renewable industry companies and their representative organisations, 5 from air transport companies and organisations, 2 from NGOs with an interest in the natural environment, 5 from NGOs and professional bodies with an interest in the historic environment, 5 from NGOs with an interest in sustainable energy or environmental protection, 3 from community councils and housing associations, 3 from government agencies and 6 were from private individuals. A full list analysed by these categories is at Annex 2.