Scottish Government

3 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

3.1 PD in areas designated for their natural and built heritage values

Question 1 - What grounds are there, if any, to further constrain the PD proposals for domestic microgeneration equipment, especially wind turbines, in areas designated for their landscape quality?

3.1.1 21 out of the 56 respondents offered comments on this question. In view of the reference in circular 2/2010 to the opportunity afforded by the current prior notification procedure for planning authorities to consider controlling impact on National Scenic Areas, the lack of comment from respondents on this national level designation appears to reflect an assumption that this will continue and that 'further constrain' means the addition of other landscape designations of any level of significance.

3.1.2 Renewables industry respondents tended to accept the exclusion of PD for MWT and ASHP within designated areas of national significance. For example one stated "formal planning applications should still be required where the property falls within……….sites of special importance to our national heritage". However, some respondents from the industry and a number from the sustainable energy NGO groups, as well as some individuals, felt that there was no need for further constraint of this nature and even that there should be a level playing field for intending users of renewables anywhere across the country or, in one case, at least a further relaxation of MWT mast height in all designated areas (20m was suggested).

3.1.3 One national park authority was concerned that PD should be disapplied to the whole national park area and not just to those parts covered by NSA designation. The NPA pointed out that renewables technology, especially MWT, was very similar in impact, especially in cumulative effect, to telecommunication masts and satellite dishes for which there were lower PD rights in national parks already. The NPA also pointed out that its experience of prior notification in the case of agricultural buildings and of Article 4 directions made these unattractive options.

3.1.4 SNH referred to the possible anomaly whereby the current statutory regime requires any structure over 12m in a NSA to be notified as potentially nationally significant and yet a mast of just 0.5m less is under consideration for PD. SNH supported the exclusion of PD for micro-renewables in NSAs and was especially concerned about the cumulative effects.

3.1.5 Local authorities were split over the need to exclude PD from local landscape designations such as AGLV. Most that responded on this point accepted that there was no need for local landscape designations to be excluded, as the basis of designation and the policies that applied varied across the country, but one questioned whether Article 4 directions would have to be considered to protect locally valued landscapes, especially in exposed, remote areas of scattered settlement where wind turbines might be common. Several were concerned that sites on the Inventory of Designed Landscapes and Historic Gardens should be excluded for the sake of controlling landscape impact in such sensitive areas.

3.1.6 The Bat Conservation Trust pointed out that "wind turbines set in landscapes designated for their beauty will be areas of habitat complexity where bats are present more so than in less attractive areas" and suggested that this increased risk to bats may be in conflict with EU directives and related UK legislation. (This is expanded in the previous general issues section.)

Question 2 - What grounds are there, if any, to further constrain the PD proposals for domestic microgeneration equipment in areas designated for the protection of flora and fauna, geological or archaeological interests?

3.1.7 23 respondents provided comments on this question. In a similar pattern of response to question 1, many organisations specifically representing renewables interests felt that no further constraint should be applied and even that existing constraints were inappropriate as the impact of small scale renewables is not enough to threaten the value of flora, fauna, geology or archaeology, but most industry representatives accepted the existing level of precaution for designated sites.

3.1.8 Several planning authorities and heritage NGOs sought exclusion from PD for MWT and ASHP in the case of work affecting scheduled ancient monuments and inventory sites of designed landscapes or of battlefields. Both groups referred to the problems of adequately defining sites of archaeological interest generally but while the NGOs generally sought wider control of undesignated sites, planning authorities did not. ALGAO Scotland pointed out that "about 95% of the archaeological resource in Scotland is not scheduled and is normally protected through planning legislation and procedures" which provide for developers to meet the costs of the necessary investigations. It suggested that if the proposals in Annex 1 are actually intended for all archaeological sites, some means would require to be found to provide clear identification of non statutorily designated sites, such as through the appropriate Sites and Monuments Record of the planning authority. Both ALGAO and one local authority made the point that clear guidance would have to be available to the public if the wider archaeological environment were excluded from PDR. (The issue of archaeological impact is further considered in the general section preceding.)

3.1.9 Several planning authorities and nature conservation NGOs referred to the difficulties of complying with EU legislation in respect of bats and birds whose flight paths to roosts, nesting or feeding areas might be threatened by MWT, without planning control. The question was asked whether protection could be achieved through the MCS scheme. If not, there could either be prior notification in certain situations or property owners would have to be made more aware of the advice published by SNH - "In choosing a location for a micro-turbine, (both roof-mounted and free-standing) it is recommended that they not be installed on buildings known to or suspected to contain bat roosts, within 50m of a known bat roost or on known bat flyways (commonly along watercourses, hedges, woodland edges)".

3.1.10 One NGO pointed out that the consultation paper recognises that Article 3 of the GPDO which defines PD in accordance with the classes of the schedule to the order is nevertheless subject to the provisions of the Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc.) Regulations 1994. As there is no other rigorous enough check on the possibility of significant impact, as defined by these Regulations, there should be no PDR in designated European sites ( SPA and SAC), Ramsar sites and SSSI. The NGO considers that a small number of cases have the potential to create a significant impact. Conversely, and with regard to birds only, one sustainable energy group pointed out that the January 2010 research report for the Scottish Government highlighted the British Wind Energy Association review of recent evidence suggesting that bird mortality from turbines is unlikely.

Question 3 - What grounds are there, if any, to constrain the PD proposals for micro wind turbines and air source heat pumps in World Heritage Sites?

3.1.11 There were 20 responses to this question. The views of the renewables industry and sustainable energy groups and individual respondents were mixed between allowing PD for both MWT and ASHP and recognising that the Outstanding Universal Values afforded to WHS by UNESCO could be prejudiced by them. There was also no clear consensus on how to protect WHS by selective criteria, even among the local authorities. Only two local authorities with all or part of a WHS within their boundaries replied to this question - East Dunbartonshire Council agreed that WHS and conservation areas should be excluded from PD for both types of generator; City of Edinburgh Council was content for conservation area control to protect the WHS.

3.1.12 Most of the historic interest NGOs and a housing association within a WHS suggested that PDR should not apply to any MWT or ASHP in a WHS but IHBC was content with ASHP that would not be visible "from any public viewpoint". Similarly, one individual respondent wanted to protect "any public way (e.g. [Edinburgh] Old Town Closes.)"COSLA pointed out that ASHP can be discreetly installed to minimise visual impact and appropriate criteria can therefore protect a WHS. Several energy interest respondents also sought the retention of PD for ASHP in WHS but excluding either the principal elevation or visibility from a road. Some local authorities pointed out difficulties with defining 'principal' elevation. ⁶

Question 4 - Should PD rights for air source heat pumps be granted in areas designated for their built heritage value providing that the principal elevation fronting a road is unaffected?

3.1.13 From the table below, it can be seen that, of the 37 clear responses, the renewables industry, sustainable energy NGOs and individuals generally supported the proposition that PD rights for air source heat pumps be granted in areas designated for their built heritage value providing that the principal elevation fronting a road is unaffected (15 to 4) while the 5 historic and natural environment NGOs did not and planning authorities were divided (8 to 7).

Response to Question 4

3.1.14 Planning authorities opposing the proposal or giving qualified support either did so as a matter of principle in the interests of planning control in conservation areas or in the light of anticipated practical difficulty in determining the definition of the 'principal' elevation of a building. Some pointed out that this is not always fronting a road. In the case of Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority, reference was made to Luss conservation area which has "a row of dwellings that front the street on one side and Loch Lomond on the other with a public path running along the loch. These dwellings therefore have two principal elevations." Other authorities went further and pointed out that "views from public spaces may be important" and that the development "may be visible from other buildings". One authority made the point that ASHP equipment may be "substantial structures in their own right and remote from the buildings which they serve."

3.1.15 The historic environment NGOs tended to reflect the reservations of the planning authorities quoted above. BEFS made the additional point that the MCS process should ensure that installers have, in any case, an understanding of policy and good practice in the historic environment. One individual also reflected the concern that PD should not apply where visible from all kinds of public way.

3.1.16 The renewables industry offered little substantive comment in support of their positive line on this question but some explained that the corollary to their support for protecting the principal elevation was that PD should definitely be afforded on other elevations. One sustainable energy NGO, however, did not support the proposal on the basis that priority should be given to optimum siting of ASHP, on south facing elevations, and that 'of more concern to the historic environment might be potential vibration from poorly sited plant (or noise).'

Question 5 - Are the separate controls for listed buildings sufficient to control the installation of microgeneration equipment?

Response to Question 5

3.1.17 The table above shows that a large majority of 26 to 2 agreed that separate controls for listed buildings would be sufficient to control installation of microgeneration equipment, although no clear answer was given by half of the respondents. Few substantive comments were offered in support other than to accept that listed building control in itself was sufficient. Several historic environment NGOs stressed the need for guidance on appropriate methods to avoid damage to historic fabric and for a requirement to repair any damage and one pointed out that the regime would be more effective once the current Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is enacted.

3.1.18 The response of the planning authority opposing the proposal was identical to that relating to the setting of listed buildings at question 6. The natural environment NGO in opposition raised the constant issue of bats which is examined in more detail in the general issues section below.

Question 6 - Will the setting of listed buildings be adequately protected by not granting PD rights to wind turbines and ASHP within their curtilage?

Response to Question 6

3.1.19 As the table above shows, the majority of those responding to this question agreed that the setting of listed buildings would be adequately protected by not granting PD rights to wind turbines and ASHP within their curtilage.

3.1.20 While the opinion of planning authorities appeared to be evenly divided, some of the comments associated with positive responses were contradictory and suggest that a majority of authorities oppose the proposal. For example, one authority, in responding specifically 'yes', also stated "it is important to control the effect on the setting of a listed building particularly as this is not controlled through LBC." Those who opposed the idea also made this point and one sought a prior notification arrangement in order to maintain control. One authority stated that large curtilages provided protection for settings but small ones did not, suggesting that the proposal would be less acceptable in urban situations. However, two of the three city authorities accepted the proposition.

3.1.21 Among the comments made by the renewables industry, Eaga stated its concerns that "the focus is on maintaining the character of these [listed] buildings rather than on enabling appropriate improvements to their energy efficiency. These are traditionally among the hardest to treat homes and are likely to be among those that would benefit most from the installation of renewable technologies."

3.1.22 The historic environment NGOs had mixed views on the principle but one also appeared to provide a similar contradictory response to the local authority quoted above. Otherwise they expressed a number of specific concerns, e.g.

• Settings of scheduled monuments also require to be considered, for which there is a current statutory consultation duty;
• Householders require more advice on listed building control, generally; and;
• 'curtilage' and 'setting' need to be better defined.

3.2 General conditions which rely on interpretation

Question 7 - Do you think that general conditions on amenity and other impacts could be applied to the PD rights for MWT and ASHP equipment?

3.2.1 The table below indicates that a clear response was given by only half of all respondents, with mixed views expressed and the planning authority (6 to 8) and renewables industry (2 to 2) sectors evenly divided. This is partially explained by the apparent variable understanding of the consequences of the question.

3.2.2 The consultation paper made it clear that the intention is to eliminate the dependency on a general condition of PD protecting amenity, which has applied since the 2009 and 2010 orders were made, on the basis that the revised criteria for PD go further to protect amenity anyway.

3.2.3 Those planning authorities who wished to keep the general amenity condition felt that planning control was necessary but none suggested that the prior notification arrangements should remain implying that it could only be enforced by intervention. One authority suggested that this was preferable to using the MCS route as an amenity test. This tended to suggest that a matter such as noise, rather than visual amenity was of most concern, as it would be the dimensions within the PD order and not the MCS that would deal with visual impact. Noise, of course would be subject to a further criterion in the PD order, to be examined below, but on which the same authority states that it does not consider the proposed noise criterion satisfactory "to provide the necessary amenity protection for neighbouring properties." A second authority pointed out that the general condition works for them in the case of satellite dishes where there is a general condition concerning their siting.

3.2.4 Conversely, those authorities who agreed that the general amenity condition should be abandoned, agreed that the trade-off was worth it in the name of simplifying the system and aiding public comprehension. In the words of one, "the problem with general conditions is that they are too generalised to be helpful."

3.2.5 Although two renewable industry representatives wished to retain the general amenity condition, one did not provide supporting comment and it is doubtful if the other fully understood the effect of the general condition (i.e. it can only be implemented in conjunction with prior notification, Article 4 direction or enforcement intervention). They stated "the general conditions on amenity and other impacts could be applied in combination with consideration of a range of factors in relation to the suitability of the site for the MWT or the ASHP." This suggests that they believe that it will apply in the normal consideration of a planning application which is not the purpose of PD. Another respondent in this sector agreed that the general condition should not be used and stressed that the trade-off had to be with effective site selection for energy efficiency.

3.2.6 One of the 5 historic environment NGOs did not support the general condition but wished the planning authorities to have the ability to ask for planning applications where there is a clear case that archaeological resources, whether designated or not, would be affected. This suggests that a prior notification system would have to continue. However, they went on "we know from experience with prior notification for agricultural buildings that the word 'amenity' is not usually interpreted by planning authorities as covering archaeological resources and their protection."

Response to Question 7

3.3 Micro Wind Turbines

Question 8 - Do you agree with the principle of applying a noise impact criterion for wind turbines to deal with the potentially adverse impacts?

Response to Question 8

3.3.1 From the table above it can be seen that there was a strong majority (31 to 3) in support of this use of a noise impact criterion to deal with potentially adverse impacts. The 10 qualified responses in favour outlined a number of concerns around the level and manner of calculation of the noise limits. The technical issues here are dealt with at greater length in the previous section. The analysis in this section focuses on the range of issues raised rather than the detail.

3.3.2 Planning authorities commenting on their support for the proposal accepted that a relatively simple standard approach, including through the MCS, would relieve the authority itself of a technical assessment task. Where they qualified their support it was for a number of reasons including:-

• A noise rating curve criterion would be more appropriate;
• There may be enforcement issues as and when installations deteriorated in the future;
• Measurement should not be at the boundary of the curtilage but at 1 metre from the house wall; and
• Noise complaints can still be expected.

3.3.3 For the industry, BEAMA did not give a definitive view but made the point "bear in mind that oil boiler flues have a noise level in excess of 50 dB(A) so we need some clarity and common sense to the regulation." Other industry and sustainable energy sector responses supporting the principle nevertheless added that:-

• WHO guidelines and Micropower Council research support the proposed noise levels;
• The noise rating set by the MCS for MWT is at the peak of the power curve rather than at average wind speeds or at 13m/sec whichever is the greatest;
• The MCS documents do not go into the level of detail indicated by paragraphs 41 to 48 of the consultation paper;
• The limit at the curtilage is too cautious and is not required given that for the interior;
• For the size of MWT proposed as PD and on the basis of MCS certification, a separation distance of 25 metres from other receiver properties would provide adequate protection;
• A noise criterion will stimulate the manufacturers to produce better technology; and
• Sound frequency and variability is more significant for the scale of installations proposed for PD, than sound level.

3.3.4 Other issues raised in qualified acceptance of the noise principle by other groups of respondent were the need for vibration criteria, for criteria for protecting bats and that calculation of noise level inside a building should be with the windows open.

3.3.5 Environmental Protection UK opposed the use of a single noise criterion such as the 45dB(A), especially in areas where ambient noise levels are low "as this could lead to an increase in noise complaints", preferring instead that a level is agreed by a multi disciplinary group and that the group conduct a review after three years as suggested by the research report. Presumably any preferred noise level would be lower than 45dB(A) as the organisation was also concerned at the resources implications for local authority enforcement of increased complaints, especially at night.

Question 9 - If you agree with question 8 do you think it should be supported by a 100 metres to the nearest curtilage criterion where the blade sweep is up to 3.5 m or can you suggest and give evidence for another figure?

3.3.6 The table below shows that of the 24 respondents who replied to this question, opinions were almost equally divided with planning authorities generally in favour and renewables industry and sustainable energy NGOs generally not.

3.3.7 The two planning authorities who oppose the use of a distance measure suggest that noise should be used in all cases. The 4 renewables industry responses all consider that 100 metres is unnecessarily inhibiting for this size of turbine or that a distance criterion will discourage innovation and development in technological solutions to environmental impact.

3.3.8 Two of the sustainable energy NGOs and one individual responding to this question were opposed. They felt that PD can be satisfactorily applied below these standards by either a) using a 25 metre distance, b) a 20 metre distance or c) raising the dimensions to those for 5 or 6kW MWT which are the most popular on the market currently. Environmental Protection UK, however, questions whether there has been enough research to commit to any standard. Finally, NATS made the point that this issue could have implications for air traffic control, an issue which is dealt with in detail in section 2.

Response to Question 9

Question 10 - Do you agree with the following limits on the scale of building mounted wind turbines (2.2 metres diameter or 3.8 m2 swept area up to 3 metres above the roof ridge height) and one per building?

3.3.9 From the table below, 23 out of 57 respondents replied to this question, with most accepting the proposed size limits for building mounted wind turbines. However 3 planning authorities and 2 sustainable energy NGOs did not.

Response to Question 10

3.3.10 Of the three planning authorities who do not agree with the dimensions, City of Edinburgh Council was sceptical if they were generous enough to provide effective scope for MWT at this scale to be worthwhile, just to take advantage of the PD right. However, to increase the PD right especially the height above the ridge would introduce significant visual impact. Another felt that the 3 metre height restriction was too high above the ridge and wanted it reduced to 2. A third sought a separation distance as well.

3.3.11 Sustainable energy NGOs expressing negative responses tended to agree with the Edinburgh view that this permitted dimension was very sub optimal, with one seeking PD for a swept path of 5 m ². The Energy Saving Trust stated that "our field trial demonstrated the importance of MWTs having access to unobstructed wind resource and turbines mounted below this level could be sub optimal due to the effects of turbulence caused by building structure." Dunedin Canmore Housing Association commented by questioning the effectiveness of MWT altogether in a dense urban environment.

3.3.12 Of other issues raised, potential bat and air traffic interference are considered further in section 2 as general issues.

Question 11 - Do you agree with the following limits on the scale of free-standing turbines in rural locations (3.5 metres diameter or 9.6 m2 swept area)and a maximum height including tower of 11.1 metres to the tip of the turbine blade), located at least 100 m from the boundary of the nearest neighbour's curtilage? One turbine per curtilage. If not, can you justify an alternative limit appropriate to domestic microgeneration?

Response to Question 11

3.3.13 There were more responses (28) on this question concerning the parameters for larger, free-standing MWT, with a separation distance rather than noise constraint, than for the previous question on building-mounted ones. There was also a lower level of acceptance of the proposed criteria for PD with only 7 of the 28 giving unqualified support and 16 opposed.

3.3.14 All 7 in support and 3 of the 5 giving qualified support were planning authorities. In the case of City of Edinburgh Council, this afforded the opportunity to implement PD without reference to the MCS on which they had reservations elsewhere. However, they would have preferred a prior approval procedure also. North Lanarkshire Council would have been happy to see the permitted height increased at this separation distance. More significant qualifications included requests to use noise criteria in addition, at least for internal noise levels with windows open.

3.3.15 Opposition from a local authority came from East Lothian Council who "does not support a difference in the distance from neighbouring curtilage between rural and other locations."

3.3.16 The opposition contained in responses from all 3 respondents from the renewables sector on this question seek more liberal interpretation and suggest that the potential benefits from free-standing turbines in relative isolation from adjacent buildings but larger than the proposed permitted size are such that the PD option is not likely to be taken in many cases, negating the policy aims of the proposals. Scottish Renewables recommended a maximum height of 18 metres and a swept area of 28.5 m ² (diameter 6m). SSE suggests the distance from boundary could be the total height of the installation plus 10% (although this may be in response to the unintended inclusion of an 11.1 metre separation option in the description of the proposals at the Annex).

3.3.17 More liberal interpretation was also sought by all 4 responses from energy NGOs, including the suggestions that rural property owners should be permitted to install up to three 15kW turbines (total 45kW) without planning permission and that the permitted height could be raised to 16.1 metres. It was pointed out by the Energy Agency (South Ayrshire) that popular turbines are excluded from PD by the proposed criteria, including the 5 and 6 kW range but also the 3.2 kW on a modest 11 metre tower.

3.3.18 Opposition was expressed by both respondents from the air transport industry. NATS stated that while a 3.5 rotor diameter would capture much greater energy than a 2.2 metre rotor, to which they did not object (next question), "the granting of PD for turbines of this size requires further assessment of the impact for aviation communications, navigation and surveillance ( CNS) and cannot be supported by NATS at this stage." There is a risk "that our CNS infrastructure may suffer degradation." This subject is explored in more detail later.

3.3.19 Archaeological NGOs expressed concern about the impact of foundation excavations for towers on non designated archaeology taken out of the purview of the planning authority and its power to use information on the SMR.

3.3.20 The Coal Authority also objected on the basis of their concerns that, in coal bearing areas, unregulated excavation for mast foundations could disturb mine shafts, entries and former unstable shallow workings. Alternatively, they urge guidance notes on the subject including consultation with the Coal Authority.

Question 12 - Do you agree with the following limits on the scale of free-standing turbines elsewhere. (2.2 metres diameter or 3.8 m2 swept area and a maximum height including tower of 11.1 metres to the tip of the turbine blade), subject to a noise impact test through MCS and one per curtilage? If not, can you justify an alternative limit appropriate to domestic microgeneration?

Response to Question 12

3.3.21 Of the 26 who responded to this question, a small majority of 14 were in agreement or qualified agreement with the proposals for free-standing MWT with a maximum diameter of 2.2 metres and maximum overall height of 11.1 metres, subject to a noise limit controlled by the MCS process, instead of a distance parameter to control separation from receptor properties.

3.3.22 10 out of 15 planning authorities supported the proposal with little comment while, of the 5 who were against it, the following reasons were included:-

• City of Edinburgh Council opposed the use of the MCS scheme in principle and prefers a prior notification arrangement;
• East Renfrewshire Council felt that a free-standing turbine tower of 11.1 metres in an urban setting is excessive; and
• East Dunbartonshire sought a specific distance constraint.

3.3.23 Moray Council preferred an impact based approach on the relative rise about pre-existing background noise. A more cautious absolute limit as found in ETSU-R-97 i.e. L _{A90(10 min)} 35dB (equivalent to L _Aeq 37dB) ⁷ would avoid concerns about low background noise, especially in rural areas. Tonal issues could render even a 100 metre distance constraint ineffective.

3.3.24 Of the 2 renewables industry respondents who opposed the proposals, the reasons were diametrically opposite to the above. For example, Scottish renewables felt that "the noise criterion will be sufficient in ensuring appropriately sized installations and that the maximum size allowed for PD should be a total height of 13.75 metres with a diameter of 3.5 metres and a swept area of 9.75 metres". Of the energy and environmental NGOs responding, one agreed that 2.2 metres was too restrictive, two sustainable energy NGOs came down on opposite sides and Environmental Protection UK was opposed for noise reasons, especially as the proposal takes no account of cumulative effect.

3.3.25 The Coal Authority repeated the concerns of its response to 11 with regard to excavation for masts in coal bearing areas.

Question 13 - Should the visual impact of free-standing turbine masts be limited to local authority guidance rather than control by a condition on the PD rights?

Response to Question 13

3.3.26 Of the 27 respondents replying to this question, 12 or slightly less than half are in agreement or qualified agreement with the proposal that guidance rather than direct intervention should be used to influence the visual impact of free-standing turbine masts. However, of 9 planning authorities generally in agreement, one at least supports guidance from a standpoint of also having control by prior notification. Others favour guidance in principle to supplement PD rights and to deal with local circumstances. Of the 6 opposed, some support PD rights which 'are as simple as possible' and avoid inconsistency across the country or 'are sufficiently clear and unambiguous that there should be no need for general conditions or local guidance.'

3.3.27 The 3 respondents from the renewables industry are generally seeking national guidance to ensure consistency across the country. The sustainable energy NGOs that responded however are divided over the need for such guidance to be national or local.

3.3.28 The 3 historic environment NGOs that responded all agreed that 'there must be some facility for local authorities to require the amelioration of visually inappropriate masts or turbines.' BEFS added that 'it is not clear that if a mast is erected under PD the local authority would then have any control over visual impact.' SNH quoted its current guidance which suggests that visual impact of masts under 15 metres does not constitute a significant environmental impact for the purposes of Environmental Assessment regulations.

3.3.29 Finally, of those individuals who responded, one felt that local guidance was appropriate which 'did not hold up the development or involve post installation inspection' but one felt that 'the strictest visual impact tests should be imposed and the bias should be against approval where there would be any visual impact.'

3.4 Anemometry

Question 14 - Do you support anemometer masts only being PD where the subsequent turbine would also be PD, subject to the anemometer mast having a maximum height of the MWT, a maximum 12 month trial and a removal condition?

3.4.1 The table below shows that 24 of the 29 respondents to this question were in agreement or qualified agreement with the proposal with regard to anemometers. All the planning authorities supported it in principle. Some of the qualifications expressed were:-

• The need for a notification of the installation so that the 12 month time period can be enforced;
• The 4 year limitation for enforcement should not apply;
• Despite the intention to relate the anemometer specification to the intended MWT size, a size limit should be imposed on the anemometer itself; and
• Prior notification might be used.

3.4.2 The renewables industry was to a degree divided between accepting the need for limitation at all on anemometers and seeking a longer period of PD consent. SSE suggested 24 or 36 months but 'clearly anemometers should not be left indefinitely'.

3.4.3 The sustainable energy NGOs are equally reticent about accepting limitation on anemometers with 2 out of 3 responding with a clear view opposed to the principle of consent for any anemometer. "If someone is aware that they will have to apply for permission for a turbine of as given size in a given place, then they should be able to carry out their anemometry without the rigmarole and cost of obtaining it for the anemometry equipment as well." (Energy Action, South Ayrshire). However, the same respondent suggests that notification of the date of installation should be made to the planning authority.

3.4.4 Other respondents agree with the proposals but SNH suggests that guy wires be marked with bird flight diverters, there should be no lights unless white strobes and that self supporting metal masts of tubular design be preferred to guyed masts.

Response to Question 14

3.5 Air Source Heat Pumps

Question 15 - Do you agree that air source heat pumps should be permitted development with the proviso that they can achieve the 45 dB(A) or as appropriate the 30 dB(A) noise criterion?

3.5.1 This question attracted 35 responses as the table below indicates. A majority of 25 to 10 supported the proposed criteria for PD for ASHP or gave qualified support. Planning authorities were, however, divided and those with qualifications or alternative proposals were largely concerned with managing noise impact in view of concerns about amenity protection, especially where ambient noise is low and in view of experience of frequency variation from air conditioning units of a similar nature which gives rise to complaints. Suggested alternative measures included:-

• Noise impact should be based on a noise rating curve of either NR20 or NR25 value;
• The noise standard should include some reference to variation in frequency levels;
• A noise limit of Leq(5-min)35dB(A) at the façade of residential premises as a precautionary limit to minimise the risk of nuisance complaints;
• Flues should not extend more than 1 metre above the plane of a roof; and
• Prior notification should be retained.

Response to Question 15

3.5.2 Renewable industry responses generally welcomed the move away from the interim provisions for distance separation in favour of noise assessment but several of the 8 respondents felt that the 45dB(A) level at the curtilage boundary was too cautious and should be applied at the façade of the building which would be consistent with the standards achieved in practice so far without complaints and would be consistent with English practice. The Heat Pump Association expressed concerns that "The noise level of 45d BA at 1m from a neighbouring window would be acceptable. Any lowering of this figure will seriously impede the ability of the industry to penetrate this market." They continued "As this is a planning order, we understand that this may be difficult for the planning authorities to enforce. However, we, the HPA would support the use of MCS equipment and installers within the Permitted Development Rights. If this is unfeasible due to conflicting regulation, we would suggest that at the minimum the MCS draft calculation methodology for estimating the installed noise level at a neighbour's window is utilized as proof of compliance and a record of this be made and lodged with the local authority."

3.5.3 These views are also reflected by the sustainable energy NGOs and Dunedin Canmore Housing Association supported encouragement for ASHP especially in areas where there is no access to mains gas supply.

3.5.4 In terms of volume of the equipment, HPA also stated "We believe in most instances that 1m ³ would be sufficient, however, for larger dwellings, and also to ensure noise levels are kept to a minimum, a volume of 1.5m ³ would be more acceptable."

3.5.5 EDF Energy also requested further definition of ASHP to include both air to water heat pumps and air to air.

3.5.6 Reservations expressed by other consultees included:-

• ASHP causes low frequency noise nuisance
• ASHP can obstruct bat roosts
• dB(A) for habitable rooms of neighbouring properties should be around 20dB level

3.6 PD Rights in combination - possible cumulative effects

Question 16 - Do you think that an overall limit should be set for the combined micro generation capacity which is permitted development, and if so what should it be? Please justify your answer

3.6.1 A clear majority of the 38 responses to this question was against an overall limit for combined microgeneration capacity on any dwelling (see table below). Planning authorities again were the most divided in their views with 10 generally in favour and 6 against. The division is generally between those who are concerned about the cumulative effect not just on one property but among neighbouring properties and those who favour simplification. COSLA itself expressed concerns on the first count although supportive of the overall aim to encourage the take up of micro-renewables. Dundee City Council suggested that further consideration be given to the scenario where a single installation is PD but the cumulative effect of a second on a neighbouring property threatens to breach the acceptable noise level and might be excluded from PD on that count.

Response to Question 16

3.6.2 The renewables industry was strongly against an overall limit by 7 to 1 although a limit of one MWT or ASHP per dwelling was supported by some in view of cumulative noise effects. However, The Heat Pump Association pointed out that the combination of a MWT and an ASHP was one to be encouraged as one would provide the power for the other to provide the heating and larger properties might require two heat pumps. Mitsubishi Electric suggested that a limit be imposed at 45kW for the combined output of all units on a dwelling, consistent with the current consultation on the Renewable Heat initiative. EDF Energy also suggested integration with other schemes such as Clean Energy Cashback schemes for Feed In Tariff and Renewable Heat Initiative.

3.6.3 Others reflected views such as "Eaga believes that it is unlikely that any household would attempt to install an 'excessive' amount of renewable technology" or "such a restriction could act as an unnecessary barrier to the large scale take up of these technologies" ( EDF). Scottish Renewables suggested that if a limitation was to be introduced a range of PD combinations should be agreed in consultation with stakeholders.

3.6.4 Most of the renewables industry responses supported encouragement of a mix of renewables without limitation. Scottish Microrenewables Working Group pointed out that other forms of renewables to MWT and ASHP do not emit significant noise but that some conventional heating systems which are not under consideration for noise control or limitation for planning purposes emit significant noise.

3.6.5 Concerns were expressed over the need to control cumulative effects by BAA and NATS in view of the potential for radar clutter in air traffic control, systems. "the cumulative effect of this would be to potentially mask live aircraft tracks and distract the controllers with obvious and potentially very serious consequences." This issue is considered in more detail in the general section of the report.

3.6.6 Of the remaining responses, the same point was made by the sustainable energy NGOs as the Heat Pump Association about the relationship between MWT and ASHP but they were otherwise divided on the matter. Other points made include the need to consider communal arrangements in flatted development, the need to consider bat movements and the need for a limit to control the cumulative vibration effects of MWT.

3.7 Partial Equalities Impact Assessment ( PEqIA)

3.7.1 The Scottish Government carries out an equalities impact assessment to determine the likely effects of all proposed policy changes on particular groups of society. At this stage, the consultation paper provides a partial assessment ( PEqIA) at Annex 3, pending the further consideration of the responses received.

Question 17 - Are the proposals for PD likely to have particular impacts on societal groups?

3.7.2 The table below shows that 16 of the 24 who responded did consider that there would be impacts on societal groups. Issues raised by those answering in the affirmative included:-

• The proposals are likely to give greater advantage to properties and their owners/occupants that are at a greater distance from their neighbours;
• The proposals do emphasise the difficulties in addressing fuel poverty where it occurs in flatted property or in property more likely to be affected by concerns about cumulative effects;
• Those properties with gas boilers would stand to provide greatest efficiencies if subject to 'gas boiler replacement' initiatives;
• Facilitating (i.e. reducing costs and time) of multiple installations for social landlords would do much to support fuel poverty initiatives, especially with ASHP;
• More relaxed noise criteria may be justified for ASHP as they can make the biggest contribution to residents in fuel poverty and air conditioning units in hot countries are more tolerated;
• Areas off the gas grid require easier and cheaper options, especially if suffering from fuel poverty;

Response to Question 17

3.8 Regulatory Impact Assessment ( RIA)

3.8.1 The Scottish Government carries out a regulatory impact assessment of the likely effects of all proposed new regulation. The RIA is a systematic appraisal of the costs and benefits associated with the proposals for businesses and the public sector. At this stage, the consultation paper provides a partial assessment ( PRIA) at Annex 2, pending the further consideration of the responses received. The partial assessment is carried out on three options.

Question 18 - Do you agree that the impact of anemometers should be excluded from the RIA?

3.8.2 From the table below it can be seen that, of the 16 respondents, all but 2 agreed that the impact of anemometers should be excluded from the RIA although there were very few substantive comments. SNH did not agree on the basis that "anemometer masts can cause potential impacts on the natural heritage".

3.8.3 The consultation paper stated that the reason for not assessing anemometers as part of the consultation was due to their temporary nature with which the majority of respondents to this question (16) agreed.

Response to Question 18

Question 19 - Do you agree with the range of costs and benefits arising from Option 2?

3.8.4 There were 21 clear responses to this question with the majority in agreement (13 to 8) and opinion consistent by sector. Planning authorities (8 of 9) and the renewables industry (3 of 3) were generally in agreement while the air transport industry together with historic and natural environment NGOs did not agree. The air transport industry respondents disagreed because they believed the costs to aviation safety were not taken into account while the historic environment NGOs did so because they felt historic environment costs were not included in the assessment. The Bat Conservation Trust also highlighted their concern that there is "potential for householders/installation engineers to unwittingly break the law by injuring bats/obstructing roosts".

3.8.5 Of the 8 planning authorities in agreement, 2 stated their view that a prior notification scheme would increase the burden on planning authorities. Despite agreeing with the costs and benefits Eaga expressed concern that Option 2 "overstates the potentially detrimental impact on the quality and amenity of residential areas and the natural and historic environments" adding that even if they were accurate the need to encourage the installation of micro-renewables would outweigh those costs. One of the sustainable energy NGOs qualified their agreement by also stating that they felt the costs were over-stated.

3.8.6 Renewable UK set out the aspirations of the micro-renewables industry in the future market place given favourable conditions. It believed that the small wind sector in particular could deliver 600,000 units (1.3 GW equivalent) by 2020 and 4 million in the longer term, based on signs of growing demand. "The Scottish planning system cannot continue as 'business as usual' in the face of this energy revolution."

Response to Question 19

Question 20 - Do you agree with the range of costs and benefits arising from Option 3?

3.8.7 As with the previous question, there were 21 clear responses. However, only 3 respondents, 2 from the air transport industry and one individual, disagreed, evidencing a general view that the consultation paper provides a more accurate analysis of Option 3 than Option 2 and possibly reflecting a preference for Option 3 among the respondents.

3.8.8 7 of the respondents who agreed with the costs and benefits qualified their agreement in some way. One planning authority highlighted the potential for them having to respond to enquiries about an amenity condition, if one was included in the PD rights, for which they would not receive a fee as well as an increased workload for enforcement. One individual respondent agreed with the costs and benefits although said that the costs were dependent on the conditions attached to the PD rights and a 100m restriction, for example, would have cost implications and be a disincentive to installation.

3.8.9 As with the previous question one of the sustainable energy NGOs felt that the costs were over-stated. The other respondent NGOs expressed their support for the MCS with the historic environment NGOs believing it should be extended to existing micro-renewable PD rights and the Bat Conservation Trust of the opinion that more information on bats and related legal responsibilities needs to be provided and targeted towards manufacturers and suppliers of microgeneration systems, local authorities and householders.

3.8.10 Of the 3 air transport industry respondents, 2 disagreed with the costs and benefits set out in the consultation paper. NATS supported Option 3 but did not agree with the costs as the paper "does not take into account the costs involved in determining the necessary safeguarded areas for the wind turbines with a 3.5m rotor diameter on an 11.1m mast" or the "costs of enforcing the protection of the safeguarded areas from unauthorised wind turbine development". Infratil Airports expressed their opinion that the costs were not correctly identified because the consultation paper fails to appreciate how the online aviation safeguarding tool is to operate in England although they did agree that aviation stakeholders would benefit from a reduced consultation workload. BAA Airports, the only respondent from the air transport industry not to disagree, qualified their agreement by stating that "further work is necessary to safeguard aviation concerns" and that if PD rights were granted without consideration to aviation safeguarding they "may seek to recover any costs associated with negating the impact on BAA Operations".

Response to Question 20

3.8.11 Again planning authorities and the renewables industry agreed with the costs and benefits although there were some additional comments. For example, North Lanarkshire Council expressed a concern that there may be an increased workload for Environmental Health and planning authorities investigating noise complaints while Scottish Renewables felt that planning authorities' loss of earning was distorted because much of the development under the PD rights would be developments that would not otherwise have gone ahead.

Question 21 - Do you agree with the range of environmental and biodiversity costs presented?

3.8.12 Only 18 of the 57 respondents replied to this question with the majority (12) in agreement. All but one of the 8 respondent planning authorities agreed with the presented environmental and biodiversity costs while opinion in the renewables industry was evenly split with 2 in agreement and 2 disagreeing.

3.8.13 North Lanarkshire Council felt that further investigation on the impact of micro-renewables was required and that a future review of PD rights may also be necessary as SNH were still assessing the impact on birds. They also raised concern about the potential for impacts on bats, a concern shared by East Lothian Council and the Bat Conservation Trust. In their response both North Lanarkshire Council and the Bat Conservation Trust referred to evidence that microgeneration equipment can impact on bats. East Lothian Council broadly agreed with the environmental and biodiversity costs although, in addition to the bats, they qualified their agreement by highlighting that the potential for displacement of birds is not mentioned with particular reference to the Firth of Forth Special Protection Area.

3.8.14 In the renewables industry, Scottish Renewables agreed with the costs presented as "impacts from these technologies at small scale will be minimal". However, EDF Energy responded by stating their belief that "the stated potential of MWTs could be overly ambitious" while the Scottish Microrenewables Working Group felt that the consultation paper did not reflect the additional costs that householders may incur in being required to use MCS accredited installers, especially in remote, rural locations.

3.8.15 Each of Archaeology Scotland, the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and BEFS felt that the implications for the historic environment had not been fully considered although each answered the specific question in a different way. The only respondent sustainable energy NGO agreed with the environmental and biodiversity costs presented, expressing their opinion that they would be minimal. Dunedin Canmore Housing Association Ltd asked whether there was any data showing the environmental benefit of installing ASHP over existing main gas heating but did say that savings would be made in urban properties as no connection charges would be payable to the gas network company. As can be seen from the table the only individual respondent agreed with the costs but did caveat their response by saying that the costs presented were estimates and that they believed there would be a "surge of takeup".

Response to Question 21

Question 22 - We would welcome comments from consultees on the level to which you consider small and micro businesses (including the downstream businesses) are likely to be affected by the proposals.

3.8.16 Only 6 responses to this question were received but those who did respond provided substantive answers. The majority of respondents (4 to 2) believed there was potential for a positive impact on small and micro businesses. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar supported Option 3 as being beneficial to local companies although they thought that there would be less of an impact on professional advice businesses in the Outer Hebrides due to the relatively small numbers of planning applications submitted by agents.

3.8.17 Opinion in the renewables industry was divided with EDF Energy of the opinion that "small and micro businesses will have opportunities to benefit from the PD proposals".SSE on the other hand recognised that, although they support the MCS proposal, it could be reformed to make it easier for small firms to gain accreditation. In addition, they noted their support in principle for "allowing the Certifier of Construction scheme for microgeneration to be developed to count as equivalent to MCS for the purposes of PD rights, which would enable more small firms to install more microgeneration equipment in Scotland". Scottish Renewables expressed concern that, by setting blade diameters at 2.2m for free-standing turbines outwith rural settings, "a leading Scottish based manufacturer is excluded from the market". They also suggested an increase in blade diameter to 6m in rural settings to allow the manufacturer to have 2 models within the PD limits.

3.8.18 One sustainable energy NGO believed that small businesses would "benefit greatly from a relaxation of the PD rules" due to an increase in the number of installations and those who install renewables technology would "benefit from reduced costs and time involved in installing the technology". The only individual respondent also felt that business would increase, "especially if Option 2 is accepted" and that there was a potential increase in planning applications as renewable options became more visible and accepted.

Question 23 - We would welcome comments on the level to which consultees consider competition might be affected by the proposed amendments to the GPDO.

3.8.19 There were 4 responses to this question: 1 from a planning authority, 2 from the renewables industry and 1 from a sustainable energy NGO. The sustainable energy NGO expressed their view that the amendments would "help increase competition and stimulate the market" which Eaga felt would be beneficial for householders as has been the case with traditional energy suppliers. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar stated that "the impact of increased PD rights may indirectly affect competition between suppliers" although they did not expand further.

3.8.20 Scottish Renewables expressed concern that the costs of MCS accreditation are a barrier to small to medium sized companies. Their view was that it is important for any accreditation system to recognise and prioritise "the existence of unique Scottish Building Regulations, Scottish Government targets for renewables, Scottish training and skill standards". They highlighted the Scottish Building Services Engineering sector's efforts to enhance the Certifier of Construction scheme to include microgeneration technologies and the steps taken by trade bodies for plumbing and electrical engineering to recognise installers who have successfully completed microgeneration training. Scottish Renewables expressed their view that the proposed MCS requirements could be met or exceeded by these registered installers combined with the audit of every microgeneration installation by Certifiers of Construction.