Relaxation of planning controls for digital communications infrastructure: consultation responses

Designated Areas

Q3a - In view of the controls in place out with the planning system, should Category A listed buildings and scheduled monuments be removed from the general area based restrictions on Class 67 PD rights?(Yes - 10 , No - 18)

Q3b - Are there any other Class 67 designated areas which can be removed from the general area based restrictions? (Yes - 7, No - 16 )

Q4 - Do you have any other comments on the Class 67 designated areas in light of the proposals set out in this paper?

12. Across the whole issue of reducing the list of designated areas in which additional restrictions on PD rights apply, 'Industry' was in favour while 'Planning Authorities' and 'Heritage Bodies' were generally against, with other groups more split.

13. 'Industry' cited: the existence of other control regimes in relation to category A listed buildings and scheduled monuments, sites of special scientific interest and European sites; the potential use of prior approval procedures and related guidance; as well as the requirements of the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 - though a number in this respondent group also wanted the latter controls reduced alongside extending PD rights.

14. The main concern regarding removing category A listed buildings and scheduled monuments from the list of designated areas was that the requirements for consent to changes to these do not apply to the settings of such buildings and monuments, which are also of importance and sensitive to development. Historic Environment Scotland ( HES) indicated they were content for these designations to be removed from the list, provided the settings of such buildings and monuments remained on it.

15. A concern was that, in designated areas, the case by case consideration of planning applications, or, for very minor development, prior approval was needed. Even minor developments in the wrong place could have significant consequences. 16. Some were critical of other control regimes' ability to adequately protect sensitive areas. Others were concerned, despite the potential for duplication of controls, that an absence of planning control could be misinterpreted as meaning there was no control on development. Beyond 'Industry', there were a few further suggestions for removing certain areas, such as national parks, but no significant numbers or consistency.

17. There were a number of suggestions for designations to be added to the list of those where additional restrictions on PD rights apply. For example, NATS and the Ministry of Defence were concerned about PD rights for new or changes to masts in safeguarded areas around aerodromes and technical sites, such as radar installations. Suggestions included:

• Civil aerodromes and technical sites
• World Heritage Sites
• B and C listed buildings
• Greenbelt and coastal zones
• Forest parks
• Regional and Country parks
• Local environment sites
• Sites of Archaeological Interest
• Wild land areas
• Drinking water protected areas
• Ramsar sites