Permitted Development Rights review - phase 3: consultation analysis

5. Electricity Undertakings

5.1 Class 40 (Electricity Undertakings)

Class 40 (Electricity Undertakings) of the GPDO provides PDR for certain development undertaken by statutory undertakers for the generation, transmission or supply of electricity. Statutory undertakers include licence holders within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Electricity Act 1989. These cover generation licence holders, transmission licence holders, distribution licence holders, supply licence holders, interconnector licence holders and smart meter communication licence holders.

Class 40 PDR cover a range of development needed for the upgrading and expansion of electricity networks, including electric lines, substations, communications lines, site investigation works and certain development on operational land. These PDR have not been substantively amended for some time and there may be opportunities to update them to reflect our changing energy system.

It is proposed that class 40 should be amended to clarify that the PDR can be used by statutory undertakers for purposes of ‘smart meter communications’ and the ‘distribution’ and ‘interconnection’ of electricity alongside its ‘generation, transmission, or supply.’

Question 20: Do you agree that class 40 PDR should be amended to clarify that they can be applied by statutory undertakers for the purposes of ‘smart meter communications’ and the ‘distribution’ and ‘interconnection’ of electricity as well as its ‘generation’, ‘transmission’ and ‘supply’?

Responses to Question 20 by respondent type are set out in Table 17 below.

Table 17

	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
Organisations:
Planning authority	16	1	1	18
Public body or corporation	1			1
Professional or representative body	4	2	3	9
Private sector - energy/renewables	5			5
Private sector - thermal efficiency/heating
Private sector - other	1		1	2
Third sector - built environment/conservation
Third sector - shooting			2	2
Third sector - community councils/representative groups	2			2
Third sector - other	1			1
Total organisations	30	3	7	40
% of organisations	75%	8%	18%
Individuals	16	27	37	80
% of individuals	20%	34%	46%
All respondents	46	30	44	120
% of all respondents	38%	25%	37%
% excluding “don’t know” responses	61%	39%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Respondents were most likely to think that existing class 40 PDR should be amended to clarify that they can be applied by statutory undertakers for the purposes of ‘smart meter communications’ and the ‘distribution’ and ‘interconnection’ of electricity; 38% of those answering the question were of this view while 25% did not think the existing PDR should be amended and 37% did not know. Excluding those answering “don’t know”, 61% agreed and 39% disagreed.

The balance of opinion was different amongst organisations, with three quarters – 75% of those answering the question – thinking the existing PDR should be amended. This compares with 20% of individual respondents.

Please add any comment in support of your answer

Around 40 respondents provided a comment at Question 20.

Reasons for amending the PDR

This included respondents simply stating their support for proposals, although a range of specific arguments and issues were raised in support of amending current PDR. These included comments supporting commentary in the consultation paper around the need for PDR to reflect evolving technologies and Scotland’s changing energy system. In this context, there was specific support for ensuring PDR align with the Electricity Act 1989.

References to ensuring PDR reflects evolving technologies were linked to a view that significant upgrades will be required to Scotland’s electricity network to support renewable energy generation and increasing electricity demand associated with decarbonisation and delivery of net zero targets. These respondents saw a need to expedite processes around electricity network upgrades, including new connections needed for the export of renewable electricity. Amendment to PDR to allow for distribution and interconnection was seen as an essential step in streamlining the planning process for these works.

It was also suggested that existing PDR and other planning regulations have restricted private investment in net zero capital projects in Scotland, including around upgrading of sub-stations and network infrastructure. Expanding PDR was supported as a means of encouraging more investment. The value of ensuring parity with planning regulations elsewhere in the UK was also highlighted in the context of supporting continued development of renewables in Scotland. It was suggested that the Scottish Government should take the time to review the results of the UK Government call for evidence before making any further changes to PDR.

Concerns and opposition

A range of concerns and reasons for opposition to proposals were also raised by respondents. This included objection to statutory undertakers being permitted to carry out any forward development without planning consent. However, most of those raising concerns referred to specific issues to be considered.

For example, there was concern around the potential noise impacts of distribution and interconnection development. Respondents noted the potential level and nature of noise associated with transformers, generators, and battery storage facilities (and associated air conditioning); it was suggested that this is sufficient to require full planning assessment.

Several individual members of the public raised concerns around effective oversight of development across the electricity network. These concerns were linked to a view that local communities, statutory consultees and relevant agencies must be given the opportunity to review proposals where there is potential for negative impacts on the local environment and communities.

Suggested additions or amendments

Reflecting the issues and concerns noted above, several amendments were suggested including that:

• Since electricity storage is important, especially for renewable energy generation, the PDR should include reference to storage alongside distribution and interconnection.
• PDR should be expanded to include a wider range of agencies, including suggestions that this should include all licence holders as currently defined under section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989, and renewables operators not currently classified as statutory undertakers.

5.2 Substation Infrastructure

Class 40(1)(a) allows electricity undertakers to install or replace substation infrastructure reasonably necessary in connection with an electric line. This substation infrastructure includes feeder pillars, service pillars, transforming stations, switching stations and chambers. These PDR do not apply to substation infrastructure housed in a chamber with a capacity greater than 29 cubic metres.

It is proposed that class 40 should be amended by:

(i) Increasing the maximum size threshold from 29 to 45 cubic metres

(ii) Providing that a new/replacement substation installed under class 40:

• May not exceed a 3m height limit.
• May not be within 5m of a dwelling if it exceeds 29 cubic metres capacity.

Question 21: Do you agree with the proposed amendments to the provisions of class 40 PDR which relate to new or replacement substations?

Responses to Question 21 by respondent type are set out in Table 18 below.

Table 18

	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
Organisations:
Planning authority	15	3	1	19
Public body or corporation	1			1
Professional or representative body	4	5	3	12
Private sector - energy/renewables	4			4
Private sector - thermal efficiency/heating
Private sector - other	2		1	3
Third sector - built environment/conservation	1			1
Third sector - shooting			2	2
Third sector - community councils/representative groups	2			2
Third sector - other	1		2	3
Total organisations	30	8	9	47
% of organisations	64%	17%	19%
Individuals	17	21	39	77
% of individuals	22%	27%	51%
All respondents	47	29	48	124
% of all respondents	38%	23%	39%
% excluding “don’t know” responses	62%	38%

Respondents were most likely to agree with the proposed amendments to existing class 40 PDR relating to new or replacement substations, 38% of those answering the question of this view. Of the remaining respondents to the question, 23% disagreed with proposals, and 39% did not know. Excluding those who answered “don’t know”, 62% agreed and 38% disagreed. The balance of opinion was different amongst organisations, where 64% agreed with the proposals, compared to 22% of individual respondents.

Please add any comment in support of your answer

Around 50 respondents provided a comment at Question 21.

Support for proposed changes

Consistent with responses at Question 20, support for proposed changes to PDR for substations included reference to the need for change to facilitate ongoing improvements to the electricity network to support net zero targets and the anticipated increase in electricity demand. Upgrades to substation infrastructure were identified as an essential part of this work.

There was also support for proposed restrictions on the size and location of substation development allowed under PDR. These were seen as important in limiting any adverse impacts associated with proposed changes, while ensuring PDR reflect the changing design standards across the electricity network. However, there were also suggestions that proposed restrictions may not be sufficient to allow for anticipated future development in technologies, and it was proposed that the size and height thresholds should be reconsidered.

Concerns and issues raised

Other concerns and issues raised around proposed changes to PDR were linked to the potential for larger substations to have a significant adverse impact on the local area. This was most commonly related to potential noise impacts associated with larger developments. It was noted that PDR relates primarily to internally housed substations which typically generate less noise, but there remained concern around the potential for ground-borne noise. It was also noted that PDR could permit replacement of existing infrastructure with louder alternatives.

Respondents also referred to the specific characteristics of noise generated by substations, and it was suggested that this can have a particularly significant impact in residential areas with low levels of background noise. This was linked to concerns around the potential for substations to be in relatively close proximity to residential properties, and questions were raised around whether the proposed 5m limit for residential properties would be sufficient to mitigate noise impacts. Clarification was sought on the basis for the proposed 5m threshold.

Other potential adverse impacts highlighted in relation to substation development included visual impacts on the local area, biodiversity loss, infringement of access rights and public health impacts. Concerns around potential visual impacts included a suggestion that proposed restrictions on building height would still allow for significant adverse visual impacts on the historic environment. It was also suggested that the requirement for scheduled monument consent will not be sufficient to mitigate impacts on the historic environment, and that this consent is only likely to apply in a limited number of cases.

On the basis of the above concerns around the potential impact of larger substations, some respondents were of the view that this kind of development should require full planning consent. This was linked to comments around the importance of local communities and relevant agencies in having the opportunity to consider proposals and identify potential negative impacts. There was also reference to examples of the planning process resulting in more appropriate and sensitive design of substations to minimise local impact, especially in designated areas.

Suggested additions or amendments

Other respondents raising concerns around the proposed change to PDR suggested additions or amendments to proposals including a view that further analysis is required prior to any amendment, to assess the likely number of new substations that may be developed under revised PDR. Other suggestions included:

• Limits on PDR for substations in protected areas – either removal of PDR for these areas or requiring design of substations to be sympathetic to the local area. This included specific reference to National Parks, designated nature sites, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, and the setting of listed buildings and scheduled monuments.
• A threshold linked to noise levels at the nearest residential property as an alternative to the proposed 5m limit from residential properties.
• A lower height threshold of 3m for a flat roof and 4m for a pitched roof, consistent with PDR for standard householder extensions.
• Retaining the prior notification and approval process to enable control over the siting and visual appearance of substations, especially where siting has potential to detract from the local area.

It was also argued that PDR should not allow for substation development where this would obstruct or significantly divert a core path, right of way or well-used public access route – or that Stopping Up or Diversion Orders should be required.

5.3 Communications Lines

Class 40(1)(b) allows statutory undertakers to install or replace any telecommunications line which connects any part of an electric line to any electrical plant or building. It also covers any supports needed for communications lines. These PDR do not apply in a National Scenic Area or a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Restrictions also apply to electronic communications lines greater than 1,000m in length or supported on a structure greater than 15m in height.

It is proposed that class 40(1)(b) should be amended to allow replacement of communications lines in National Scenic Areas or Sites of Special Scientific Interest where the PDR does not currently apply. This would be subject to a condition ensuring that the height, design or position of the replacement communications line reflects that of the existing communications line. The installation of new communications lines in these areas would not be covered by PDR.

Whether to extend these PDR to allow statutory undertakers to install or replace communications lines which are longer than 1,000m is also being considered and views on what (if any) alternative threshold might be appropriate are also sought.

Question 22: Do you agree with the proposal to allow the replacement of communications lines in National Scenic Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest under class 40 PDR provided that the design, height or position of the replacement line matches the original?

Responses to Question 22 by respondent type are set out in Table 19 below.

Table 19

	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
Organisations:
Planning authority	16	1	1	18
Public body or corporation	1			1
Professional or representative body	5	2	3	10
Private sector - energy/renewables	4			4
Private sector - thermal efficiency/heating
Private sector - other	1		1	2
Third sector - built environment/conservation	1			1
Third sector - shooting			2	2
Third sector - community councils/representative groups	2			2
Third sector - other		1	1	2
Total organisations	30	4	8	42
% of organisations	71%	10%	19%
Individuals	16	26	33	75
% of individuals	21%	35%	44%
All respondents	46	30	41	117
% of all respondents	39%	26%	35%
% excluding “don’t know” responses	61%	39%

Respondents were most likely to agree with the proposal to allow the replacement of communications lines in National Scenic Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest under PDR; 39% of those answering the question were of this view. Of the remaining respondents to the question, 26% disagreed with the proposal, and 35% did not know. Excluding those who answered “don’t know”, 61% agreed and 39% disagreed.

Among organisations, 71% of those answering the question agreed compared with 21% of individual respondents.

Please add any comment in support of your answer

Around 40 respondents provided a comment at Question 22

Support for the proposed amendment

Support for the proposed amendment included comments referencing the potential role of PDR in streamlining the planning process around works necessary to upgrade Scotland’s electricity system. It was also noted that the proposal is consistent with existing PDR enabling statutory undertakers to replace below-ground electric lines.

Respondents also supported the stipulation that PDR would only allow a direct replacement that matches the design, height and position of the original communication line. This was seen as important in preventing any significant additional impact on National Scenic Areas and SSSIs. It was also noted that planning permission would still be required for associated access requirements, and there was reference to other consent processes associated with these designated areas, such as the requirement for SSSI consent from NatureScot. Some suggested that these provisions would be important in minimising potential environmental impacts.

Concerns and opposition

Concerns and opposition to the proposed changes included a particular focus on the value of National Scenic Areas or SSSIs as wild areas with considerable biodiversity value. Some wished to see the full planning process retained for all replacement or extension to electricity infrastructure in designated areas. This was linked to a view that full planning scrutiny (including engagement with installers) should be retained to secure improvements to design and materials of communication lines, for example to reduce visual impacts. There were also objections linked to a view that all communications lines should be installed underground in these areas.

A distinction was also made between National Scenic Areas and SSSIs. For example, it was suggested that conditions to limit visual impacts would offer sufficient protection in National Scenic Areas as these are a landscape designation. This was contrasted with the importance of SSSIs for biodiversity and nature recovery in Scotland and it was suggested that the significant biodiversity, historical, cultural and archaeological considerations in these areas warrant full planning scrutiny.

Potential issues were also raised around the exclusion of other designated areas from PDR. For example, it was suggested that National Scenic Areas and SSSIs often overlap with other designations, such as Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas. There was concern that this could cause confusion for installers and other stakeholders around the relevant approval process where multiple area designations apply.

Suggested additions or amendments

Reflecting the issues and concerns noted above, several amendments were suggested including that:

• The proposed exclusion of new communications lines from PDR should also apply across other designated areas that share the special landscape qualities of National Scenic Areas and SSSIs – for example National Parks, National Nature Reserves, wild land areas, Scheduled Monuments, the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes, and battlefields.
• Prior notification should be removed from PDR for replacement of communication lines in these areas, linked to concern that this adds confusion for stakeholders.
• The revised PDR should encourage installers to consider options for improvement to existing lines as part of replacement works. This included calls for a requirement that replacement of lines should be considered in terms of their design and materials to better protect sensitive landscapes and wild lands, and scope to add or upgrade monitoring systems as part of replacement works.

Question 23: Do you have any thoughts on the potential to provide for the installation or replacement of communications lines of a greater length than 1,000m under class 40? If so, do you have a view on an appropriate alternative threshold?

Around 25 respondents provided a comment at Question 23

Support for the proposals

Some respondents expressed support for proposals to allow replacement of lines longer than 1,000m, noting that the deployment of longer lines will be essential to improve grid connections and modernise Scotland’s electricity infrastructure. There was also a view that installation of new lines of more than 1,000m in length is likely to require greater scrutiny around potential visual impact, but that replacement of existing lines is unlikely to have a significant impact. In this context, there was support for the 1,000m limit being retained for installation of new communications lines.

It was also suggested that the length of communications line is not a key factor in the potential impact of this kind of development. For example, there was a view that the sensitivity of the landscape is more relevant, and that longer lines will not necessarily have a greater landscape impact than shorter lines.

Concerns and issues raised

There were questions around the rationale for the 1,000m threshold, with some respondents suggesting that this is not reflective of electricity network projects. This reflected a view that a consistent approach should be taken to installation of electricity and communication lines, and it was noted that a limit does not apply to the length of underground cables covered by PDR. There was concern that retaining the 1,000m limit for communication lines could cause issues where a new communication line is to be installed alongside an underground cable of more than 1,000m.

Concerns were also raised around the potential impact of proposed changes to PDR on particularly sensitive landscapes and sites. For example, it was noted that the impact assessments provided alongside the consultation paper identified a potential for extended lines to have a significant impact on the historic environment. It was also suggested that visual impacts associated with longer communication lines are likely to be localised around specific designated sites such as listed buildings or scheduled monuments.

Suggested additions or amendments

In terms of amendments to the proposals, suggestions included that:

• An upper threshold should not apply to the length of communication lines under PDR, provided this is a like-for-like replacement.
• Prior notification and approval should be explored for sites such as listed buildings or scheduled monuments.

5.4 Site Investigation Works

Class 40(1)(c) allows statutory undertakers to sink boreholes to ascertain the nature of the subsoil, and to install plant or machinery reasonably necessary in connection with such boreholes. These works are subject to a condition at class 40(3)(c) that on the completion of the development or at the end of a period of six months from the beginning of that development (whichever is sooner) any such plant or machinery shall be removed, and the land shall be restored as soon as reasonably practicable. The land must be restored to its condition before the installation took place, or to such condition as may have been agreed in writing between the planning authority and the developer.

It is proposed that class 40 should be amended to extend the type of site investigation works that statutory undertakers can carry out. This would involve broadening the scope of works to include additional intrusive survey and site investigation works and associated temporary plant, including: rotary boreholes, peat-probing, excavation of trial pits and gas and water ground monitoring.

Any additional site investigation works permitted would be subject to the condition at class 40(3)(c) that any plant or machinery shall be removed, and the land shall be restored as soon as reasonably practicable upon completion of the development (or within six months from the beginning of the development). Views are also sought on whether potential adverse effects linked to site investigation works should be mitigated through restrictions on certain works in designated areas, or through limitations on the scale of trial pits to be excavated.

Question 24: Do you agree with the proposal to extend the range of site investigation works that can be carried out under class 40?

Responses to Question 24 by respondent type are set out in Table 20 below.

Table 20

	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
Organisations:
Planning authority	16	2	1	19
Public body or corporation	1			1
Professional or representative body	3	1	5	9
Private sector - energy/renewables	4			4
Private sector - thermal efficiency/heating
Private sector - other	1		2	3
Third sector - built environment/conservation	1	1		2
Third sector - shooting			2	2
Third sector - community councils/representative groups	2			2
Third sector - other	1	1		2
Total organisations	29	5	10	44
% of organisations	66%	11%	23%
Individuals	21	19	35	75
% of individuals	28%	25%	47%
All respondents	50	24	45	119
% of all respondents	42%	20%	38%
% excluding “don’t know” responses	68%	32%

Respondents were most likely to agree with the proposal to extend the range of site investigation works that can be carried out under PDR; 42% of those answering the question were of this view. Of the remaining respondents to the question, 20% did not think the existing PDR should be amended, and 38% did not know. Excluding those who answered “don’t know”, 68% agreed and 32% disagreed. The balance of opinion was different among organisations, where 67% of those answering the question agreed with the proposals, compares with 28% of individual respondents.

Please add any comment in support of your answer

Around 45 respondents provided a comment at Question 24

Reasons for supporting the proposals

Several respondents simply stated that have no objection to the proposed expansion of PDR. However, respondents also took the opportunity to set out specific reasoning in support of proposals. This included reference to proposals as a means of providing statutory undertakers with greater flexibility to enable necessary site investigation works, noting that these are essential to avoid delays to the deployment of electricity infrastructure and to ensure that final works are adequately provided for in terms of time, resources and materials. Extending the scope of PDR was also seen as consistent with changes in the range of investigation works typically required for the deployment of electricity infrastructure.

Other comments in support of proposals included a view that the site investigation works and associated temporary plant detailed in the consultation paper are similar to works already allowed under PDR in terms of their likely impact. Some supported the proposed change on the basis that any works would be subject to conditions requiring the timely removal of plant and machinery, and the subsequent restoration of land. It was suggested that this should be sufficient to mitigate against potential adverse impacts. Respondents also noted that site investigation works will be subject to other controls and regulations, for example around pollution.

Concerns and objections

A range of concerns and potential issues were also raised in relation to proposed changes to PDR. This included reference to the potential for unintended climate and nature impacts if the proposed site investigation works are not subject to sufficient scrutiny, especially in designated areas, non-designated archaeological sites, and other sensitive landscapes. These concerns included a suggestion that full restoration of land may not be possible in all cases. There was also specific reference to the potential impact of site investigations on potentially contaminated land, and disruption to food production where site investigations are on agricultural land. It was noted that 6 months is a lengthy period where investigation works may disrupt existing land uses.

Opposition to the proposed extension of PDR included a view that all site investigation works should be subject to full planning permission. It was suggested that all proposals for site investigations should be subject to scrutiny by relevant agencies and the public, and that landowners should have the right to refuse access to their land.

Suggested additions or amendments

Reflecting the views noted above, respondents proposed a number of additions or amendments to proposals including that there should be additional restrictions on PDR for site investigation works in specific designated areas including SSSIs, sites of archaeological interest, conservation areas, the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes and peatland. There were also calls for any site investigation works under PDR to be subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, appropriate archaeological assessment (including where there may be undesignated archaeological sites), and other relevant studies such as in relation to habitat impacts.

Other suggestions included that:

• The reference to ‘rotary boreholes’ should be replaced with ‘exploratory holes’ (consistent with the British Standard) or simply ‘boreholes’ to ensure PDR does not restrict use of other approaches that may be less intrusive and more appropriate to the local context.
• PDR should not apply, or should be conditional upon temporary Stopping Up or Diversion Orders, where site investigation works would obstruct, interrupt or significantly divert a core path, right of way or other public access route.
• The range of works under class 40 PDR should be expanded to reduce uncertainty and streamline development processes for renewable generation and electricity network infrastructure, for example by permitting the temporary installation of meteorological masts for onshore renewable energy projects.

Question 25: Do you consider that there are any designated areas where PDR for certain site investigation works should be restricted? Should there be any limitations on the scale of certain intrusive site investigation works permitted, for example, the size of trial pits?

Responses to Question 25 by respondent type are set out in Table 21 below.

Table 21

	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
Organisations:
Planning authority	14	3	1	18
Public body or corporation	1			1
Professional or representative body	6		3	9
Private sector - energy/renewables		2		2
Private sector - thermal efficiency/heating
Private sector - other	1		2	3
Third sector - built environment/conservation	1			1
Third sector - shooting			2	2
Third sector - community councils/representative groups	1	1		2
Third sector - other	2			2
Total organisations	26	6	8	40
% of organisations	65%	15%	20%
Individuals	20	11	44	75
% of individuals	27%	15%	59%
All respondents	46	17	52	115
% of all respondents	40%	15%	45%
% excluding “don’t know” responses	73%	27%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Overall, respondents were most likely to not to know whether there are designated areas where PDR for certain site investigation works should be restricted, with 45% of those answering the question of this view. Of the remaining respondents 40% agreed and 15% disagreed. Excluding those who answered “don’t know”, 73% agreed and 27% disagreed.

The balance of opinion was different amongst organisations, with most – 65% of those answering the question – in agreement that PDR for certain site investigation should be restricted in some designated areas. This compares with 27% of individual respondents.

Please add any comment in support of your answer

Around 50 respondents provided a comment at Question 25.

Restricting PDR in designated areas

Some respondents argued that additional restrictions on PDR should not be necessary in relation to designated areas. This was because these PDR are subject to a condition that the land is restored after site investigations have taken place and, also, because many designated areas are subject to separate consenting regimes. For example, scheduled monument consent from Historic Environment Scotland is required for works which would directly affect a scheduled monument. However, most of those providing comment suggested that some level of restriction on PDR for site investigation works would be required in designated areas.

This was most commonly in relation to sites of archaeological interest and nature or habitat-related designations. Support for restricting PDR in relation to sites of archaeological interest included comments noting that this would be consistent with other consultation proposals, and national policy aims for the historic environment. However, there was some concern that such a reference may be difficult to enforce without a clear definition, for example to include non-designated archaeological sites.

Reference to nature and habitat-related designations included proposals to limit PDR in National Parks and National Scenic Areas, although it was suggested that a ‘blanket’ restriction across these areas may not be necessary if there are restrictions for specific designated and sensitive sites. It was also noted that sites of particular nature or habitat value are already subject to protections under other legislation, such as through Habitat Regulations. Nevertheless, restrictions on PDR for site investigation works were proposed in relation to the following designated areas:

• SSSIs.
• Special Areas of Conservation.
• Special Protection Areas.
• Special Landscape Areas.
• Class I and II peatlands.
• Areas of woodland.
• World Heritage Sites.
• European Sites.
• Conservation areas.
• Scheduled monuments.
• Within the curtilage of listed buildings.
• The Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes.
• Historic battlefields.

Respondents also suggested restrictions specifically to mitigate the noise impacts of site investigation works, including limiting PDR within a specified distance of neighbouring properties. This was highlighted as a particular issue for intrusive site investigations where these encounter unexpected rock seams, and in locations with nearby public buildings and residential housing.

Limiting the scale of works

In relation to potential for limits on the scale of intrusive site investigation works, several respondents suggested that this may not be appropriate. This included comments noting that the scale of works such as trial pits is likely to be determined by technical and safe working factors, and a view that that over-arching limitations on PDR should not compromise these considerations. Other points around potential limitation of the scale of works included that: this could undermine the aim of removing barriers to necessary development; that the impact of works will vary dependent on the specific site such that a standard size limit may not be feasible; and that the protection of sensitive sites is more important than a fixed limit on the scale of works.

A number of respondents did support a limit on the scale of site investigation works allowed under PDR. This included particular reference to limiting the surface area and depth of works, and a suggestion that such limitation could be important in preventing unauthorised quarrying or peat extraction. It was also suggested that any excavations should be required to be covered when not in use, with exit ramps to prevent species from becoming trapped.

5.5 Fences, Gates, Walls and Other Means of Enclosures

Class 7 of the GPDO relates to the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure without the need to apply for planning permission. These PDR are not specific to particular parties and are applicable to anyone: this includes, but is not limited to, electricity undertakers.

Class 7 PDR do not apply where the height of the enclosure, after carrying out the development, would exceed 1m above ground level when constructed within 20m of a road or for the construction or erection of any enclosure which would exceed 2m in height. However, The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 place a number of requirements on the delivery of electricity network infrastructure to ensure public safety, including a specification that any part of an electricity substation, which is open to the air and contains live equipment, which is not encased, is enclosed behind a fence or wall not less than 2.4m in height.

It is therefore proposed that a specific PDR should be introduced enabling statutory undertakers to erect, construct, maintain, improve or alter a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure linked to electricity undertakings. These would be linked to class 40 and so not available to other parties. Rather than the height restrictions that apply to class 7, these provisions would instead, would be subject to a general height limit of 3m.

Question 26: Do you agree with the proposed introduction of specific PDR enabling electricity undertakers to erect, construct, maintain or improve gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure up to 3m in height?

Responses to Question 26 by respondent type are set out in Table 22 below.

Table 22

	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
Organisations:
Planning authority	16		2	18
Public body or corporation	1			1
Professional or representative body	6	3	1	10
Private sector - energy/renewables	4			4
Private sector - thermal efficiency/heating
Private sector - other	1		2	3
Third sector - built environment/conservation	1			1
Third sector - shooting			2	2
Third sector - community councils/representative groups	2			2
Third sector - other		1		1
Total organisations	31	4	7	42
% of organisations	74%	10%	17%
Individuals	21	17	35	73
% of individuals	29%	23%	48%
All respondents	52	21	42	115
% of all respondents	45%	18%	37%
% excluding “don’t know” responses	71%	29%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Respondents were most likely to agree with proposals for specific PDR to enable electricity undertakers to erect, construct, maintain or improve means of enclosure up to 3m in height; 45% of those answering the question were of this view. Of the remaining respondents to the question, 18% disagreed with proposals, and 37% did not know. Excluding those who answered “don’t know”, 71% agreed and 29% disagreed. Amongst organisations, 74% were in agreement with proposals including a clear majority of Planning authority respondents, and all Private sector - energy/renewables respondents.

Please add any comment in support of your answer

Around 45 respondents provided a comment at Question 26.

Reasons for supporting the proposals

Comments in support of proposals included a view that increasing the permitted height of gates, fences and other enclosures is a reasonable change in the context of public safety requirements around electricity network infrastructure. It was noted that these safety requirements would mean that planning authorities are likely to support any planning application for required enclosures, and hence it is appropriate for these to be allowed under PDR.

Support for proposals also included specific reference to the limitation preventing the erection of enclosures that would obstruction to the view of road users. It was also noted that the proposed increase in permitted height to 3m would be consistent with proposals at Question 21 in relation to electricity substations, and would allow for installation of acoustic fencing to improve the amenity around electricity network infrastructure.

Concerns and objections

Concerns around increasing the permitted height of enclosures under PDR were most commonly related to potential visual impacts, with an associated view that the proposals would remove any control over the quality and design of enclosures. This lack of control was seen as a particular issue in the context of an expected increase in the number of electricity substations. Other concerns included potential for proposals to allow for the erection of acoustically reflective walls around substations, potentially increasing noise levels in residential areas, and to obstruct future transport improvements such as footways and cycle paths.

Respondents also raised several questions and points for clarity around proposals, including the basis of the proposed 3m height limit where legislation only requires a height of 2.4m. There were also calls for a clearer formulation of the permitted distance between enclosures and electricity infrastructure, and for clarification around the general limitation on development that obstructs the view of road users (for example that this includes cyclists and pedestrians, and that gates should not obstruct sightlines when open).

Additions and amendment to proposals

On the basis of these concerns, a number of respondents were of the view that such development should be subject to full planning permission, including scrutiny by relevant agencies and the public. However, respondents also suggested a range of additions and amendments to proposals, to address the above concerns.

A range of alternative height limits were suggested. These included a reduction in the proposed limit to 2.4m, or further increasing the limit to 3.5m to reflect the average height of steel palisade security fencing. Additional flexibility was also suggested to allow for enclosures of up to 5m for nationally critical infrastructure, where heightened security measures are mandated by the National Protective Security Authority. More generally, it was suggested that the Scottish Government should ensure that the proposed 3m height limit continues to be consistent with guidance and advice relating to the security of public infrastructure.

Other suggested amendments to proposals included that:

• PDR should be restricted for protected areas including SSSIs, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, National Parks, National Scenic Areas, National Nature Reserves, wild land areas, sites of archaeological interest, the curtilage of listed buildings, and the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. Alternatively, use of prior notification and approval was suggested to mitigate potential impacts in these areas.
• PDR should be restricted where enclosures would encroach onto footpaths, and/or for enclosures within a specified distance of a residential property.
• PDR should be limited to palisade fencing to avoid the risk of elevated noise levels.
• PDR should be extended beyond statutory undertakers to include all significant generators connected to the national networks.

5.6 Development on Operational Land

Class 40(1)(d-f) allows electricity undertakers to carry out certain developments on operational land, permitting a range of development including the extension or alteration of buildings and the erection of new buildings for the protection of plant or machinery. Limitations and conditions include a requirement that prior notification is given to the relevant planning authority, who may then require that prior approval is obtained on the details of the siting, design and external appearance of new buildings erected on operational land for the protection or plant or machinery.

It is proposed that the requirement for prior notification and approval from planning authorities on the siting, design and external appearance of new buildings for housing plant/machinery permitted on operational land for electricity undertakings should be removed.

Question 27: Do you agree with the proposed removal of prior notification and approval requirements that apply to certain works under class 40 PDR? Please add any comment in support of your answer

Responses to Question 27 by respondent type are set out in Table 23 below.

Table 23

	Yes	No	Don't know	Total
Organisations:
Planning authority	12	5	2	19
Public body or corporation	1			1
Professional or representative body	3	4	2	9
Private sector - energy/renewables	3			3
Private sector - thermal efficiency/heating
Private sector - other			2	2
Third sector - built environment/conservation		1		1
Third sector - shooting			2	2
Third sector - community councils/representative groups	2			2
Third sector - other	1	1		2
Total organisations	22	11	8	41
% of organisations	54%	27%	20%
Individuals	13	25	36	74
% of individuals	18%	34%	49%
All respondents	35	36	44	115
% of all respondents	30%	31%	38%
% excluding “don’t know” responses	49%	51%

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Views were divided on proposals to remove prior notification and approval requirements that apply to certain works under PDR; 30% of those answering the question agreed and 31% disagreed. The remaining 38% of respondents to the question did not know. Excluding those who answered “don’t know”, 49% agreed and 51% disagreed. The balance of opinion was different among organisations, where a small majority – 54% of those answering the question – were in agreement, compared with 18% of individual respondents.

Please add any comment in support of your answer

Around 50 respondents provided a comment at Question 27

Reasons for supporting the proposals

Consistent with comments around other proposed changes to PDR in relation to electricity undertakings, support for the removal of prior notification and approval was linked to potential to streamline processes to support necessary upgrades to electricity network infrastructure.

Respondents also made reference to anticipated benefits specific to the removal of prior notification and approval, including a reduction in the administrative burden on planning authorities associated with these processes. This was linked to a view that prior approval for development on existing operational land does not improve planning outcomes, and that these operational sites are typically of reduced sensitivity. On this basis, it was suggested that prior notification and approval should be removed from all classes of development.

Concerns and objections

Several respondents used Question 27 as an opportunity to state their opposition to the removal of prior notification and approval. However, a number of specific concerns and issues were also raised in response to the specific proposals.

These were linked to a view that these prior notification and approval can improve outcomes in some circumstances. Respondents highlighted the potential impact of development on operational land on neighbouring areas, especially where development is adjacent to residential areas or other sensitive sites. It was also suggested that proposals could allow for a substantial increase in the scale of development on operational land, including for example where this land is currently undeveloped. These respondents raised concerns around the scale of permitted development (up to 15m in height) and the potential noise impacts of development with reference to examples of noise complaints linked to substations being extended under PDR.

It was suggested that the prior notification and approval process allows for these and other issues to be addressed, improving the integration of development with the surrounding environment. There was a view that the potential loss of this benefit would outweigh the positive impacts of any streamlining of development, and it was suggested that further assessment of the issue is required.

Additions and amendment to proposals

Respondents suggested a limited range of amendments to proposals, most commonly that prior notification and approval is retained for designated areas. This included reference to National Parks, National Scenic Areas, sites of archaeological interest, conservation areas, SSSIs and Special Protection Areas. Restrictions on PDR were suggested for development close to neighbouring properties and the road network or, alternatively, that PDR is conditional on provision being made for screening planting. It was also suggested that, if prior notification and approval is removed, the maximum permitted height of development on operational land should be reduced to 5m, and limits placed on the distance of development from the site boundary.

Question 28: Please provide any further views you may have on the proposals in this section on the PDR associated with electricity undertakings.

Around 35 respondents answered Question 28. This included respondents taking the opportunity to reiterate views on proposed changes to PDR discussed at previous questions. For example, comments included reference to the benefits of proposals in streamlining the process of upgrading electricity network infrastructure, and to the important role of other relevant controls and regulations that would still apply to development under PDR, for example Habitat Regulations.

Respondents also repeated a number of the concerns and issues highlighted in relation to earlier questions, such as proposed restrictions on PDR in designated areas, and concerns that proposals would limit opportunities to address planning issues linked to electricity undertakings such as noise impacts, and complex land contamination issues. There was also wider discussion of issues around balancing the need to enable necessary upgrades to electricity networks with the need to mitigate potential adverse impacts.

Several specific issues and proposals were also set out by respondents including that PDR in relation to electricity undertakings should be extended to allow for:

• The temporary formation, alteration or maintenance of private ways necessary to maintain and refurbish existing overhead lines and their associated ‘wayleave corridor’ – with the condition that these are reinstated to their prior condition.
• The removal of overhead lines.
• Erecting a replacement fence line marginally outside existing fence lines, subject to a limitation on the distance between the original and replacement fencing.
• Other works required in association with electric lines being installed under class 40 (1) (a) PDR, such as temporary access provisions and temporary construction compounds.

Other suggestions included that:

• PDR should be extended beyond statutory undertakers, for example to include any agency undertaking grid works associated with an accepted grid offer.
• Electricity works under class 40 should be exempt from Article 4 Directions.
• Prior notification and approval should be removed for all development under class 40 (3) (d) and (2) (e) (1).
• Overhead Lines Regulations 2013 should be reviewed to ensure a consistent approach to facilitating roll out of necessary electricity infrastructure.