5 - Permitted Development Rights Consultation
Renfrewshire Council · 4 November 2025
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 4 November 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
2 PUBLIC ___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 4 November 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Permitted Development Rights - Consultation ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 The Scottish Government has recently published a consultation seeking views on a potential review of certain categories of permitted development rights. 1.2 This report provides an overview of the topics covered by the review and details the response which was submitted by officers, in liaison with the Convenor, prior to the submission deadline of 27th October 2025. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board: Note that The Scottish Government published a review of permitted development rights and sought comments on proposed changes from interested parties. Note that Officers reviewed the consultation paper and submitted a response, following liaison with the Convenor, in line with the deadline as set by The Scottish Government. _________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 Scottish Government is currently carrying out a review of permitted development rights.
Page 2
3 PUBLIC 3.2 A consultation document was recently published and interested parties were invited to make comments on the potential changes to permitted development rights. 3.3 Comments required to be submitted to Scottish Government by 27th October 2025. 3.4 In light of the deadline noted above and given this fell before the meeting of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board, officers prepared and submitted a response in line with the deadline, following liaison with the Convenor. 4. Proposed Changes 4.1 Permitted development rights and the use class order have the effect of allowing certain works or changes of use to take place without the need to seek full planning permission from the Planning Authority. 4.2 The consultation document sets out and seeks views on proposed changes to permitted development rights. Specifically, the proposals relate to the following: The provision of new homes in rural areas; The provision of new homes in town and city centres; and Domestic air source heat pumps and heat network connections. 4.3 The consultation paper can be viewed at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/permitted-development-rights- support-provision-new-homes-consultation/ 5. Next Steps 5.1 Officers have reviewed the consultation paper and have prepared and submitted a response ahead of the deadline for submissions on 27th October 2025. A copy of the response is detailed in Appendix 1 of this report. 5.2 Unfortunately, given the deadline and the timetable for the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board, it was not possible to present the response for approval prior to submission. 5.3 In light of the above, the response submitted was undertaken following liaison with the Convenor.
Page 3
4 PUBLIC __________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial – None. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None 3. Community/Council Planning – None. 4. Legal – None. 5. Property/Assets – None. 6. Information Technology – None. 7. Equality & Human Rights - The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None. 10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Cosla Policy Position – None. 13. Climate Risk – None. Author: Ross Lee, Development Standards Manager. Tel: 07811899920; Email: ross.lee@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 4
5 PUBLIC APPENDIX 1: Response to Consultation Paper Question 1: We would welcome your views on changing the maximum limit of the cumulative number of homes that can be created by virtue of the PDR in each agricultural unit or forestry building (currently set at five). Do you consider that the maximum limit in Classes 18B and 22A of five residential units per agricultural unit or forestry building should be changed? Yes / No/ Unsure. If so, in what way? Please explain your answer including (if appropriate) how you consider the limit should change. Answer: No - we do not consider that the maximum limit requires to be increased. We consider five is a reasonable threshold and that anything more than this does merit consideration through a formal planning permission application. This would also ensure that any development for more than 5 dwellings is subject to statutory notification and includes provision for interested parties to provide comment. It would also ensure that the infrastructure implications of developments of more than five homes can be taken into account, along with the requirement for any planning obligations. An example would be the potential impact on a local school that is at or near capacity. There could also be implications for school transport services. Question 2: Currently, the floor space of any residential unit developed under Classes 18B or 22A must not exceed 150 square metres. Do you believe the current floor space maximum of 150 square metres in Classes 18B and 22A should be removed or increased? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain how and why. Answer: No – we do not consider it requires to be either removed or increased. We consider 150 square metres is a reasonable floor limit/allowance before an application for full planning permission would be required. We are of the view that a threshold needs to be in place for this to safeguard against particularly sizeable conversions forming up to 5 dwellings. Larger homes accommodating more people can also have more significant infrastructure implications and have a greater impact on rural services, which are material considerations that can be considered in the assessment of full planning permission applications. Question 3: Do you believe that small extensions and/or separate buildings should be allowed as part of the conversion of an agricultural or forestry building to residential use under PDR? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes – We would consider it reasonable that the same buildings which can be converted without full planning permission should have the ability to make certain alterations, have small extensions and erect ancillary buildings within their curtilage without the need for full planning permission. We would consider it reasonable to apply the same parameters and limitations that relate to householders at present in terms of single storey extensions, alterations and enlargements etc. Question 4: Do you consider that any of the current location-based restrictions (sites of archaeological interest) in relation to Classes 18B and 22A should be removed and if so, which? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer.
Page 5
6 PUBLIC Answer: Unsure – we do not feel we are in an informed position to comment on whether the impact of removing sites of archaeological interest in relation to Class 18B or 22A would be appropriate or not. We would advise that this should be referred to West of Scotland Archaeological Service (WoSAS) to provide expert comment. Question 5: Do you consider the prior notification and approval mechanism (including the relevant matters and fee - £620) associated with Classes 18B and 22A should be changed? Yes / No / Unsure. If so, how? Please explain your answer. Answer: No – we consider the fee set for the prior notification and approval mechanism is reasonable, particularly when you consider the equivalent planning application fee increase and difference for the creation of more than one dwellinghouse compared to the flat rate fee for prior notification and approval which is set at £620.00. Question 6: Do you consider that PDR should allow the change of use of any other buildings on agricultural/forestry land to residential (e.g. equestrian)? Yes / No / Unsure. If so, to which type(s) of building should the PDR be extended, and why? Answer: No – we would have concerns about the potential implications of opening this up to other types of buildings which fall outwith the clearly defined terms of agricultural and forestry, equestrian being one such as example. We consider that such buildings which fall outwith these uses should be subject to assessment and consideration through a full planning permission application and that the process should continue to only apply to agriculture and forestry. Question 7: Do you consider that the PDR under Classes 18B or 22A should be expanded or revised in any other way? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: No – no further comments on this beyond that which is set out in the responses above. Question 8: Do you believe that there should be new PDR for the replacement of agricultural and forestry buildings with new-build homes in particular circumstances? Yes / No / Unsure. If so, in what circumstances? Please explain your answer. Answer: No – we are of the view that the replacement of such buildings with new build homes should require to be subject to a full planning permission application. We consider these developments require to be assessed on their own merits and against relevant policies of the development plan to establish if its acceptable. The planning permission application process also allows the Planning Authority to assess and consider whether replacement as opposed to re-use is the most appropriate option in certain cases. Ensuring these come through the planning permission process also means that such proposals will remain subject to the normal publicity and opportunity for public comment which we consider important given the potential differences between a new build and what is to be demolished. We also refer to previous comments on implications for infrastructure and rural services.
Page 6
7 PUBLIC Question 9: Do you believe that there should be new PDR for new-build homes in any particular types of rural areas in particular circumstances? Yes / No / Unsure. If so, in what types of rural areas and in what circumstances? Please explain your answer. Answer: No – see answer to question 8 above. Question 10: Do you consider that proposals to convert the ground floor or entirety of buildings in town and city centres to residential use should benefit from PDR? Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes – we see merit in giving consideration to this. Although we would consider that there has to be some clearly defined parameters to the extent of this allowance. Given town centres host buildings of varying scale, mass height and density, we would have reservations about a situation where an entire building in a town centre is capable of being changed to residential as permitted development without any form of consent. However, there are some reservations around the impact of new development on infrastructure and local services, and how planning obligations could be managed. An example would be the impact on a catchment school or local GP services that are at or near capacity. Question 11: Do you consider that there should be PDR for the change of use of properties above Use Class 1A premises to residential use? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Unsure – Class 1A properties can be changed to Class 3 (restaurant/café) or Class 4 (Business) without the requirement for planning permission. This could potentially result in conflict in terms of compatibility issues between that use and the residential immediately above it. If these do not require to be subject to a planning permission application, we would raise concern over how safeguarding and mitigation would be secured to ensure these adjoining uses could work in compatibility with one another. If the suggestion would be that this could be covered through prior notification and prior approval, we would recommend that this would be better be managed through a planning permission application. We also refer to previous comments on impact on infrastructure and local services. Question 12: Do you have any comments about the prospect that the PDR would allow a change of use to residential from any existing use? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes – As outlined in the response to Question 10 above, we consider that there is an opportunity to introduce permitted development rights for change of use from residential from an existing use. Notwithstanding this, given the variety of uses that exist in town centres, we would consider it necessary to give careful consideration to putting in place parameters and limitations over when this change can happen as permitted development. This is important to protect the vitality of town centres and in particular established existing noise generating uses.
Page 7
8 PUBLIC Question 13: Do you think PDR for the change of use of properties above Use Class 1A premises to residential use should include any limits on the minimum or maximum floorspace, size and/or number of residential units that can be formed? Yes/No/Unsure. Please explain your answer and describe what you think the limits should be, if any. Answer: Yes – as outlined above we consider that introducing permitted development rights in these terms would only work if there were parameters around when and in what scenarios this can take place. Specifically, we feel consideration needs to be given to the fact that a Class 1A premises can be changed to a Class 3 (restaurant/café) or a Class 4 (business) without the requirement for planning permission. Given the broad range of uses which could exist below residential properties in town centre locations, we would recommend that some limitations need to be put in place to ensure that there is a means to secure mitigation in the interest of compatibility between uses. Question 14: What other potential limits, restrictions and exclusions to such PDR should be considered? Answer: Unsure – no further comment beyond those set out above. Question 15: Do you consider that a prior notification and approval mechanism should be required in respect of a PDR for ‘town centre living’ as discussed in this chapter? Yes / No / Unsure. If yes, what matters do you consider should potentially be subject to prior approval? Please explain your answer. • Answer: Unsure – we are inclined to say that we consider that it would be better approach to have defined options that could be undertake as permitted development (e.g. a permitted change of use) or alternative which require full planning permission if they exceed certain limitations. We note that you have provided options that could be considered through the prior approval process and this includes; provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwelling, access to the dwelling, impacts of noise on occupiers of the new dwelling, the risk of flooding of the site or building. We would be concerned that this level of consideration is almost interchangeable with what would be considered by a full planning permission and so if this scope is to be brought forward, it is more appropriate that it is subject to a full planning permission. Question 16: Should any such PDR (permitting the change of use of floors above Use Class 1A premises) also permit certain external alterations of a building to facilitate the conversion to residential use, if so what alterations? Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes – if permitted development rights are going to be introduced to permit change of use of Class 1A to residential, it would seem reasonable to allow for some external alterations as part of this. We would suggest alterations which do not constitute enlargement could be considered as permitted development (addition/deletion of doors/windows etc) and that there is less concern over these being permitted development given the overlooked nature of the majority of the locations in town centres.
Page 8
9 PUBLIC Question 17: Please provide any other comments regarding the potential options to introduce PDR for ‘town centre living’ proposals as discussed in this chapter. Answer: No further comments beyond the above. Question 18: Do you consider that any expanded PDR for rural homes (described in chapter 2) should be subject to a condition prohibiting the use of the new units for short- term letting? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes - It would reasonable to condition and prohibit this to ensure the Council can contain a degree of control over this given the differences in the way short term lets and generic residential can operate. This is particularly important for rural locations which more movements, activity etc could be more impactful and consequential. Also, if the purpose of the changes are to address the housing emergency, then this would not be achieved by increasing supply of short term lets. Question 19: Do you consider that any ‘town centre living’ PDR (described in chapter 3) should be subject to a condition prohibiting the use of the new units for short-term letting? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes - It would reasonable to condition and prohibit this to ensure the Council can contain a degree of control over this given the differences in the way short term lets and generic residential can operate. Also, if the purpose of the changes are to address the housing emergency, then this would not be achieved by increasing supply of short term lets. Question 20: Do you consider that it would be appropriate to amend PDR for existing dwellinghouses, to allow homeowners to make better use of their existing properties? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes – we note a number of options are referenced in the consultation paper; increasing the maximum ground area covered by the resulting building (currently restricted to no more than twice the ground area covered by the original dwellinghouse) that can be created, amending the external dimension restrictions (for example in conservation areas), increasing the amount of side and rear curtilage that can be developed under PDR and amending the PDR for alterations to roofs to allow greater use of loft space. We consider these options as reasonable ones to review and could see a scenario whereby these are relaxed but this does not have a significant upon the matters which the Planning Authority requires to consider as part of planning applications. Question 21: Do you consider that the reference in the PDR for domestic air source heat pumps (ASHPs) should be revised to make it clear that the installation must comply with Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) 020 a)? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer.
Page 9
10 PUBLIC Answer: Yes – this is welcomed and will provide clarity for both the Planning Authority and applicants/installers of the standard that must be met. Question 22: Do you consider that air source heat pumps (ASHPs) installed on domestic properties under PDR should be permitted to be used for heating and cooling but not solely cooling? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes – We note that a similar change has been made to English legislation and see no reason why it would not be possible for the PDR to apply to both systems for heating and cooling. Question 23: Do you consider that the PDR for domestic ASHPs in Scotland should be amended to allow for the installation of up to two ASHPs on a detached dwellinghouse? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes – we would agree with the commentary relating to this question in that this would be reasonable for a detached dwellinghouse (with the anticipated offset etc) but that given the communal nature of flats and the shared elements of semi- detached, the limit should be maintained at one. Question 24: Do you consider that proposals that would result in more than one ASHP being installed on flatted buildings or on terraced or semi-detached properties should continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis by planning authorities? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes – for the reasons outlined in response to Question 23 above. Question 25: Do you consider that any other changes should be made to the existing PDR for the installation of ASHPs in Scotland? Please explain your answer. Answer: No – we consider the proposed changes as set out are sufficient. Question 26: Do you consider that it would be appropriate to have PDR for the installation (and subsequent repair and maintenance) of connections from individual buildings to heat networks? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer. Answer: Yes – Reading the commentary relating to this in the consultation paper, it would be reasonable to have PDR covering this for the avoidance of any doubt. As set out, the majority of the installation will be internal or underground and so it does not merit planning consideration. Notwithstanding, a PDR with a stipulation that the ground must be restored to its original condition/appearance would be welcomed. Question 27: What are your views on the accuracy and scope of the environmental baseline set out in the environmental report? Answer: We have no comments to make on this.
Page 10
11 PUBLIC Question 28: What are your views on the predicted environmental effects of the proposals as set out in the environmental report? Please give details of any additional relevant sources. Answer: We have no comments to make on this. Question 29: What are your views on the assessment of alternatives as set out in the environmental report? Answer: We have no comments to make on this. Question 30: What are your views on the proposals for mitigation, enhancement and monitoring of the environmental effects set out in the environmental report? Answer: We have no comments to make on this. Question 31: Please provide any comments on the partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) and information on the potential business or regulatory impacts of any of the options identified in this consultation. Answer: We have no comments to make on this. Question 32: Are you aware of any examples of how any of the options identified in this consultation may affect, either positively or negatively, those with protected characteristics? If yes, please provide further detail. Answer: We have no comments to make on this. Question 33: Please provide any comments or information on the potential impacts on children’s rights and wellbeing of any of the options identified in this consultation. Answer: We have no comments to make on this. Question 34: Do you have any information or comments on the potential impacts on island communities of any of the options identified in this consultation? If yes, please provide further detail. Answer: We have no comments to make on this. Question 35: Are you aware of any examples of potential impacts, either positive or negative, that the options identified in this consultation may have on groups or areas at socio-economic disadvantage (such as income, low wealth or area deprivation)? If yes, please provide further detail. Answer: We have no comments to make on this. Question 36: Do you agree that a Fairer Scotland Duty assessment is not required in relation to the options set out in this consultation? Answer: We have no comments to make on this.