On 27 October 2025, RTPI Scotland submitted a response to the Scottish Government's consultation on permitted development rights to support the provision of new homes. Read the response below.

About the RTPI

The RTPI Champions the power of planning in creating sustainable, prosperous places and vibrant communities. We have over 27,000 members in the private, public, academic and voluntary sectors. Using our expertise and research we bring evidence and thought leadership to shape planning policies and thinking, putting the profession at the heart of society’s big debates. We set the standards of planning education and professional behaviour that provide our members, wherever they work in the world, a unique ability to meet complex economic, social environmental and cultural challenges.

1. 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?

No

Please explain your answer including (if appropriate) how you consider the limit should change:

RTPI Scotland recognises the importance of supporting the rural economy and acknowledges that the conversion of farm steadings and other agricultural and forestry buildings could, in certain circumstances, be entirely appropriate having regard to the spatial context and implications. However, we have concerns that raising the maximum limit of residential units per agricultural unit or forestry building in Classes 18B and 22A could result in unintended consequences for rural communities, who already face unique and varying challenges in terms of services, infrastructure and connectivity. It is the view of our members that the current limit of five dwellings per agricultural or forestry unit helps to ensure such conversions do not result in the creation of unplanned villages, which would go against the Infrastructure First Principle and put additional strain on infrastructure and services in rural areas.

Furthermore, whilst the consultation paper does consider how PDRs can help to support the delivery of NPF4 policy, robust compliance with NPF4 is best achieved through the planning application process, incorporating professional planning judgement and the consideration of all material aspects not captured within the prior approval process. We acknowledge that NPF4 has a number of policies supporting the creation of new rural homes by utilising innovative solutions such as reusing redundant buildings (Policy 17, Policy 29). However, these policy outcomes also stipulate the importance of ‘vibrant and sustainable’ rural communities, which in turn should take into consideration how the development would contribute toward local living, transport needs and service provision. We are concerned that the expansion of this PDR would prevent local planning authorities from considering the full range of planning and spatial implications of such proposals and, as a result, could result in unintended consequences – not least being the creation of isolated residential dwellings in remote locations.

In relation to the suggestion that an expansion of this PDR could help address the housing emergency, research by the David Hume Institute highlights the specific impact that the current housing crisis is having on rural communities due to a poor understanding of how rural housing markets operate. Our members have expressed concerns that, rather than helping to alleviate housing affordability pressures in rural areas, an expansion of this PDR could further exacerbate the availability of affordable homes in rural communities, particularly given the lack of a Section 75 trigger.

In our response to the Scottish Government’s call for views on how PDRs could be used to address the housing emergency, we advocated for the adoption of an opt-in approach, rather than the usual “opt-out” approach that applies to PDRs through an Article 4 direction. We believe that such an “opt-in” approach could be taken through the use of Masterplan Consent Areas, allowing local planning authorities to direct development to the most appropriate locations. This, in our view, would benefit rural communities by providing the required level of planning oversight and ensure the delivery of quality homes in accordance with NPF4.

2. Do you believe the current floor space maximum of 150 square metres in Classes 18B and 22A should be removed or increased?

No

Please explain how and why:

As per our response to question 1, we are concerned that any expansion of this PDR could result in a raft of unintended consequences. It is important that PDRs include upper limits to ensure they do not open the door to inappropriate development outcomes. We do not believe sufficient evidence has been provided within the consultation paper to justify the removal or increase of the current 150 square metre maximum floor space requirement of the existing PDR.

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?

No

Please explain your answer:

Whilst we appreciate that this restriction on the current PDR may limit its use, we do not believe this is justification in and of itself for the PDR to be expanded to enable small extensions or the construction of separate ancillary buildings. We reiterate that the only ways to ensure full compliance with local and national planning policy is either through a full planning application, or the use of other frontloading mechanisms such as Masterplan Consent Areas. Expanding the PDR in the manner proposed risks triggering unintended consequences, including the future internal conversion of such ancillary buildings to additional residential spaces – for example granny annexes – which could then have a ripple effect in the longer term for their further expansion and subdivision over time. 

Given the above, RTPI Scotland does not support the expansion of this PDR to include small extensions or the construction of separate buildings.

4. Do you consider that any of the current location-based restrictions in relation to Classes 18B and 22A should be removed and if so, which?

No

Please explain your answer:

We do not support the expansion of PDRs to include locations where their use is currently restricted. These areas are designated as such to ensure Scotland’s sites that are of national, regional or local importance are appropriately protected, and to ensure that future development preserves and enhances their significant heritage, archaeological, ecological and/or conservation qualities. The preservation and enhancement of these sites cannot be secured effectively through the removal of professional planning (and other expert) judgement through the expansion of PDRs. RTPI Scotland, therefore, does not support the removal of current location based restrictions in relation to Classes 18B and 22A.

5. Do you consider the prior notification and approval mechanism (including the relevant matters and fee) associated with Classes 18B and 22A should be changed?

No

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland has long considered the use of prior notification/approval to be problematic. The purpose of PDR is to free up local planning authority time by removing from the planning system proposals that are deemed appropriate provided they do not exceed certain clear and unambiguous physical bounds that do not require professional planning judgement – e.g. maximum/minimum footprints, heights, areas, setbacks etc. Prior approval, however, is increasingly being relied upon in an attempt to “streamline” the decision-making process for proposals that do require a level of professional planning judgement. These proposals are not removed from the planning system but restrict the considerations that local planning authorities can have regard to when making a determination. This has a number of negative implications, including limiting the ability of professional planners to consider the complete range of implications of a planning proposal and apply their full planning judgement, as well as restricting the ability of local planning authorities to require PDR schemes to contribute to affordable housing or infrastructure provision due to the lack of a Section 75 trigger. In addition, prior approval often requires the same level of planning authority resource as a full planning application, for a significantly lesser fee, thereby exacerbating resourcing pressures on LPAs.

RTPI Scotland does not support any changes to the current prior notification and approval mechanism that would result in a greater number of proposals being captured by this mechanism. This runs the risk of exacerbating the pressures already being placed on local planning authorities without giving them the ability to adequately recoup the costs associated with the assessment work required. 

Notwithstanding the above, if the prior approval mechanism is to remain in its current form, we would not object to it being further streamlined into a one-stage process by removing the prior notification aspect. We also support a review of the fees associated with prior approvals to enhance the ability of local planning authorities to recover their costs associated with their assessment. Adopting a fee structure similar to that of a planning application, based on the number of dwellings proposed, would go some way to addressing this issue, but we do not believe it would alleviate all of our concerns.

6. Do you consider that PDR should allow the change of use of any other buildings on agricultural/forestry land to residential? If so, to which type(s) of building should the PDR be extended, and why?

No

Please explain your answer:

The consultation paper does not provide sufficient evidence or justification to warrant an expansion of the current PDR to include the change of other buildings on agricultural/forestry land to residential use. As previously submitted, we are concerned that any expansion of PDRs without sufficient justification and evidence will result in a myriad of unintended consequences that would sit beyond the control of local planning authorities.

7. Do you consider that the PDR under Classes 18B or 22A should be expanded or revised in any other way?

No

Please explain your answer:

As previously submitted, the only way to ensure full compliance with local and national planning policy is through a full planning application. An alternative approach is through the use of the recently introduced Masterplan Consent Area mechanism to enable local planning authorities to direct certain types of development to the most appropriate locations. The use of this place based mechanism, rather than expanding PDRs, would enable decisions about the suitability of certain types of residential proposals to be made by the local planning authority through a plan-led process based on a place-based assessment of the opportunities and constraints of the local authority area.

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? If so, in what circumstances?

No

Please explain your answer:

The current limited use of PDRs should never be a justification in and of itself for their expansion. Any decision to further expand PDRs should be based on sound planning and place-based evidence that demonstrates that their expansion will deliver the purpose of planning (as set out in Section 3ZA of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997) and the outcomes of NPF4. We agree with the consultation paper that “proposals for new-build housing, including through the replacement of existing buildings…should continue to be the subject of a planning application” to ensure a plan-led approach to development and also to enable the usual level of public scrutiny that this process allows.

In our view, and as previously submitted, the only appropriate mechanism through which to “streamline” proposals of this type would be through the frontloading of the decision-making process by planning professionals through the Masterplan Consent Area mechanism.

9. Do you believe that there should be new PDR for new-build homes in any particular types of rural areas in particular circumstances? If so, in what types of rural areas and in what circumstances?

No

Please explain your answer:

There may be circumstances which warrant a relaxation of planning controls for new build homes in certain rural areas in very specific and limited circumstances. This, however, should be determined by each individual local planning authority through their development plan-making process, enabling them to apply an MCA across such areas where there is clear evidence that the unique and place-based circumstances should allow for this. 

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?

No

Please explain your answer:

RTPI Scotland agrees with the consultation paper that it would be inappropriate to introduce a PDR for the conversion of the ground floor or entirety of Class 1A buildings to residential. We agree that to ensure compliance with and to deliver the outcomes of NPF4 Policy 27, proposals of this type must be assessed carefully on a case-by-case basis having regard to their individual merits. Introducing a PDR for this type of proposal would not allow for the type of assessment required to ensure the appropriateness of the proposal having regard to the site context. In addition, we would not support an expansion of the prior approvals process for this purpose, for the reasons already set out above – i.e. that this process continues to place resourcing pressures on local authorities for a significantly lesser fee and limits consideration of the full range of matters required for their comprehensive assessment to ensure compliance with the Development Plan. We agree with the consultation paper that such proposals could be consented through an MCA scheme, and we would be supportive of this approach.

11. Do you consider that there should be PDR for the change of use of properties above Use Class 1A premises to residential use?

No

Please explain your answer:

We acknowledge that Policy 27 of NPF4 supports (in principle) the conversion or reuse of upper floors of properties within city/town centres for residential purposes, particularly for sites where it can be demonstrated that:

• The existing use is no longer viable
• The proposed change of use adds to viability and vitality of the area
• The proposal takes into account the residential amenity, particularly if located within the same built structure as a hot food premises, live music venue,
amusement arcade, casino or licensed premises (i.e. they must have regard to the ‘agent of change’ principle).

It is our view that the above cannot be given adequate consideration through the PDR or prior approval process. In addition, the consultation paper contains no evidence indicating that such a PDR would result in the positive delivery of NPF4 as a whole, having due regard to the myriad of unintended consequences that could result from its introduction and use in Scotland’s diverse town centres.

Without full and comprehensive professional planning judgement being applied to such proposals, the use of this type of PDR could have the result of introducing a ‘housing first’, rather than a ‘town centre first’, approach to urban development. Over time, this could have detrimental ramifications on the health and vitality of Scotland’s town centres, as well as to their economic viability. It also has the potential of flying in the face of Scotland’s ‘infrastructure first’ approach to development, by increasing the residential population of town centres beyond the capacity of existing and planned future infrastructure and services, which would be further exacerbated through the lack of a Section 75 trigger in the prior approval process.

Such changes to town centres require strategic oversight by local planning authorities and the application of professional planning judgement to ensure that the right development is constructed in the right places to support healthy, vibrant, and thriving town centres. It is our view that the principles for enabling conversions of Class 1A buildings to residential use should be carefully considered and adopted by Council through the local development plan-making  process, backed up by the application of an MCA scheme across the identified sites/areas. If this broad principle in support of such an outcome is identified on the basis of clear place-based evidence, then we see no reason why this should be limited to ground floor conversions alone. It is therefore our view that the same approach to ground floor conversions should be adopted for upper floor conversions of Class 1A premises – i.e. through the application and adoption of an MCA scheme and not through the introduction of an additional PDR.

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

Please explain your answer:

We do not support the use of PDR to allow a blanket change of use to residential from any Class 1A building (regardless of its existing use). Such changes must at all times be carefully considered on the basis of professional planning judgement that utilises place-based evidence (which will not be the same for every town centre or Class 1A building in Scotland, even for Class 1A buildings that are used for the same or similar purposes). We reiterate that the only way to ensure that our town centres support residential uses in appropriate locations is through either a  full planning application or via application of an MCA scheme.

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

Please explain your answer and describe what you think the limits should be, if any:

We agree that if a PDR is applied that it should include restrictions of maximum floorspace, size and/or number of residential units that can be formed. Such restrictions should be based on clear evidence and undergo regular review to ensure they remain fit for purpose. 

Notwithstanding the above, we reiterate our position that it would be inappropriate to use a PDR for the creation of residential uses in town centres as it cannot have regard to the full range of the place-specific considerations that will vary for each of Scotland’s different town centres.

14. What other potential limits, restrictions and exclusions to such PDR should be considered? Please provide your answers:

We agree that if a PDR is applied for the conversion of Class 1A buildings, it runs the risk of being used in inappropriate locations both within and outside town centres. We believe the only way to ensure a place-based approach is taken to the conversion of Class 1A buildings is to require a full planning application, or for their inclusion within a MCA scheme. It would be too difficult to capture the full range of limits, restrictions and exclusions within the PDR to prevent every potential undesirable consequence of its future use.

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 consultation? If yes, what matters do you consider should potentially be subject to prior approval?

No

Please explain your answer:

As already submitted, the only way to ensure appropriate implementation of the town centre first approach and compliance with NPF4 is through either a full planning application or through the inclusion of town centres within an MCA scheme. Prior approval often requires the same level of planning authority resource as a full planning application, for a significantly lesser fee, exacerbating (rather than alleviating) capacity pressures within planning teams. In addition, prior approval does not allow for the full range of site-specific issues to be considered as part of the assessment process, which constrains professional planning judgement, and removes the ability of planning obligations to be applied to such proposals.

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?

No

Please explain your answer:

The consultation paper has highlighted a broad range of considerations that would need to be factored into a PDR to ensure its appropriate application and use – including location considerations (to prevent the increase of out-of-centre residential development), internal and external amenity considerations, flooding, and now external alterations. It is our view that the range of considerations related to the conversion of Class 1A buildings are too vast and nuanced to be adequately captured within a PDR. PDRs were originally intended to cover developments that have no planning implications or have implications that cover a narrow range of planning considerations that can be dealt with and conditioned through the GPDO using physical bounds that are unambiguous and not open to different interpretations requiring professional judgement. Although we can do our best to close every potential negative loophole within a PDR, proposals of this type require a place-based assessment which a blanket PDR cannot accommodate. The use of such a mechanism to encourage the conversion of Class 1A buildings for residential purposes therefore runs the risk of leaving local planning authorities powerless to prevent it’s use on inappropriate sites and in inappropriate locations and must not be supported.

17. Please provide any other comments regarding the potential options to introduce PDR for ‘town centre living’ proposals as discussed in this consultation.

Please provide your comments:

No further comment

18. Do you consider that any expanded PDR for rural homes (described in this consultation) should be subject to a condition prohibiting the use of the new units for short-term letting?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

We agree that if the decision is made to expand the PDR for rural homes, that this should exclude their use as short-term lets.

19. Do you consider that any ‘town centre living’ PDR (described in this consultation) should be subject to a condition prohibiting the use of the properties for short-term letting?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

It is our view that short-term lets do not help to address the housing emergency. As such, they should be treated separately and excluded from all expanded PDR proposals set out in Chapter 3.

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?

No

Please explain your answer:

We appreciate that if householders are more easily able to convert and expand their existing homes, that this may prevent their need to move house.

However, the consultation paper does not appear to provide any evidence that this would in itself increase the overall housing stock or directly tackle the housing emergency. Conversely, in the longer term it could potentially reduce the number of smaller homes available, which are just as critical to addressing the housing emergency as larger homes. There is already a robust householder regime which allows proportionate extensions of existing dwelling houses. Although we are supportive of the removal of certain householder applications from the planning system to free up valuable planning officer capacity, any decision to expand the thresholds or reduce the restrictions in the current PDR needs to be based on solid evidence that doing so would result in positive outcomes for local planning authorities and communities, and would deliver the outcomes of NPF4 and the purpose of planning as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The consultation paper does not provide sufficient evidence to warrant any such changes.

21. Do you consider that the reference in the PDR for domestic air source heat pumps (ASHP) should be revised to make it clear that the installation must comply with Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) 020 a)?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

We have no objection to this proposal

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

Please explain your answer:

We broadly support the proposal to expand the ASHP PDR to include ASHPs that are used for both heating and cooling (but not solely cooling). We agree with the consultation paper that this would help to promote greater consumer choice and that this type of alignment between Scotland and England should be supported.

23. Do you consider that the PDR for domestic air source heat pumps ( ASHPs) in Scotland should be amended to allow for the installation of up to two ASHPs on a detached dwellinghouse?

Yes

Please explain your answer:

We understand the logic of expanding the ASHP PDR to enable the installation of up to two ASHPs on detached dwellinghouses, bringing it into alignment with England, and we are broadly supportive of this proposal.

24. Do you consider that proposals that would result in more than one air source heat pump (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

Please explain your answer:

We agree that without clear evidence or justification to warrant an expansion of the PDR in this manner, that it would not be appropriate to take that step. This is the case particularly in relation to flatted buildings and terraced properties. In relation to semi-detached dwellings large enough to require two ASHPs, it is likely that they would have more space to mitigate their potential impacts (particularly in relation to noise) to enable them to be considered for inclusion with the PDR, subject to appropriate conditions.

25. Do you consider that any other changes should be made to the existing PDR for the installation of air source heat pumps (ASHPs) in Scotland?

Not Answered

Please explain your answer:

No further comment

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

Please explain your answer:

We can see the benefits of introducing a PDR for the installation, repair and maintenance of connections from individual buildings to heat network. However before such a PDR is introduced for this purpose, the conditions and restrictions associated with it will need to be given careful consideration to ensure they are appropriate to offset any potential negative consequences.

27. What are your views on the accuracy and scope of the environmental baseline set out in the environmental report? Please explain your answer:

No comment

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. Please provide your comments:

No comment

29. What are your views on the assessment of alternatives as set out in the environmental report? Please provide your views:

No comment.

30. What are your views on the proposals for mitigation, enhancement and monitoring of the environmental effects set out in the environmental report? Please provide your views:

No comment.

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. Please provide your comments:

No comment.

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. Please provide details:

No comment.

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. Please provide your comments/information:

No comment.

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:

No comment.

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. Please provide details:

No comment.

36. Do you agree that a Fairer Scotland Duty assessment is not required in relation to the options set out in this consultation?

Not Answered

Please explain your answer:

No comment.