Consultation Responses

We responded to the Scottish Government’s consultation on draft climate change duties statutory guidance for public bodies, in the context of this section that covers the use of scenarios in climate adaptation planning of the consultation paper. In our response we have relayed member concerns over the issue of SEPA’s reliance on the worst-case future scenarios of considering the RCP 8.5 scenario (4.3 degrees global temperature rise) for flood risk assessment. This presents significant challenges for current developments, this use of over precautionary modelling means some developments are struggling to qualify for flooding insurance and there's a real risk there will be an artificial deflation in property values and a reduction of investment appeal in certain areas.  

SPF responded to City of Edinburgh Council's Non-Statutory Planning Guidance on Student Accommodation. The non-statutory guidance will be considered to determine PBSA applications in Edinburgh. Our members highlighted their main concerns over development viability challenges to be recognised and considered in this guidance, there are also wider comments on site allocation, design standards and clarity on cluster sizes. Click below to read our detailed response.

Read our response to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that seeks to make Regulations to replace former EU provisions. Our response includes only aspects of the Bill relating to modification of the EIA and Habitats regulations relevant to planning applications.   

The Leases (Automatic Continuation etc.) (Scotland) Bill is a piece of legislation focused on clarifying and
modernising aspects of commercial lease continuation and termination in Scotland. Overall, we welcome the Bill’s direction and support reform to modernise the leasing system so that greater clarity and certainty can be given to both tenants and landlords. However, we did suggest areas of refinement and an amendment to the Bill. 

We responded to Scottish Parliament’s Local Government, Housing and Planning committee's call for comments on issues in implementation of National Planning Framework 4.

Our response focuses on the issues highlighted by our members over the course of two years since NPF4 has come into force, and we have fed most of the issues mentioned in this response to the Scottish Government by various formal consultations, roundtables and meetings. Our response is categorised in 5 sections:

1. Policy Interpretation and Guidance
2. Standardisation of Applications and Fees
3. Resource Constraints in Planning Authorities
4. Housing Land Release and Policy Alignment
5. Balancing Development with Environmental Interests

Read our detailed response on these key issues that pose as limitations to our current planning system causing delays in processing applications and impacting development viability.

In our response to Permitted Development Rights (PDRs) to help tackle housing emergency we acknowledge their potential to unlock urban housing opportunities but also cautioned that might be a comprehensive solution. A coordinated approach with other planning tools such as Masterplan Consent Areas (MCAs), reforms to Policy 16 of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), and targeted financial support to address viability constraints can offer a solution to meet Scotland’s housing need.

The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee is seeking views on regulations requiring companies to submit an "energy and environmental design statement" to be submitted with an application for a building warrant. The regulations would also require an "energy and environmental construction statement" to be submitted at the same time as a completion certificate. We have responded to the consultation highlighting membership views on additional time and cost associated with additional compliances and documentation process and can considerably slows down the process from design to assessment. As well as the need for upskilling resourcing industry & local authorities to be adept to deal with proposed changes.

This consultation is seeking views on a Scottish Building Safety Levy which will be used to fund the Scottish Government’s domestic property Cladding Remediation Programme. The levy will apply to all new (private) residential development and is anticipated to generate up to £30m annually to address some 1,000 high rise and 5,000 medium rise buildings within the current scope of the programme. 

The government is proposing to introduce a 28-day notice to quit period to allow students to terminate their leases early before the end of the academic year. As this survey is targeted at providers, we are unable to answer most questions. Instead, we provide a summary of the unintended consequences should a 28-day notice to quit period be introduced. We highlight the special nature of PBSA, illustrating how a blanket policy that allows students to terminate their leases early is likely to substantially increase financial risk for investors, developers, funders and University partners. In our response we also illustrate the unintended consequences for the broader private rented sector (PRS). 

We submitted our response to Scottish Government's consultation on determining the principles of Scottish equivalent of Passivhaus. We have highlighted our member concerns regarding the current supply chain capacity, skills and rising costs of construction which are likely to be a barrier to enforcing the new standard. Read more here.

Read our full response here, we highlighted the unintended consequence that the ILS could discourage investment in Scotland. The introduction of this levy will add to current and proposed developer taxes. We relayed our further concerns over clarity on how the levy is to be calculated and the definition of 'infrastructure' that it will be contributing towards. This is a major piece of legislation which is bound by a sunset clause ending in Summer 2026. We have argued that the current health of the markets and development industry has to be considered but that this was not reflected in the discussion paper.