Scottish Government consultation on supporting the provision of new homes

Consumer Scotland is the statutory body for consumers in Scotland. Established by the Consumer Scotland Act 2020[1], our purpose is to improve outcomes for current and future consumers. We are independent of the Scottish Government and accountable to the Scottish Parliament.

Our core funding is provided by the Scottish Government, and we also receive funding for research and advocacy activity in the electricity, heat networks, gas, post, and water sectors via industry levies which are derived from consumers’ bills.

Our responsibilities relate to consumer advocacy. In our 2023-2027 Strategic Plan[2], we have identified three cross-cutting consumer challenges, which guide our work during this period. They are:

• Affordability
• Climate change mitigation and adaption
• Consumers in vulnerable circumstances

Consumer Scotland welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation on proposed changes to Permitted Development Rights (PDR) aimed at supporting the provision of new homes. We recognise the potential consumer benefits of these changes, particularly in terms of the potential contribution to increasing housing supply to meet demand, simplifying the development process, and enabling more flexible use of existing buildings and land. These changes could play a role in helping to enable opportunities for small-scale developments in rural areas, support the delivery of zero-emissions heating systems, and contribute to Scotland’s net zero and housing goals.

However, these benefits must be weighed against potential risks to consumers. These include the possibility of unsuitable developments in areas lacking infrastructure and increased pressure on local services. There is also a risk that consumers may face confusion or incur unnecessary costs if guidance is unclear or if planning pathways are not well signposted.

To ensure the proposed changes work well for consumers, further actions may be required. These include a joined-up approach across housing, energy, and planning markets; clear and accessible information and guidance for consumers and developers; and robust engagement with stakeholders across sectors. We also recommend that any expansion of PDR be accompanied by assessment under the Fairer Scotland Duty to ensure equitable outcomes.

Consumer Scotland remains committed to advocating for policies that improve outcomes for current and future consumers, and we look forward to continued engagement on this important issue.

Permitted development rights for rural homes 

Question 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? Yes / No/ Unsure. If so, in what way? Please explain your answer including (if appropriate) how you consider the limit should change.

Consumer Scotland broadly supports the increase in the cap relating to Classes 18B and 22A residential Units. This change could contribute to the delivery of new homes in rural areas, enabling more opportunities for small-scale developments that meet local consumer demand without requiring full planning applications. Increasing the unit limit could support the market for the retrofitting or integrating of zero-emissions heating systems, such as heat pumps or heat network connections, in line with the Heat in Buildings Strategy[3] and New Build Heat Standard[4].

For consumers, this could support improved access to affordable housing in areas where supply is currently limited.

Question 2: 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

Consumer Scotland has not provided a view.

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.  

Consumer Scotland supports the addition of small extensions and separate buildings to agricultural and forestry buildings whilst ensuring adherence to rules around World Heritage Sites or conservation areas.  Allowing modest extensions or ancillary structures can help ensure that converted homes are functional, comfortable, and better suited to the needs of modern households. This flexibility can help improve the quality of life for consumers by enabling more practical layouts, additional living space, or the inclusion of energy-efficient features, without the burden of a full planning application.

Question 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? Yes / No / Unsure. Please explain your answer

These should be subject to review on a case-by-case basis and held to appropriate planning standards in line with the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979[5]. However, amending the location-based restrictions in relation to buildings on croft land, could potentially improve the availability of residential properties in rural areas.

Question 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? Yes / No / Unsure. If so, how? Please explain your answer.

Consumer Scotland has not provided a view.

Question 6: Do you consider that PDR should allow the change of use of any other buildings on agricultural/forestry land to residential? Yes / No / Unsure. If so, to which type(s) of building should the PDR be extended, and why?

Expanding PDR to include other types of buildings could potentially contribute to offering consumers greater choice and flexibility in accessing housing, particularly in rural areas where traditional housing stock may be limited. It may also help bring underused or derelict buildings back into productive use, improving local environments and supporting community sustainability. However, these should be subject to review on a case-by-case basis and held to appropriate planning standards.

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

Consumer Scotland has not provided a view.

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.

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

No

Consumer Scotland recognises that in some cases, converting existing agricultural and forestry buildings for residential use is not the appropriate solution due to cost associated with converting these buildings into comfortable homes. However, we would encourage these planning requests be reviewed in line with local requirements as this provides transparency and accountability, allowing consumers and communities to be informed and to comment on proposals that may affect their local area. This process helps safeguard consumer interests by promoting well-planned, sustainable development and reducing the risk of poor-quality or inappropriate housing being introduced through a less scrutinised route.

Permitted development rights for town centre living

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?

No.

Consumer Scotland recognises the ongoing housing crisis and its impact on consumers. We are generally supportive of efforts to attract investment and increase housing stock across tenures. We recognise that there is a shortage of affordable, safe housing and that most consumers prefer having easy access to local amenities such as shops and healthcare facilities. We recognise the impact of supply pressures in the housing market on consumers’ ability to purchase properties, and tenants’ ability to afford their rent or to secure a new tenancy. We have also previously noted that these pressures may mean that some consumers who would have normally rented from a social landlord may now need to rent privately[6].  While we have not seen evidence to what extent expansion of PDR would lead to an increase in housing stock, and to which tenures, a recently published report by Prof Duncan Maclennan for the David Hume Institute argues that Scotland is experiencing “a long-term polycrisis of affordability, supply, governance, and inequality[7]”.  While the report recognises that faster, smarter planning systems may be part of the solution, its key message is the need for systemic reform that treats housing as economic infrastructure, alignment of housing policy with other goals such as net zero and productivity, mobilisation of non-profits as well as private and other parties as delivery agents, and commitment to ending homelessness through housing reform and public health.  

We consider that PDR for residential use of ground floor or entire buildings in such centres is incompatible with the National Planning Framework. The circumstances of each case would require individual review, and NPF4 Policy 27 states that such conversions should only be supported with an appropriate frontage, if it does not adversely affect the centre, and if it does not result in a ‘dead frontage’. This means rigorous assessment is required.

Reducing scrutiny of conversions of ground floors or entire buildings would also cause concern around anticipated interaction with Scottish Government policies aimed at reinvigorating town centres through the establishment of ’20 Minute Neighbourhoods’ (NPF 4 Policy 12), which require businesses to be present. We welcome the consultation’s reference to the Consumer Duty and consider that consumers should have easy access to high streets and town centres where possible[8].      

Many high street Class 1A premises are occupied by small or microbusinesses. The Federation of Small Businesses’ Big Small Business Survey (published August 2025) found that nearly half of small businesses in Scotland operate from premises in or near a high street or town centre, and more than half view the current condition of their local high street or town centre negatively, with empty premises being mentioned[9].  This negative perception was much stronger amongst those operating in urban areas not commonly associated with underpopulation, such as Glasgow, than it was in the Highlands. The Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) in the consultation paper suggests that encouragement of town centre living (NPF4 Policy 27) is likely to increase footfall and support local businesses. However, it also acknowledges the possibility that small businesses may be forced out of their premises.  If this were to happen, that could reduce consumer choice and impact negatively on the ability of consumers to shop locally. For this reason, we would want any such proposal to be assessed on a case-by-case basis rather than being subject to PDR.

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, we support this as a reflection of NPF4 Policy 27 under (e), which seeks to support the conversion or reuse of vacant upper floors to residential. However, in answer to Question 10 we highlighted that high street Class 1A premises are often occupied by small or microbusinesses. We therefore consider that any PDR for such properties should be subject to a framework with clear criteria for decision-making, including provisions aimed at maintaining the ability of small and microbusinesses to operate during conversion.

It is also important that anyone considering a conversion is able to easily find, understand, and seek advice regarding the appropriate pathway for them to follow. The framework should seek to avoid unintended consequences such as consumers incurring unnecessary expense, time delays and discouragement. It is important that any changes in regulations are accompanied by clear consumer information and guidance, understandable and accessible by those applying for permission as well as neighbours and high street consumers.

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?

Any decisions in change of use should continue to be consistent with local planning policy. While we welcome any measures that can potentially contribute to the improvement in availability of affordable housing, it is important that any premises converted into dwellings are appropriate for that purpose and can meet existing and future housing and energy efficiency standards. We also recommend close engagement with stakeholders in the mortgage and insurance sector to ensure that consumers living in converted properties can access suitable and affordable insurance products, as there can be a perception of higher risk associated with such properties[10].

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?

We would welcome a minimum floor space, and a maximum threshold for the proposed number of units, with proposals outside of these limits triggering a need to apply for planning permission to ensure consideration of the potential impact on surrounding parking and public services.

Question 14: What other potential limits, restrictions and exclusions to such PDR should be considered?

We encourage prioritisation of measures that aim to increase affordable housing stock that consumers can dwell in long-term, as such we would welcome the exclusion of short-term lets. I

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

No views.

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

No views.

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

We have addressed this in our response to Question 10.

Other considerations and options

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?

In principle yes, as we would wish to prioritise the availability of affordable properties that consumers can live in long-term. However, there may be some situations in which   a case can be made for an individual exemption. A basis for an exemption might be that the property in question would be unsuitable as a permanent dwelling but would be suitable as a short-term let (i.e. due to size restrictions). We consider that the Scottish Government should consult further with stakeholders on a specific decision-making framework with clear criteria.

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?

We refer to our response to Question 18.

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?

 No. Planning permission is an important mechanism to ensure that consumers can provide input into proposals and that communities can enjoy their homes and local amenities. While we recognise the pressures on planning departments, we consider it vital local authorities should continue to deliver this service. As noted in previous responses, we would prioritise consideration of the potential for PDRs to contribute to bringing appropriate properties into use as dwellings, adding to existing housing stock. While we consider that the process of applying for standard planning permission must be easily accessible, transparent, affordable, and timely, we do not consider that the extension of PDR negates the need for planning permission to improve an existing dwelling.  

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.

Yes, Consumer Scotland agrees that the Permitted Development Rights (PDR) should be revised to make it clear to consumers that adhering to the MCS 020 standard is now required. Consumer Scotland’s recently published framework[11] sets out that clarity and confidence are two of the four main considerations for consumers that policymakers should take into account when developing new policies to address climate change.

• Clarity: Consumers understand what they need to do and why
• Confidence: Consumers trust sustainable products and services, have strong protection, and have access to redress

By signposting consumers to a single standard, such as MCS 020, more clarity and confidence will be provided for those looking to engage with PDR to help facilitate the deployment of Air Source Heat Pumps on domestic premises.

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

Consumer Scotland broadly supports this change from heating only Air Source Heat Pumps to combination heating and cooling Air Source Heat Pumps. This provides the consumer with greater choice when considering which technology to install and provides a more tailored approach to suit individual needs. Consumer Scotland supports the proposal to exclude cool only Air Source Heat Pumps from the PDR to support the journey to decarbonize heating across Scotland, consistent with the provisions of National Planning Framework 4[12]. Based on the average UK household’s annual energy consumption of 12,000kWh (a 2–3-bedroom house currently using a mains gas heating system), a tool available from the British Gas website calculates that switching to an air source Heat Pump could save 1,404 Kg of CO2 annually. Over the course of just one year, you could offset the equivalent amount of CO2 emitted by driving 4,544 miles in a petrol car[13]. 

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

Yes, we broadly support the installation of up to two Air Source Heat Pumps on a single detached dwelling if deemed necessary by the owner/occupier to effectively heat the property. It would pose no benefit to consumers to install and run more than one Air Source Heat Pump for a single dwelling if not required to provide adequate heat to the property.

For those properties that require more than two heat pumps to ensure a comfortable temperature in the home, we agree these should continue to be assessed by planning authorities on a case-by-case basis to ensure the installation does not exceed the capacity of the building.

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

Consumer Scotland supports the proposal to continue to assess the installation of Air Source Heat Pumps for flatted buildings or on terraced or semi-detached properties due to concerns around potential noise impacts. Where this is required, consumers should be able to provide all required evidence in a simple manner when submitting their application to planning authorities to encourage the timely uptake of decarbonised heating systems in homes across Scotland.

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

Yes. Consumer Scotland broadly supports further changes to the existing PDR for ASHPs where they help reduce barriers for consumers seeking to adopt low-carbon heating technologies. Simplifying the process for installing ASHPs, particularly in cases where planning permission is currently required, can make it easier and more affordable for households to transition away from fossil fuel heating. This is especially important for consumers in rural or off-gas-grid areas, where alternative heating options may be limited.

We also recommend that any changes be accompanied by clear, accessible guidance to help consumers understand what is permitted under PDR, what standards must be met (such as MCS 020[14]), and where to seek advice or redress if issues arise. Reducing administrative complexity and improving clarity will help consumers make informed decisions, avoid unnecessary costs or delays, and increase confidence in low-carbon technologies.

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.

Yes, Consumer Scotland supports the introduction of Permitted Development Rights (PDR) for heat network connections, subject to appropriate consumer safeguards. Heat networks are a key component of Scotland’s transition to net zero, as outlined in the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021[15] and the Heat in Buildings Strategy[16]. Enabling PDR for connections to heat networks would reduce administrative barriers and accelerate uptake, particularly in urban areas and new developments.

This aligns with the Scottish Government’s ambition to deliver 6 TWh of heat through networks by 2030[17] and supports the rollout of Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies (LHEES)[18].

Consumer Scotland supports the introduction of PDR for the installation, repair, and maintenance of heat network connections from individual buildings, provided that consumer protections, affordability, and environmental standards are upheld. This change would help unlock low-carbon heating infrastructure and contribute to Scotland’s net zero and housing delivery goals.

To ensure consumers are well protected, it is important that those connecting to a heat network are provided with clear, simple information about the requirements placed on heat network providers under new regulations. Consumers should also be made aware that if they experience issues with their heat network, they can contact Advice Direct Scotland[19]  or the Energy Ombudsman[20] for advice and support. This will help build consumer confidence and ensure access to redress where needed.

Assessments

Question 27: What are your views on the accuracy and scope of the environmental baseline set out in the environmental report?

Consumer Scotland supports the inclusion of all environmental topics in the report. Including Air, Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna, Climatic Factors, Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Geodiversity, Material Assets, Population and Human Health, Soil and Water. Consumer Scotland is particularly interested in the SEA objectives to protect people and places from environmental harm and to facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing.

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.

Consumer Scotland has not provided a view.

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

Consumer Scotland has not provided a view.

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

Consumer Scotland has not provided a view.

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

Consumer Scotland has not provided a view.

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.

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

Consumer Scotland has not provided a view.

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.

Consumer Scotland has not provided a view.

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.

The intention of the Fairer Scotland Duty is for public bodies and Scottish Ministers to actively consider what could be done to reduce inequalities of outcomes caused by socio-economic disadvantages in the implementation of a new policy or change to an existing policy. Therefore, it would be beneficial to conduct a Fairer Scotland Duty assessment to understand the potential impacts, that the options identified in this consultation may have on groups or areas at socio-economic disadvantage. This would provide additional assurance and confidence to support the proposed changes to Permitted Development Rights.

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

No, we do not agree that a Fairer Scotland Duty assessment is not required. We have set out our detailed response on this point under question 35.

Next Steps

We would be happy to discuss the content of our submission to this consultation in more detail. Looking forward, we would be keen to work closely with the Scottish Government as its thinking on Permitted development rights to support provision of new homes develops.