Open consultation

Permitted development rights: schools, assets of community value, defence and conservation

Published 10 June 2026

Applies to England

This consultation contains proposed changes to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended.

It covers the following areas:

• extending the existing temporary permitted development right for schools affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC)
• removing assets of community value from the demolition permitted development right
• changes to the permitted development right that allows development by the Crown on closed defence sites
• new permitted development flexibilities to enable the development of conservation measures within Environmental Delivery Plans

Scope of this consultation

This consultation seeks views on proposals relating to permitted development rights.

We are consulting on extending the existing temporary permitted development right that provides for temporary buildings on school land where buildings have ben affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) for an additional 2 years.

We are also consulting on removing assets of community value from the permitted development right that allows for the demolition of certain buildings, so they would no longer be able to be demolished without first applying for planning permission.

We are also consulting on several changes to the permitted development right that allows for development by the Crown on closed defence sites, to support the delivery of a Defence estate that is fit for purpose, aligned to whole force needs, and that maximises the use of estate assets.

Finally, we are consulting on new permitted development flexibilities to support the development of conservation measures within Environmental Delivery Plans by Natural England as part of the Nature Restoration Fund.

Geographical scope

These proposals relate to England only.

Body responsible for the consultation:

The Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government.

Duration

This consultation will last for 8 weeks from 10 June to 5 August 2026.

Enquiries

For any enquiries about the consultation please email pdrconsultation2026@communities.gov.uk.

How to respond

You may respond by completing the online survey.

Citizen Space is the department’s online consultation portal and our preferred route for receiving consultation responses. We strongly encourage responses via Citizen Space, particularly from organisations with access to online facilities such as local authorities, representative bodies, and businesses. Consultations on planning policy receive a high level of interest across many sectors. Using the online survey greatly assists our analysis of the responses, enabling more efficient and effective consideration of the issues raised for each question.

Respondents do not need to answer every question.

Respondents should not cite previous questions or remark ‘see above’, due to the way the consultation responses are processed we cannot guarantee your comments will be captured if replying in this way. Any points you wish to raise in response to a question should be set out in full as part of that question’s response.

If you cannot respond via Citizen Space, or you have supporting evidence to accompany your response, you may send your response or supporting evidence by email to: pdrconsultation2026@communities.gov.uk.

Written responses should be sent to:

Permitted Development Rights Consultation
Planning Directorate – Planning Development Management
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
3rd Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

When you reply it would be very useful if you confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include:

• your name
• your position (if applicable)
• the name of organisation (if applicable)

Please make it clear which question each comment relates to and ensure that the text of your response is in a format that allows copying of individual sentences or paragraphs, to help us when considering your view on particular issues.

Thank you for taking time to submit responses to this consultation.

Disclaimer

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government reserves the right to share non-personal data such as responses and thematic analysis derived from the consultation with Other Government Departments and Arms’ Length Bodies. This does not affect your statutory rights under the Government’s Data Sharing Code of Practice.

Introduction

The government is committed to ensuring that the planning system is efficient, effective and responsive. Permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission that provide flexibilities and planning freedoms to different users, including businesses, public bodies and statutory undertakers. They are an important tool to support growth by providing certainty and removing the time and money needed to submit a planning application.

Permitted development rights are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (“the General Permitted Development Order”). Individual rights are subject to limitations and conditions to manage impacts and protect local amenity. For example, some permitted development rights have size limits, are excluded in certain protected areas or allow for local consideration of specified planning matters through the prior approval process.

Where a school building has been affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC), the government wants to ensure continuity of education and the safety of children whilst remediation works are undertaken. In October 2023, a new time-limited permitted development right was urgently introduced to provide for the development of temporary buildings on school land where the school has an affected building. The permitted development right is due to expire in October 2026. Not all schools will have completed all remediation works by this date, and therefore this consultation seeks views on extending the permitted development right for two more years.

We want to ensure communities have strong powers to protect valued local assets. There is a permitted development right which allows for the demolition of certain buildings. This consultation proposes removing buildings listed as assets of community value from the demolition permitted development right, so they would no longer be able to be demolished without first applying for planning permission.

The Prime Minister made clear the importance of national security and defence in the Strategic Defence Review 2025 – Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad. We are therefore also seeking views on expanding the permitted development right that allows for development by the Crown on closed defence sites by amending certain limits and conditions, to provide additional planning flexibility for the development of, and maximising the efficient use of, these sites to support the country’s Defence goals.

This consultation also seeks views on a national grant of planning permission via new permitted development flexibilities to support the implementation of conservation measures within Environmental Delivery Plans by Natural England as part of the proposed Nature Restoration Fund, set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Environmental Delivery Plans will include a package of conservation measures sufficient to address one or more environmental impacts to protected sites and species of local development (such as new housing) and secure an environmental uplift, supporting the delivery of sustainable development.

Certain conservation measures that may be included within an Environmental Delivery Plan may themselves constitute development (for example, erecting small scale structures to provide roosting or hibernation places for protected species, or excavations to create ponds), and as such the government wants to support the implementation of these conservation measures through a national grant of planning permission.

An Environmental Delivery Plan must materially outweigh the negative effect of development that utilises it, and in order to do so there must be a high degree of confidence that the conservation measures it includes are deliverable. Providing Natural England, and those operating on its behalf, with a national grant of planning permission will provide assurance of the timely delivery of these conservation measures. This will provide certainty to Natural England, communities and other stakeholders that such conservation measures – subject to conditions and limitations – would benefit from a national grant of planning permission and can be implemented without the submission of a planning application.

Our proposed approach is to permit the implementation and maintenance of certain conservation measures for an Environmental Delivery Plan of specified descriptions and within defined parameters.

Schools affected by RAAC

1. In 2023, an urgent issue emerged about schools with buildings affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC). The presence of RAAC can pose a safety risk where it has been incorrectly installed, poorly maintained, or has reached the end of its lifespan. In schools, confirmed RAAC can present a safety risk to the building, children, and staff, resulting in the partial or full vacation of some school buildings until remediation works are completed.

2.In October 2023, a new time-limited permitted development right was urgently introduced to help ensure continuity of education and the safety of children by providing for temporary buildings on school land where the school has an affected building. The permitted development right, Class CB of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order, is time-limited and can be used until 24 October 2026.

3. The permitted development right is subject to limitations, allowing for temporary buildings with a maximum total floor space up to 125% of the floor space of the school buildings which have been vacated due to the presence of RAAC. New temporary buildings can be no higher than two storeys, and up to a total maximum height of 9 metres. The development cannot result in an increase to the school’s published admission number. No part of the temporary buildings can be within 5 metres of a boundary to a residential use, and they must be placed, as far as practicable, to minimise any reduction in the amount of school land used for playing fields and space available for the parking or turning of vehicles.

4.The Department for Education considers that the permitted development right has been helpful in supporting over 50 schools in England. The majority of these have been Department for Education led projects but there will also be some local authorities and responsible bodies who will have been able to make use of Class CB of Part 4 when addressing the issue of RAAC in their own education estates.

5. Unfortunately, not all schools will have the remediation work completed before the 24 October 2026 expiry of the permitted development right. This is due to range of factors, principally relating to delay in the delivery of replacement permanent accommodation where removal of the RAAC material and repair has not been feasible. There are also a relatively small number of more recently identified buildings affected by RAAC, and therefore remediation is at an earlier stage.

6. To continue to provide for continuity of education and the safety and welfare of children, the government therefore proposes extending the right under Class CB of Part 4 for another two years to 24 October 2028. The right will continue to be subject to the same limitations and conditions to manage impacts and protect local amenity.

Question 1

Do you agree that the existing temporary Class CB of Part 4 permitted development right should be extended by two years to 24 October 2028?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Impact assessment

7. We would welcome your view on the likely impact of these proposals.

Question 2

Do you think that the proposed extension of the temporary permitted development right schools affected by RAAC could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

It would be helpful if you could specify whether your comments relate to a) business, b) local planning authorities, or c) communities, or a combination.

Public Sector Equality Duty

8. We are required to assess these proposals by reference to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010. A Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment will be prepared reflecting the detail of the changes to be made prior to any secondary legislation being laid.

9. We would welcome your comments as part of this consultation on whether the proposed extension of the temporary permitted development right for schools affected by RAAC could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

Question 3

Do you think that the proposed extension of the temporary permitted development right for schools affected by RAAC could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic? (Age; Disability; Gender Reassignment; Pregnancy and Maternity; Race; Religion or Belief; Sex; and Sexual Orientation).

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Assets of community value

10. The assets of community value (ACV) scheme in England currently provides communities with a route to nominate any building or land which furthers the social wellbeing or interests of the community. If the owner puts an ACV up for sale, there is a six-month moratorium period in which communities can put together a bid to buy the ACV to protect it for community use. However, the owner may currently sell the asset to whoever they like at the end of this period.

11. The government wants to ensure that communities have strong powers to protect valued local assets. That is why we have legislated to strengthen protections for ACVs through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. The new community right to buy will give communities the first opportunity to buy an ACV if it is put up for sale by its owner and a 12-month period to raise the funding they need to buy it, with an independent valuation process to ensure a fair price based on market value.

12. The Act will also expand the range of assets eligible for ACV status, including those that further the economic wellbeing or interests of the community and those of historic importance to the community, ensuring that more locally important assets can be protected. Alongside this, it will create a separate sporting assets of community value (SACV) category under which eligible sports grounds will be automatically listed for an indefinite period, recognising their unique value to the community and vulnerability to redevelopment.

13. However, the community right to buy restrictions will only come into effect if an owner decides to sell their ACV or SACV. While it is important that we respect the rights of owners to manage their property how see they fit, we think we can go further to protect ACVs and SACVs and preserve the important role they play in community life.

14. There is a long-standing permitted development right (Class B of Part 11 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015) which allows for the demolition of certain buildings. Except where demolition is urgently necessary in the interests of health and safety, the right is subject to prior approval of the detail of methods of demolition and site restoration, or confirmation that prior approval is not required, from the local planning authority.

15. The rationale for the introduction of this permitted development right was that, in most cases, demolition is accompanied by redevelopment; and it is the impact of the new development, rather than the demolition, which is the key concern. However, in recent years, a number of changes have been made to the right to exclude pubs, theatres, concert and live music venues and, most recently, certain statues, memorials and monuments. This has been in recognition of the importance of these types of buildings to their local communities.

16. Many ACVs fall into one of these categories and will, therefore, already be exempt from the permitted development right. However, we think that it is right that all ACVs, and in future SACVs, should have the same level of protection and so we are proposing to exclude all assets registered under both categories from the demolition permitted development right. This would mean that, in future, the demolition of such assets would require the submission of a planning application to allow local planning authorities to fully consider the impact. Whereas community right to buy will only restrict ACV and SACV owners if they decide to sell their property, this change will mean that, in future, ACV and SACV status itself will have implications for owners as they will no longer be able to demolish the asset without first applying for planning permission.

Question 4

Do you agree that Class B of Part 11 should be amended to exclude assets of community value and, in future, sporting assets of community value?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Impact assessment

17. We would welcome your view on the likely impact of these proposals.

Question 5

Do you think that the proposed change in relation to the Class B of Part 11 permitted development right could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

It would be helpful if you could specify whether your comments relate to a) business, b) local planning authorities, or c) communities, or a combination.

Public Sector Equality Duty

18. We are required to assess these proposals by reference to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010. A Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment will be prepared reflecting the detail of the changes to be made prior to any secondary legislation being laid.

19. We would welcome your comments as part of this consultation on whether the proposed removal of assets of community value and, in future, sporting assets of community value from the Class B of Part 11 permitted development right could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

Question 6

Do you think that the proposed removal of assets of community value and, in future, sporting assets of community value from the Class B of Part 11 permitted development right could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic? (Age; Disability; Gender Reassignment; Pregnancy and Maternity; Race; Religion or Belief; Sex; and Sexual Orientation).

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Development by the Crown on closed defence sites

20. The Prime Minister made clear the importance of national security and Defence in the Strategic Defence Review 2025 – Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad (SDR). The Defence estate is where Defence lives, works, trains and operates and the SDR emphasised the importance of having a Defence estate that is fit for purpose and aligned to whole force needs, whilst ensuring that the use of estate assets is maximised. It is important, therefore, that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) is able to undertake development required in the national interest at pace and at best value for the public purse. This may be through the delivery of projects to support Defence capability, or reprovisioning work which, in turn, facilitates the release and redevelopment of sites no longer required for Defence purposes which can support the delivery of HMG’s housing and growth missions. The planning system plays a key part in the delivery of proposals on the Defence estate and MHCLG therefore continues to work with the MOD to support its objectives.

21. A permitted development right (Class TA of Part 19 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order) was introduced in 2022 to permit the erection, extension or alteration of single living accommodation and non-residential buildings on closed defence sites by or on behalf of the Crown, subject to limitations and conditions, without the submission of a planning application.

22. Class TA of Part 19 has reduced planning risk and enabled some projects to come forward quicker and at a lower cost to the public purse. It is estimated that each use of the permitted development right results in at least 6–12 months of time and associated cost savings. However, the MOD has reported that there are still a significant number of projects which are considered to have limited impact on their surroundings that have not been able to benefit from the permitted development right. The proposed expansion of Class TA of Part 19 would therefore better facilitate the more efficient and effective use of Defence sites.

23. The context of Defence and security has also changed since the original development of the permitted development right. The government has recognised the need for Defence reform. A key part of this is to ensure that decisions are made quickly, faster delivery is secured and the best value for money for Defence and taxpayers is achieved. MOD needs to ensure that Defence projects can be delivered effectively and at pace, for example, delivering additional single living accommodation and support services for service personnel which underpins agile deployment.

24. We are therefore proposing to expand Class TA of Part 19’s scope by amending certain limitations and conditions, which would provide additional planning flexibility for the development of, and maximise the efficient use of, these sites to support the country’s Defence goals.

25. The proposed changes recognise the need to limit impacts on the environment and local amenity. In addition, no changes are proposed to the restrictions in protected areas such as National Parks, listed buildings, the consideration of contamination and flood risk, nor in relation to the baseline date against which floor space extensions are calculated.

Floor space thresholds

26. The permitted development right includes a threshold of total floor space within a closed defence site that may be developed from the 11 January 2022 baseline. Development is currently not permitted if the total floor space of any buildings for use as single living accommodation, added to the closed defence site via erection or extension, would exceed 25% of the total floor space of existing single living accommodation on the closed defence site immediately before 11 January 2022. Development is also not permitted if the total floor space of any non-residential building added to the closed defence site via erection or extensions would exceed 35% of the total floor space of non-residential buildings on the closed defence site immediately before 11 January 2022.

27. However, changes to the MOD estate, both as a result of requirements related to the Defence Estate Optimisation Portfolio and also other development required to maintain and enhance Defence capability, mean that some sites are at the point of already reaching this threshold and therefore prevent future development under the permitted development right. We are proposing to increase both of these limits to facilitate more efficient use of sites and extending the practical life of the permitted development right. On many MOD sites, the existing built footprint can be relatively small when compared to the size of the wider site and it is considered, therefore, that an increase in Class TA of Part 19’s floor space allowances can be absorbed within sites without having an unacceptable harmful impact on the character of the area. These changes would ensure that MOD can deliver at pace whilst also providing cost and time savings, which has benefits to the public purse. Views are sought on what these limits might be, for example, either allowing 35% and 45% respectively, or 50% for each.

Prior approval trigger – cumulative footprint

28. Currently, if the cumulative total footprint of any buildings added to the closed defence site via erection or extensions exceeds (or would, as a result of the proposed development, exceed) 4,000 square metres, development is permitted subject to an application to the local planning authority for determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority is required as to the siting and scale of the development. In practice, this has resulted in prior approval being required for some very small buildings that in themselves would likely have minimal impact. For example, a proposed single storey storage building with a floor space of only 92 square metres required a prior approval application, as the 4,000 square metres cumulative footprint threshold had been triggered. The cumulative requirement could also mean that larger sites could be subject to a number of prior approval applications once the 4,000 square metres threshold is reached by one or more applications, despite the fact that siting and scale may be less of a concern on such sites, such as where it is not visible from the public realm. This adds delay and process to the MOD and burdens to the local planning authority.

29. Given that a large proportion of MOD sites are of considerable scale, in many cases the impacts of proposals in terms of siting and scale would be limited or discussions have been held in advance with the local planning authority to minimise impacts. As such it is very rare for local planning authorities to respond to prior approval applications with anything other than ‘prior approval is not required’.

30. We are therefore proposing to amend this condition to instead introduce a non-cumulative footprint limit of 2,000 square metres, 2,500 square metres or 3,000 square metres for individual developments. The MOD would apply to the local planning authority as to whether prior approval is required in respect of any individual development above this limit. This would ensure that only larger proposals trigger a requirement for prior approval applications for siting and scale.

Development within 15 metres of site perimeter

31. Development is currently not permitted within 15 metres of the closed defence site’s perimeter. This restriction was included within the permitted development right to limit the impact of development on the edges of sites, as development in these locations could have visual or amenity impacts. However, many Defence sites already have buildings within close proximity to the edge of the site and MOD has reported several cases where extensions or alterations to existing buildings in these locations have not been able to utilise Class TA of Part 19 even where the proposal is minor in nature or likely to have very little impact. In such circumstances, planning applications are required and this has implications on the cost and delivery times of such projects. Therefore, we are proposing to allow extensions or alterations (but not new buildings) within 15 metres of the perimeter, facilitating more efficient use of the site.

32. Allowing the extension of, or alterations to, existing buildings within 15 metres of the perimeter of the site will help to ensure that existing buildings remain fit for purpose and reduce the need for the development of replacement facilities elsewhere on the site.

Building height

33. The permitted development right includes height restrictions to limit any visual or wider amenity impacts. Where the development is more than 25 metres from the closed defence site’s perimeter, development is currently not permitted if a new building would exceed 12 metres, or a building extended or altered would exceed the lesser of 12 metres or the height of the existing building.

34. The MOD has reported many cases of buildings proposed on the Defence estate that have exceeded the 12-metre height limit and, therefore, have not been able to benefit from the use of Class TA of Part 19. This can have significant cost and time implications for MOD projects and the need for planning applications for such developments can also delay their delivery.

35. We are proposing to increase these limits to 18 metres in height. This change would enable more development proposals to come within scope and facilitate the efficient development of established MOD sites in non-sensitive locations in order to maximise the efficiency of the estate and support Defence reform and associated strategies. The increase to 18 metres could enable taller buildings, more efficient design, and ultimately, better site capability. The height restriction of 10 metres within 25 metres of the site perimeter would remain to ensure visual or amenity impacts of new buildings are minimised.

Class TA of Part 19 interpretation

36. Since Class TA of Part 19 came into effect, it has become apparent that some of the definitions included within the permitted development right have, in practice, been more restrictive than originally intended. The term ‘closed defence site’ was developed specifically for Class TA of Part 19 and a site can only be determined to be a ‘closed defence site’ if it meets all three of the following criteria:

• on Crown land
• used exclusively for defence purposes
• surrounded by a closed perimeter

37. Whilst parts (a) and (c) have not caused any significant issue to date, (b) has proved to significantly restrict the use of the permitted development right on several sites. Many MOD sites have lodger units or tenants located on them. Such lodger units and tenants can include other government departments, local wildlife trust, local flying clubs, search and rescue organisations and other casual use licensees. The activity of the majority of lodger units and tenants would not fall within the scope of the term ‘defence purposes’. Therefore, a number of sites which are predominantly used for Defence purposes, often being sites of critical importance to Defence, are not able to use Class TA of Part 19 due to the presence of lodger units or tenants as the site is not used ‘exclusively’ for defence purposes.

38. It is therefore proposed to amend part (b) of the existing definition of the term ‘closed defence site’ so that it refers to a site that is used wholly or mainly for purposes connected to defence. By this change it is not proposed that a revised Class TA of Part 19 would provide a grant of permission for development connected with, for example, a tenant or ‘lodger’, but that it would allow for defence-connected development where it is co-located with other activities.

39. It was intended that the permitted development right would apply to the full scope of building types that are erected across the Defence estate (excluding Service Family Accommodation). Whilst the consultation document that supported the introduction of Class TA of Part 19 set out a number of building types to illustrate the breadth of buildings on the Defence estates, this was never intended to be an exhaustive list. MOD have reported cases where local planning authorities have raised concerns with Class TA of Part 19 notifications on the basis that the proposed use is not explicitly listed in the consultation document. This can require significant MOD resource, sometimes including gaining legal advice, to demonstrate to the local planning authority that these are appropriate uses within the context of the permitted development right. This issue often relates to ancillary uses that are critical to the Defence capability of the site and must be located on the closed defence sites. For example, childcare facilities can be required on a site in order to ensure that service personnel who are parents are able to access childcare with significantly extended opening times, that is available at very little notice; thereby enabling them to be able to work and contribute to Defence outputs.

40. Therefore, it is also proposed to amend the existing definition of ‘non-residential buildings’ to provide greater certainty to enable the full range of buildings required to support Defence outputs to come forward under Class TA of Part 19. It is proposed to amend the definition of ‘non-residential buildings’ to clarify that this includes buildings being wholly or mainly used for any purpose connected to defence. This would support a wider range of development, including for service personnel and their families. The exclusion of single living accommodation and dwellinghouses from the definition of ‘non-residential building’ would not be affected by this proposed change.

Question 7

Do you agree that the permitted development right is amended to allow an increase in the total floor space of any buildings for use as single living accommodation via erection or extension beyond 25% of the total floor space?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 8

If yes, should this be an increase to:

• 35%
• 50%
• Other. Please specify.

Please provide your reasons.

Qusetion 9

Do you agree that the permitted development right is amended to allow an increase in the total floor space of any non-residential building via erection or extension beyond 35% of the total floor space?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 10

If yes, should this be an increase to:

• 45%
• 50%
• Other. Please specify.

Please provide your reasons.

Question 11

Do you agree that the prior approval should no longer be triggered by a cumulative footprint of 4,000 square metres and instead by the scale of individual proposals?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 12

If yes, do you agree that the permitted development right is amended to instead require an application to the local planning authority for determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority is required as to siting and scale where an individual development is above a threshold of:

• 2,000 square metres
• 2,500 square metres
• 3,000 square metres
• Other. Please specify.

Please provide your reasons.

Question 13

Do you agree that Class TA of Part 19 is amended to allow extensions or alterations within 15 metres of the perimeter of the closed defence site?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 14

Do you agree that where the development is more than 25 metres from the perimeter of the closed defence site, Class TA of Part 19 is amended to allow:

i) the erection of new buildings from 12 metres to up to 18 metres in height?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

ii) extensions or alterations of up to 18 metres or up to the height of the existing building, whichever is lesser?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 15

Do you agree that the definitions of ‘closed defence sites’ and ‘non-residential buildings’ should be amended so as to refer to sites and buildings (respectively) used wholly or mainly for purposes connected with defence’?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Impact assessment

41. We would welcome your view on the likely impact of these proposals.

Question 16

Do you think that the proposed change in relation to the Class TA of Part 19 permitted development right could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

It would be helpful if you could specify whether your comments relate to a) business, b) local planning authorities, or c) communities, or a combination.

Public Sector Equality Duty

42. We are required to assess these proposals by reference to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010. A Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment will be prepared reflecting the detail of the changes to be made prior to any secondary legislation being laid.

43. We would welcome your comments as part of this consultation on whether the proposed changes to the permitted development right for Crown Development on a closed defence site could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic:

• age
• disability
• gender reassignment
• pregnancy and maternity
• race
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

Question 17

Do you think that the proposed changes to the permitted development right for Crown Development on a closed defence site could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic? (Age; Disability; Gender Reassignment; Pregnancy and Maternity; Race; Religion or Belief; Sex; and Sexual Orientation).

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Development of conservation measures within Environmental Delivery Plans

44. By establishing the Nature Restoration Fund, through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, we are creating the opportunity for housing and infrastructure to do more for environmental recovery. The measures will provide a framework to allow us to take a more strategic approach through the creation of Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs).

45. In creating an EDP, either on its own initiative or at the request of the Secretary of State, Natural England will set out a package of conservation measures sufficient to address one or more environmental impacts of development and secure an environmental uplift. Rather than being limited to addressing the impact of a single development, an EDP will be able to pool resources and deliver conservation measures at scale to maximise the outcome for the environment. There may also be opportunities to secure secondary benefits, like public access to green spaces. At the same time, developers will benefit from a streamlined process and simple user experience. This new approach means more for nature, not less. Once an EDP is in place, Natural England will use the necessary powers and funds collected to implement the conservation measures.

46. Conservation measures within an EDP may include measures which reduce or remove pollution, reduce disturbance, enhance or restore existing habitats, and create new habitats or habitat features. Elements of these conservation measures may constitute development and therefore require planning permission, including for operational works and erecting new structures.

47. In order to facilitate the delivery of EDPs, we are proposing to support the implementation and maintenance of conservation measures within an EDP through a national grant of planning permission via permitted development flexibilities. Natural England, and operators on its behalf, would be permitted to undertake specified development on a site for the purposes of its functions relating to the implementation of an EDP and ongoing maintenance of that site, speeding up the delivery of measures which will deliver environmental benefit. This would also provide certainty to Natural England and local communities, as it would ensure that certain conservation measures within an EDP that would be considered “development” benefit from a national grant of planning permission, and can be delivered and subsequently maintained without the submission of a planning application. It will also support the delivery of measures to materially outweigh the negative effect of development, providing assurance to stakeholders and communities that conservation measures will be delivered efficiently.

48. For the avoidance of doubt, we are not proposing to permit all development that might be required in relation to conservation measures within an EDP, but rather specific types of development (within set parameters) that are likely to be included within an EDP (such as excavations to facilitate pond creation or the erection of small scale structures to support the creation of habitats), striking a balance between development freedom, certainty, and retaining proportionate safeguards against potential impacts. It may not be the case that all conservation measures referenced within this consultation document would necessarily constitute development and require planning permission, but rather we seek to provide certainty for those instances where they do. Where conservation measures constitute development and go beyond what is permitted, a planning application would be required.

49. Development would be permitted to be undertaken by Natural England or operators on its behalf. For the purpose of these proposals, such operators could include contractors (who could be acting on instructions from Natural England to, for example, develop a wetland that Natural England have designed), operators (such as environmental non-governmental organisations, like The Wildlife Trusts, who Natural England could engage under contract to identify sites, implement and operate conservation measures), and local planning authorities (who could have responsibilities delegated to them to operate part of the EDP in their area and reclaim costs from Natural England).

50. Throughout this consultation document chapter, references to development or the submission of a prior approval application etc. by Natural England should be read as including development or the submission of a prior approval application etc. by operators on their behalf, unless otherwise stated.

51. Should the relevant Secretary of State be required to take remedial action where an EDP ends or is revoked, the national grant of planning permission would also apply to the relevant Secretary of State (and operators on their behalf). The relevant Secretary of State would be the Secretary of State that made the relevant EDP.

52. This consultation sets out the type of development that we propose would be permitted, and any relevant conditions or limitations. We welcome feedback on the following proposals.

Question 18

It is proposed that Natural England and operators on its behalf benefit from a national grant of planning permission for the implementation and maintenance of conservation measures within an EDP amounting to development. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Land designation based exclusions and prior approvals

53. It is proposed that the national grants of planning permission would apply to most land in England, including in article 2(3) land (which includes National Parks, the Broads, National Landscapes, conservation areas, and World Heritage Sites). This would provide Natural England with the flexibility to deliver conservation measures in places that will provide the most benefit, even if the land already has a designation.

54. However, it is proposed that none of the national grants of planning permission would apply on the site of a scheduled monument, not only due to their national importance but also the interaction between a national grant of planning permission and the separate scheduled monument consent regime, which could cause confusion.

55. Prior approval means that a developer has to seek approval from the local planning authority that specified elements of the development are acceptable before work can proceed. If development is to take place within certain land designations, it is proposed that Natural England would be required to seek prior approval. The proposed prior approvals would provide checks and balances in the system, allowing for specific consideration of the impact of the development proposal on that land designation. When any prior approval is proposed within this consultation, a fee to the local planning authority would be payable upon the submission of the prior approval application.

56. It is proposed that if the development is to take place within a conservation area; World Heritage Site; the site of a registered park, garden or battlefield; the site of a protected wreck; or to a listed building or land within its curtilage, prior approval would be required as to the impact of the siting and appearance of the development on the land designation. For example, where the development in question is within a conservation area, we propose that the local planning authority can consider the impact of the siting and appearance of the development on the character or appearance of the conservation area.

57. These prior approvals would apply to all development permitted by any national grants of planning permission (covered in the following sections of this consultation chapter), except the development of temporary buildings, plant, machinery and apparatus for survey or investigation, as set out in paragraphs 90 to 92. When determining an application for prior approval, the local planning authority would be required to have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application. The local planning authority may consult Historic England (and other relevant statutory consultees) as part of this prior approval process. For the avoidance of doubt, a permitted development right only grants planning permission, and does not remove the need to comply with other relevant legislation and regulations, including the need for listed building consent.

58. Natural England already has various statutory duties relating to protected landscapes, including advising local planning authorities on development proposals in such landscapes.  Therefore, we do not consider that prior approvals are necessary in protected landscapes, which includes National Parks, National Landscapes (formally known as areas of outstanding natural beauty) and the Broads. To require Natural England to seek prior approval for development within these landscapes would require the local planning authority to consult Natural England. This would create unnecessary burdens and provide few additional safeguards beyond those already afforded by Natural England’s existing statutory duties in relation to protected landscapes.

59. We are also aware that conservation measures on certain sites may restrict future development and land uses (such as if conservation measures were implemented in a mineral safeguarding area). We do not consider that prior approval is a suitable mechanism to control such development. However, the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 includes requirements for Natural England to publish a draft EDP for public consultation and seek the views of various bodies (including local planning authorities, strategic highways companies and Network Rail) and have regard to any consultation responses received. These bodies will have the opportunity to highlight any such sites that may be present within the area covered by the EDP. This would allow Natural England to consider such representations when assessing the appropriateness of conservation measure locations. Separately, it is also possible for local planning authorities to remove permitted development rights within a defined area through an article 4 direction, where appropriate.

60. Should these proposals come forward, we would also introduce safeguards for certain development impacting defence safeguarding areas.

Question 19

It is proposed that any national grant of planning permission would not apply on the site of a scheduled monument. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 20

It is proposed that if any part of the development is in a conservation area, prior approval on the impact of the siting and appearance of the development on the character and appearance of the conservation area would be required. Do you agree?

• yes
• no, development in a conservation area should be permitted without the need for prior approval
• no, development should not be permitted in a conservation area
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 21

It is proposed that if any part of the development is in a World Heritage Site, prior approval on the impact of the siting and appearance of the development on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site would be required. Do you agree?

• yes
• no, development in a World Heritage Site should be permitted without the need for prior approval
• no, development should not be permitted in a World Heritage Site
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 22

It is proposed that if any part of the development is on the site of a registered park, garden or battlefield, prior approval on the impact of the siting and appearance of the development on the special historic interest of the asset would be required. Do you agree?

• yes
• no, development on the site of a registered park, garden or battlefield should be permitted without the need for prior approval
• no, development should not be permitted on the site of a registered park, garden or battlefield
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 23

It is proposed that if any part of the development is on the site of a protected wreck, prior approval on the impact of the siting and appearance of the development on the historical, archaeological or artistic importance of the protected wreck would be required. Do you agree?

• yes
• no, development on the site of a protected wreck should be permitted without the need for prior approval
• no, development should not be permitted on the site of a protected wreck
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 24

It is proposed that if any part of the development is on the site of a listed building or land within its curtilage, prior approval on the impact of the siting and appearance of the development on the building, its setting or any feature of special or historic interest which it possesses would be required. Do you agree?

• yes
• no, development on the site of a listed building or land within its curtilage should be permitted without the need for prior approval
• no, development should not be permitted on the site of a listed building or land within its curtilage
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 25

Where development is subject to prior approval on the basis of land designation, this would apply in respect of most of the permitted development proposed in this consultation chapter (with the exception of temporary development for surveys and investigation, as set out in paragraphs 90 to 92). Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 26

It is proposed that development be permitted in protected landscapes with no prior approval process. Do you agree?

• yes
• no, development in protected landscapes should be permitted subject to prior approval
• no, development should not be permitted in protected landscapes
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 27

Beyond the mechanisms already outlined in paragraph 59, should we seek to control the development of conservation measures on land where it may restrict future development and land uses?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of how such controls would function and what types of safeguarded or allocated land they should apply to.

Landscaping

61. There may be instances where an EDP contains conservation measures requiring landscaping, including excavations and deposits. Conservation measures that may require such development include:

• the creation, maintenance and restoration of ponds (such as to provide habitats for protected species, for example great crested newts, and to enhance suitable alternative natural greenspaces (SANGs) and open land for the general public)
• the filling in and the creation of ditches or bunds (such as to support nutrient neutrality projects and to create or enhance habitats for protected species)
• the modification of rivers to create meanders, wetlands and flooded meadows (such as to provide habitats for protected species)
• scrape (shallow ponds or depressions often within wetlands or wet grassland) creation and maintenance (such as to provide habitats for protected species)
• re-profiling (such as in relation to peat restoration projects or a different use of the land)

We are therefore seeking feedback on permitting landscaping, including excavations and deposits, to be undertaken by Natural England for the purposes of implementing conservation measures within an EDP and ongoing maintenance.

62. It is proposed that if such development resulted in the extraction of minerals from the land, then it would be conditioned so that the mineral could not be removed from the area covered by the EDP. Additionally, we are also proposing a condition that would prevent waste materials being brought onto the land from outside of the area covered by the EDP for deposits, except for waste material (such as aggregate) if used for the construction of a footpath or other structures (as set out in paragraphs 72 to 81).

63. It is proposed that if landscaping, including excavations and deposits, was proposed (a) within Flood Zones 2 or 3, and (b) was likely to divert or obstruct floodwater, then Natural England would be required to carry out prior consultation directly with the Environment Agency before development can commence. Diverting or obstructing floodwater in this instance would include (i) bringing materials from outside Flood Zones 2 and 3 to raise land or construct bunds or berms; or (ii) moving materials within the area covered by the EDP to raise land or construct bunds or berms, subject to thresholds around the height and size of the area to be raised beyond the natural ground level. It should be noted that other requirements would still apply, including the need to seek an environmental permit if works are on or near a main river, or the need for ordinary watercourse consent for works on or near a watercourse.

64. For the avoidance of doubt, “prior consultation” is not the same process as “prior approval” (as laid out in paragraph 55). Prior consultation would require Natural England to directly consult the Environment Agency on flood risk before the development can commence. It is proposed that Natural England would be required to submit a flood risk assessment to support the consultation, and notify the Environment Agency specifying the date by which they must respond (which could not be less than 21 days). Development could not commence before the Environment Agency has responded or the specified date to respond has passed. Natural England would be required to take into account any representations received, and as soon as reasonably practicable send to the local planning authority a copy of the representations and a statement explaining how they have taken the representations into account.

65. We are not proposing any overall limits on the size or scale of the landscaping permitted (with the thresholds referenced in paragraph 63 relating only to when prior consultation on flood risks would be triggered). This is because the size of sites and purposes of the landscaping may vary considerably, depending on the specific details of individual EDPs. However, the development of a large raised reservoir (as defined by the Reservoirs Act 1975) would not be permitted. To note, development within certain areas, such as conservation areas or registered parks, gardens and battlefields, would be subject to additional prior approvals considering siting and appearance as set out in paragraphs 55 to 57.

66. For excavations only (including to facilitate the construction of below ground structures as set out in paragraphs 78 and 79), it is proposed that Natural England would be required to undertake a proportionate screening assessment to establish if the site of an excavation is likely to be contaminated. We do not propose to set out exact requirements for the screening assessment within the national grant of planning permission, instead allowing Natural England to ascertain the likelihood of contamination in a proportionate way. For example, by establishing previous uses of the land through the National Land Use Database, engaging the local planning authority directly for an opinion, or conducting a site visit. Natural England or authorised operators on their behalf would be permitted to undertake the screening assessment. However, Natural England itself or a local planning authority (if acting as an authorised operator), would be required to confirm that a screening assessment produced by a non-governmental authorised operator (such as a contractor, consultant or environmental non-government organisation) was proportionate and met required standards.

67. It is proposed that, should the screening assessment show that contamination is likely, prior approval from the local planning authority on contamination risk would be required before development could commence. Such applications for prior approval would need to include (i) a contamination risk assessment, produced by a “competent person” (a person with a recognised relevant qualification, sufficient experience in dealing with the type(s) of pollution, and membership of a relevant professional organisation), in line with the “land affected by contamination” Planning Practice Guidance; and (ii) details of measures to address contamination and mitigate risks. The local planning authority may consult the Environment Agency (and any other relevant statutory consultee) as part of the prior approval process.

Question 28

It is proposed that landscaping, including excavations and deposits, be permitted. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 29

It is proposed that removing minerals from the site and bringing waste materials on to the site should be conditioned as set out in paragraph 62. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 30

It is proposed that prior consultation with the Environment Agency on flood risks as set out in paragraphs 63 and 64 would be required. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 31

It is proposed that landscaping, including excavations and deposits, are not subject to any conditions or limitations on their overall size or scale. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered no, please provide details of any proposed size or scale conditions or limitations. 

Question 32

It is proposed that a contamination screening assessment and, depending on the outcomes of the assessment, prior approval on contamination risk as set out in paragraphs 66 and 67 would be required. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 33

Are there any other conditions or limitations that should apply to landscaping, including excavations and deposits?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the additional conditions or limitation and any supporting evidence.

Fences, footpaths and small structures etc

68. Implementing certain conservation measures would require the development of fences, footpaths and small scale structures. Relevant conservation measures may include:

a) erecting, constructing, maintaining, improving or altering: i. fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure to demarcate land (such as when restricting access to more sensitive sites and enhancing SANGs and open land) ii. footpaths, cycleways and bridleways (such as when enhancing SANGs or open land) iii. structures for the purpose of habitat creation (such as wildlife roost and hibernacula (shelters where hibernating animals spend the winter months in a state of dormancy)) iv. structures for drainage works and redirecting water (such as for peatland restoration and to create habitats such as flooded meadows or wetlands)

b) improving or altering existing above ground slurry stores and erecting, constructing, improving or altering above ground slurry store covers to reduce pollution

We are therefore seeking feedback on permitting Natural England to undertake such development for the purposes of implementing conservation measures within an EDP and ongoing maintenance.

Fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure

69. Fencing, gates, walls or other means of enclosure may be required to demarcate land or to limit access to protected sites etc. There is already a permitted development right (Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order) which grants permission for such development, which anyone (including Natural England) can utilise. However, development within the curtilage of a listed building, or to a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure surrounding a listed building, is excluded from this right.

70. We therefore propose that the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure by Natural England is also permitted as part of this national grant of planning permission. We propose that height limits would be set in line with the existing Class A of Part 2 permitted development right, where relevant.

71. In practice, Natural England could rely on either permitted development right in the vast majority of cases. However, the proposed approach would also allow Natural England to seek prior approval (in line with the process laid out in paragraph 56) should the fence etc. be located within the curtilage of a listed building.

Question 34

It is proposed that the development of fences etc. as set out in paragraph 70 should be permitted. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 35

Are there any other conditions or limitations that should apply to the development of fences etc.?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the additional conditions or limitation and any supporting evidence.

Footpaths, cycleways and bridleways

72. Footpaths, cycleways and bridleways may be required to provide access to and around sites. This could be for the general public as part of a SANG, or to provide access for monitoring and maintenance. Footpaths, cycleways and bridleways may also provide benefits ancillary to the main purpose of a conservation measure, such as providing a public walking, cycling or horse riding route within a riparian buffer. We therefore propose permitting the construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of footpaths, cycleways and bridleways by Natural England, not only for the purposes of implementing conservation measures in accordance with proposals in an EDP and maintaining the site, but also for the purposes of providing ancillary benefits alongside the main purpose of conservation measures.

73. We propose that newly constructed footpaths, cycleways and bridleways would only be permitted if provision is made to direct run-off water from any hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the site, or the footpath etc. is made from a porous material. However, where there is a risk of groundwater contamination, we propose that the footpath etc. would not be permitted to be made of porous materials.

Question 36

It is proposed that the development of footpaths, cycleways and bridleways as set out in paragraphs 72 and 73 be permitted. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 37

Are there any other conditions or limitations that should apply to the development of footpaths, cycleways or bridleways?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the additional conditions or limitation and any supporting evidence.

Small scale structures

74. A variety of small scale structures may be required to support conservation measures. For example, structures that provide places for animals to rest, roost, or hibernate in may be required, alongside poles, posts or masts to mount such structures or monitoring equipment on. We are therefore proposing that the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of structures in, on, over or under land, by Natural England be permitted.

75. We propose that the development of a pole, post or mast upon which to mount the small-scale structures would be permitted. It is proposed that any pole, post or mast erected or constructed would be limited to 15 metres in height, or 3 metres in height if sited within 3 kilometres of the perimeter of an aerodrome. Excluding any base, a maximum diameter of 0.5 metres is proposed. 15 metres is proposed as the upper height limit in order to provide suitable nesting opportunities for species that prefer to nest higher up, whilst limiting visual impacts. 0.5 metres is proposed as the maximum diameter limit in order to provide the pole etc. with structural integrity, whilst limiting visual impacts.

76. It is also proposed the development of structures mounted on a pole, tree, existing structure or building etc. above ground level for the purposes of wildlife monitoring and habitat creation would be permitted. We propose they would be limited to a maximum size of 1 cubic metre. The highest part of the structure would be limited to 15 metres above ground level, unless mounted on an existing structure (not erected under these permitted development flexibilities) or tree which exceeds this, in which case no part should be higher than the highest part of the existing structure or tree. The 1 cubic metre size limit is proposed in order to provide enough flexibility to accommodate different types of structures that can meet the needs of a variety of species, whilst limiting visual impacts. The 15 metres height limit is proposed to align with the proposed pole etc. height limit in paragraph 75.

77. We also propose structures developed at ground level to provide wildlife habitats or mount monitoring equipment on would be permitted. It is proposed they would be limited to a maximum height of 4 metres covering a maximum 10 square metre ground area. They would be limited to use as a wildlife habitat or a purpose ancillary to a wildlife habitat (such as hibernacula access or monitoring) and may not be used for other purposes, such as staff facilities or a visitors’ centre. The height and ground area limits are proposed to provide enough flexibility to accommodate different types of structures that can meet the needs of a variety of species, whilst limiting visual impacts.

78. It is proposed that structures developed below ground level for the purposes of wildlife monitoring or habitat creation (such as a hibernacula) would also be permitted. We propose they would be limited to use as a wildlife habitat, or a purpose ancillary to a wildlife habitat, and may not be used for other purposes. We propose no limits on size or depth of these below ground structures as there will be no visual impacts from development below ground.

79. We also propose that structures developed at or below ground level for the purposes of blocking ditches, diverting watercourses or flooding land would be permitted. We propose they would be limited to a maximum height of 1 metre above the prevailing land level. The proposed height limit has been selected to provide adequate development flexibility to facilitate a variety of projects, whilst limiting visual impacts. As previously stated in paragraph 63, other requirements, such as the need to seek an environmental permit if works are on or near a main river, and the need for ordinary watercourse consent for works on or near a watercourse, would still apply.

80. For the avoidance of doubt, it is proposed that the conditions requiring the consideration of contamination risk in relation to excavations as set out in paragraphs 66 and 67 would apply to excavations required to facilitate the development of below ground structures as set out in paragraphs 78 and 79.

81. It is also proposed that the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any existing structure (not erected under these permitted development flexibilities) would be conditioned so the works would not result in the structure exceeding the size and height limits as set out in the previous paragraphs, unless the existing structure already exceeds these limits, in which case the existing size or height of the structure may not be increased as a result of the works. In effect, this would allow, for example, an existing pole of 20 metres to be maintained, improved or altered as permitted development providing the height did not increase further. This would permit the maintenance etc. of existing structures, whilst maintaining the status quo in relation to existing visual impacts.

Question 38

It is proposed that the development of structures should be permitted. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered no, please specify which structures your comment relates to.

Question 39

It is proposed that the development of a pole, post or mast and any associated structure (for the purposes of wildlife monitoring and habitat creation) to be mounted above ground level on it (or on a tree, existing structure or building) be limited in terms of size and height as set out in paragraphs 75 and 76. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons and be clear if it relates to the pole etc. or the associated structure.

Question 40

It is proposed that the development of structures at ground level for the purpose of providing a wildlife habitat (or a purpose ancillary to a wildlife habitat, such as access or monitoring) be limited in terms of size as set out in paragraph 77. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 41

It is proposed that the development of structures below ground level for the purposes of providing wildlife habitats and monitoring be limited in terms of size as set out in paragraph 78. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 42

It is proposed that any structure developed at or below ground level for the purposes of blocking ditches, diverting watercourse or flooding land be limited to a maximum of 1 metre in height above the prevailing land level. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 43

It is proposed that the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of an existing structure should be conditioned as set out in paragraph 81. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 44

Are there any other conditions or limitations that should apply to the development of such structures?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the additional conditions or limitation and any supporting evidence.

Above ground slurry stores

82. One mechanism EDPs may use to address the negative effects of new development is to deploy conservation measures which reduce an existing (legal) source of pollution. The storage and management of slurry can be a significant source of pollution and improving slurry stores (beyond standards required for legal compliance) may be a highly effective conservation measure. Natural England may therefore work with farmers – on a voluntary basis – to facilitate the upgrading and improvement of existing slurry stores in line with conservation measures within an EDP.

83. We therefore propose that the replacement, improvement or alteration of an above ground slurry store by Natural England would be permitted. Above ground slurry store covers also play an important role in reducing pollution, so we also propose that the erection, construction, improvement or alteration of above ground slurry store covers by Natural England would be permitted.

84. We propose that the height of any development would be limited to 8 metres, unless any part of the slurry store or cover would be within 3 kilometres of the perimeter of an aerodrome, where the height would be limited to 3 metres. Where the existing slurry store or cover already exceeds these limits, we propose that the development may not exceed the existing maximum height of the slurry store or cover. These limits have been proposed to provide adequate flexibility to accommodate most above ground slurry stores and covers, whilst limiting visual impacts.

85. We propose that the ground area covered by any replacement slurry store may be increased by up to 10%, unless sited within 400 metres of a “protected building” (which has the same meaning as in Classes A to C of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order: a permanent building which is normally occupied by people (or would be occupied if it was in use for the purposes it was designed for), excluding a building on the farm, or a building on another farm which is used for or in connection with agriculture). For the avoidance of doubt, it is not proposed that the relocation of the replacement slurry stores would be permitted. A 10% increase has been proposed as upgraded slurry stores may need larger footprints. Restricting this increase to 10% limits visual impacts. The 400-metre exclusion around “protected buildings” has been proposed to align with the existing agricultural permitted development rights and to protect the amenity of surrounding buildings normally occupied by people.

Question 45

It is proposed that the replacement, improvement or alteration of an existing above ground slurry store; and the erection, construction, improvement or alteration of above ground slurry store covers be permitted. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered no, please specify whether your comment relates to above ground slurry stores or slurry store covers.

Question 46

It is proposed that the height, size and siting of above ground slurry stores and covers be limited to the parameters as set out in paragraph 84 and 85. Do you agree?

• yes
• No
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 47

Are there any other conditions or limitations that should apply to the development of above ground slurry stores or covers?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the additional conditions or limitation and any supporting evidence.

Public access to SANGs

86. A suitable alternative natural greenspace (SANG) provides an alternative greenspace to attract local people away from protected and vulnerable sites. If delivering a SANG as part of an EDP, Natural England may want to provide suitable access to ensure users are attracted to and can use the alternative provision. Therefore, we propose that Natural England be permitted to develop a single vehicular access to the SANG, up to 10 car parking spaces, structures for cycle parking, height barriers to control the types of vehicles that can enter the site, and pay and display machines, only when developed in connection with an EDP SANG.

87. We propose that any hard surface required would only be permitted if provision is made to direct run-off water from it to a permeable or porous area or surface within the site, or if the hard surface is made from a porous material. However, where there is a risk of groundwater contamination, we propose it would not be permitted to be made of porous materials. Excluding the highways access to the car park, it is proposed that the maximum area of any hard surface permitted per SANG would be 300 square metres. This would provide enough hard surfacing for 10 parking spaces (including larger spaces such as for disabled parking) internal access roads to the parking spaces, turning spaces and cycle parking.

88. We also propose that prior approval must be sought from the local planning authority in relation to the transport, highways and access impacts of the development prior to the development of the vehicular access or creation of a car park. Where, in the opinion of the local planning authority, the development is likely to result in a material increase or a material change in the character of traffic in the vicinity of the site, it is also proposed that the local planning authority must consult:

• where the increase or change relates to traffic entering or leaving a trunk road, the highway authority for the trunk road
• the local highway authority, where the increase or change relates to traffic entering or leaving a classified road or proposed highway, except where the local planning authority is the local highway authority
• the operator of the network which includes or consists of the railways in questions, and the Secretary of State for Transport, where the increase or change relates to traffic using a level crossing over a railway

89. Natural England may also seek to provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure as part of any new car park. Two permitted development rights (Class D and Class E of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order) already provide for the development of electrical outlets and electrical upstands (including equipment necessary for their operation and housing for such equipment) for recharging vehicles in an area lawfully used for off-street parking. We therefore also propose to amend these permitted development rights to permit the development of electrical outlets and upstands etc. in connection with the development of an EDP SANG car park by Natural England where the area is to be lawfully used for off-street parking, but such use is yet to commence. This will allow Natural England to install electric vehicle charging infrastructure as part of the initial development of the car park, instead of having to retrospectively install the infrastructure under the existing permitted development rights only after the lawful use for off-street parking has commenced.

Question 48

It is proposed that the development of a single vehicular access, of up to 10 car parking spaces, structures for cycle parking, height barriers and pay and display machines in connection with an EDP SANG be permitted. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered no, please specify which element your comment relates to.

Question 49

It is proposed that the development of any hard surfacing be conditioned as set out in paragraph 87. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.  

Question 50

It is proposed that Natural England be required to seek prior approval on transport, highways and access impacts prior to commencing the development of a vehicular access or car park as set out in paragraph 88. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.  

Question 51

It is proposed that the existing electric vehicle recharging permitted development rights (Class D and Class E of Part 2 of the General Permitted Development Order) be amended as set out in paragraph 89. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 52

Are there any other conditions or limitations that should apply to the development of a single vehicular access, of up to 10 car parking spaces, structures for cycle parking, height barriers, and pay and display machines?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the additional conditions or limitation and any supporting evidence.

Temporary buildings, plant, machinery and apparatus for survey or investigation

90. Prior to finalising development proposals or an EDP, Natural England may need to undertake surveys and investigations to, for example, establish the most effective conservation measures, methods of implementation, contamination risk, ground water levels or soil composition.

91. We are therefore proposing that buildings, plant, machinery and apparatus in, on, over or under land, for the purposes of survey or investigation to support the development and implementation of an EDP would be permitted on a temporary basis. We propose that there would be no limit on the size or height of such buildings, plant, machinery or apparatus. As such surveys and investigations will likely occur prior to finalising a development proposal or an EDP, and any impacts on designated land will be temporary (as set out in paragraph 92), it is proposed that any such temporary development would be excluded from the prior approval processes as set out in paragraphs 56, 57, 66 and 67 relating to land designations and contamination, and could therefore be undertaken without first seeking prior approval from the local planning authority.

92. We also propose that the development would be subject to a condition that on completion of the survey or investigation, or at the expiration of 6 months from the commencement of the development concerned (whichever is sooner), all such operations cease and the buildings, plant, machinery and apparatus are removed and, as soon as reasonably practicable, either the land restored to its former condition, to any other condition which may be agreed with the local planning authority, or implementation of conservation measures begins.

Question 53

It is proposed the development of temporary buildings, plant, machinery and apparatus in, over, or under land, for the purposes of survey or investigation set out in paragraphs 91 and 92 should be permitted. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 54

Are there any other conditions or limitations that should apply to the development of temporary buildings, plant, machinery and apparatus for the purposes of survey or investigation?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the additional conditions or limitation and any supporting evidence.

Use of land and existing buildings

93. We also propose allowing for any land and buildings upon that land to be used for the purposes of the conservation measures in accordance with proposals in an EDP. For example, this would allow land to be used as a SANG, or a former agricultural building to be used as a species habitat. A mix of the existing use and a use for the purposes of the conservation measures in accordance with proposals in an EDP would also be permitted, such as where an element of a less intensive agricultural use would remain alongside a conservation measure.

94. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not seek to imply that all uses of land in connection with conservation measures would necessarily constitute development, but rather wish to provide certainty for those instances where it may constitute development. Nor would this provision compel land use to change following the implementation of conservation measures (such as if an on-farm slurry store is upgraded).

95. Permission for the change of use of any existing building would be limited so it would not permit a proposal involving primary usage by visiting members of the public (such as toilets or a visitors’ centre on a SANG). Such uses may attract visitors at a scale resulting in additional impacts and would be more appropriately considered on a case-by-case basis such as through the submission of a planning application.

Question 55

It is proposed that any land and buildings on that land, be permitted to be used for the purposes of conservation in accordance with proposals in an EDP, as set out in paragraphs 93 – 95. Do you agree?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Question 56

Are there any other conditions or limitations that should apply to the use of land, and buildings upon that land, for the purposes of conservation measures in accordance with proposals in an EDP?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the additional conditions or limitation and any supporting evidence.

Additional comments

Question 57

Should any other development be permitted to be undertaken by Natural England for the purposes of implementing conservation measures in accordance with proposals in an EDP and maintenance of the site?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the development and any supporting evidence. 

Question 58

Are there any other conditions or limitations (including prior approvals or land exclusions) that should apply to development permitted for the purposes of implementing conservation measures in accordance with proposals in an EDP and maintenance of the site?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. If you have answered yes, please provide details of the conditions and limitations and any supporting evidence.

Impact assessment

96. We would welcome your view on the likely impact of these proposals.

Question 59

Do you think that permitted development flexibilities proposed to support the development of conservation measures within an EDP could impact on: a) businesses b) local planning authorities c) communities?

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons. It would be helpful if you could specify whether your comments relate to a) business, b) local planning authorities, or c) communities, or a combination.

Public Sector Equality Duty

97. We are required to assess these proposals by reference to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010. A Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment will be prepared reflecting the detail of the changes to be made prior to any secondary legislation being laid.

98. We would welcome your comments as part of this consultation on whether the proposed new national grant of planning permission to support the development of conservation measures within an EDP could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic (Age; Disability; Gender Reassignment; Pregnancy and Maternity; Race; Religion or Belief; Sex; and Sexual Orientation).

99. If providing comments, please make it clear which elements of the proposal your comment relates to.

Question 60

Do you think that permitted development flexibilities proposed to support the development of conservation measures within an EDP could give rise to any impacts on people who share a protected characteristic? (Age; Disability; Gender Reassignment; Pregnancy and Maternity; Race; Religion or Belief; Sex; and Sexual Orientation).

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

Environmental Principles Assessment

100. The Environmental Act 2021 requires we consider the environmental effects of policies throughout their development, known as the Environmental Principles. An Environmental Principles Policy Statement will be prepared reflecting the detail of the changes to be made prior to any secondary legislation being laid.

101. We would welcome your comments as part of this consultation on whether the proposed new national grant of planning permission to support the development of conservation measures within an EDP could give rise to environmental impacts that should be considered against the five environmental principles:

1. The integration principle – environmental protection should be integrated into the making of policies.
2. The prevention principle – policy should aim to prevent environmental harm.
3. The rectification at source principle – environmental damage should, as a priority, be addressed at its origin to avoid the need to remedy its effects later.
4. The polluter pays principle – where possible, the costs of pollution should be borne by those causing it, rather than the person who suffers the effect of the resulting environmental damage, or the wider community.
5. The precautionary principle – where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, a lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

102. In providing comments, please make it clear which elements of the proposal your comment relates to.

Question 61

Do you think that permitted development flexibilities proposed to support the development of conservation measures within an EDP could give rise to environmental impacts that should be considered against the five environmental principles? (integration, prevention, rectify at source, polluter pays, and precautionary).

• yes
• no
• don’t know

Please provide your reasons.

About this consultation 

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.  

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond. 

Information provided in response to this consultation may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation. In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law. 

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the information access regimes and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department. 

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will at all times process your personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below. 

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested. 

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond. 

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are entitled to under UK data protection legislation.

Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of the Data Protection Officer

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at: dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose.

Respondents should refrain from sharing personal or special category data outside of the administrative questions at the front of the Citizen Space questionnaire.

Sensitive types of personal data

Please do not share special category personal data or criminal offence data if we have not asked for this unless absolutely necessary for the purposes of your consultation response. By ‘special category personal data’, we mean information about a living individual’s:

• race
• ethnic origin
• political opinions
• religious or philosophical beliefs
• trade union membership
• genetics
• biometrics
• health (including disability-related information)
• sex life; or
• sexual orientation.

By ‘criminal offence data’, we mean information relating to a living individual’s criminal convictions or offences or related security measures.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

The collection of your personal data is lawful under article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by MHCLG of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller. Section 8(d) of the Data Protection Act 2018 states that this will include processing of personal data that is necessary for the exercise of a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department i.e. in this case a consultation.

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows. The relevant lawful basis for the processing of special category personal data is Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and government purposes’). The relevant lawful basis in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences data is likewise provided by Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

MHCLG may appoint a ‘data processor’, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation. Where we do we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period

Your personal data will be held for two years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point.

6. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, erasure

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right:

1. to see what data we have about you
2. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record
3. ask to have your data corrected it is incorrect or incomplete
4. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances
5. to lodge a complaint with the Independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law. You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

Please contact us at the following address if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO: dataprotection@communities.gov.uk or

Knowledge and Information Access Team,
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government,
Fry Building,
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure government IT system

We use a third-party system, Citizen Space, to collect consultation responses. In the first instance your personal data will be stored on their secure UK-based server. Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system as soon as possible, and it will be stored there for 2 years before it is deleted.