Abolition of the 28 day rule for shooting static targets in Scotland

[stubear]

Or alternatively, those who want to set up a shooting range shouldn't play fast and loose with the planning authorities and prompt Government to step in to avoid it happening again.
Yes, the new proposals are Draconian IMHO, but if people hadn't played silly Bggrs at Eskdalemuir then this nonsense would never have even been considered.

I heard this was in relation to Eskdalemuir - what happened up there exactly?

 

[Lancaster]

I heard this was in relation to Eskdalemuir - what happened up there exactly?

In Brief;

Shoot range must come down - Enforcement decision upheld - DNG Online Limited

And Eskdalemuir Forestry Ltd now have three months to demolish a training area, car park, toilets and target areas at Clerkhill, which don’t have planning permission. An enforcement notice was first issued by Dumfries and Galloway Council in March, giving them three months to comply. However...

www.dng24.co.uk

Extended range set up, no planning permission, applied to planning retrospectively, rejected.
Argued that it wasn't a major development, rejected, so fully planning permission and public consultation required.
Legal team also argued that the 28 day rule applied, rejected.
Full planning permission rejected.

Others, who are very pro GG and the range, will argue differently and blame Monks, Nimby's etc, but as an objective outsider with no dog in the fight, the developers screwed up and, I believe, sought crowd funding and donations to pay towards their legal bills.

 

[Andrewslater]

In Brief;

Shoot range must come down - Enforcement decision upheld - DNG Online Limited

And Eskdalemuir Forestry Ltd now have three months to demolish a training area, car park, toilets and target areas at Clerkhill, which don’t have planning permission. An enforcement notice was first issued by Dumfries and Galloway Council in March, giving them three months to comply. However...

www.dng24.co.uk

Extended range set up, no planning permission, applied to planning retrospectively, rejected.
Argued that it wasn't a major development, rejected, so fully planning permission and public consultation required.
Legal team also argued that the 28 day rule applied, rejected.
Full planning permission rejected.

Others, who are very pro GG and the range, will argue differently and blame Monks, Nimby's etc, but as an objective outsider with no dog in the fight, the developers screwed up and, I believe, sought crowd funding and donations to pay towards their legal bills.

Is the picture on that link of a chinese restaurant?

Edit: just read at its a monastery.

 

[Buchan]

Why would NRA range guidance be a good idea? and why would any court look for it? any legal action would be via the HSE why oh why do we keep wanting to put barriers up when not needed, the HO and police are quite happy for the responsibility to lie with the range operator, so no we do not need the NRA with safe shoot cards and reloading courses to interfere with ranges that have nothing to do with them, or clay grounds.

Because it is the only training course (LANTRA may do one) in range safety. So in terms of due diligence (eg the pool attendant knows how to rescue people) it would be an obvious question to ask. "Have you any training in range safety?" "No, as anyone who shoots is automatically safety concious" is harder to defend than, "Yes, an RCO is present at all times during firing"

 

[bowji john]

I’m an RCO for that very reason, as I own a miniature range

However, the RCO qual is biased towards running a military range

There is also an alternative RO course

On balance, I’m glad I did the RCO course (with HME in my case) as it provided a solid foundation of knowledge

Anyone planning to own a range could do a lot worse than attending such a course

Even if you never use it for its intended purpose

 

[Heym SR20]

In brief a large number of the ranges operated are under the operation of Scottish Government and Police approved rifle clubs. And with the Scottish Government its under the community’s and safety bit, so any ranges and clubs have been examined and approved as fit for purpose.

 

[countrryboy]

In Brief;

Shoot range must come down - Enforcement decision upheld - DNG Online Limited

And Eskdalemuir Forestry Ltd now have three months to demolish a training area, car park, toilets and target areas at Clerkhill, which don’t have planning permission. An enforcement notice was first issued by Dumfries and Galloway Council in March, giving them three months to comply. However...

www.dng24.co.uk

Extended range set up, no planning permission, applied to planning retrospectively, rejected.
Argued that it wasn't a major development, rejected, so fully planning permission and public consultation required.
Legal team also argued that the 28 day rule applied, rejected.
Full planning permission rejected.

Others, who are very pro GG and the range, will argue differently and blame Monks, Nimby's etc, but as an objective outsider with no dog in the fight, the developers screwed up and, I believe, sought crowd funding and donations to pay towards their legal bills.

While I agree the Buddhists have some bloody cheek going on about planning the amount t of stuff and houses they have built up there with no planning when locals aren't even allowed to swap an old cast iron skylight for a velux for fear of not fitting in with the local area.
They built a 30 or 40ft high golden budda with a snake and then cut down all the trees so u have to see it as u go past.
Bloody whole valley is an eyesore now.

There's no doubt the rifle range has made quite a few errors but they also reckon there advisers/lawyers have also misread/understood things.

I'm not into target shooting but it really is some facility. Never seen anything quite like it when down the range, have spent some serious money.
Would be a crying shame if it is ripped up.

As others have said just watch for clay shooting being a last minute ammendment sneaked in with no time to debate/representations ( not that holyrood ever listen to anything anyway usually having already made there minds up before the consultation began)
Just like they did with the blue hares.

 

[Jim_DiGriz]

The wording as proposed would destroy target shooting in Scotland.

The current wording would mean that someone shooting paper targets with an air rifle in their back garden would now need planning permission for a range, which is clearly ludicrious.

Any keeper or person involved with deer or vermin control would no longer be able to zero their rifle over land where they have permission to shoot.

All FT and HFT target shoots would no longer be able to go ahead, as they are currently run upon farmland with the land owners permission.

We have meetings tomorrow to point all of this out.

 

[hcm1]

Is this something that only those in Scotland can have a voice on, or can anyone voice their opinion?

 

[Jim_DiGriz]

Is this something that only those in Scotland can have a voice on, or can anyone voice their opinion?

Anyone can voice their opinion.

 

[stubear]

In Brief;

Shoot range must come down - Enforcement decision upheld - DNG Online Limited

And Eskdalemuir Forestry Ltd now have three months to demolish a training area, car park, toilets and target areas at Clerkhill, which don’t have planning permission. An enforcement notice was first issued by Dumfries and Galloway Council in March, giving them three months to comply. However...

www.dng24.co.uk

Extended range set up, no planning permission, applied to planning retrospectively, rejected.
Argued that it wasn't a major development, rejected, so fully planning permission and public consultation required.
Legal team also argued that the 28 day rule applied, rejected.
Full planning permission rejected.

Others, who are very pro GG and the range, will argue differently and blame Monks, Nimby's etc, but as an objective outsider with no dog in the fight, the developers screwed up and, I believe, sought crowd funding and donations to pay towards their legal bills.

Thanks for sharing, I wasn’t aware of the full details.

That was NOT handled well it would seem…

 

[User00040]

They built a 30 or 40ft high golden budda with a snake and then cut down all the trees so u have to see it as u go past.
Bloody whole valley is an eyesore now.

Having lived in Asia for several years and have family that are practising Buddhists, they are selling a commercial form of the religion that many people (Asians especially) 'buy into'.

The Buddha himself was supposedly an Indian prince who decided to forgo all his family's opulence and live like a monk.

However Samye Ling seems to have forgotten this...

Also, the Buddha preached tolerance and compromise.

Seems there is very little of this on their part, and their temple looks like a religious Disneyland (as most 'holy' sites are, no matter the faith!)

 

[Mike 01]

As a general comment, I think it would be appropriate to await guidance from BASC's Scottish branch. From a quick look at the consultation, the proposals on firing ranges are quite limited in their ambit. Specifically, the proposals relate to permitted development rights (PDR) under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992. PDR cover those forms of development that don't need planning permission (because planning permission is granted under the Order itself). It looks like the people behind the proposals are concerned that Class 15 PDRs currently allows the creation of temporary firing ranges, with the associated risk of disruption and other impacts, especially noise. Class 15 is: "The use of land (other than a building or land within the curtilage of a building) for any purpose, except as a caravan site or an open air market, on not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, and the erection or placing of moveable structures on the land for the purposes of that use."

There may well be an anti-gun angle here, given the political background / Eskdalemuir etc. However, I think any responses to the consultation should be carefully written (which is why I would await BASC's guidance). For example, the Consultation itself says "It should be noted that any amendment to class 15 PDR would have no effect on established shooting or gun clubs with an existing planning permission." Any responses should, in my view, take that into account - whilst obviously being supportive of the sport in those situations where PDR might be used to allow temporary target shooting facilities to be put in place.

 

[User00040]

As a general comment, I think it would be appropriate to await guidance from BASC's Scottish branch. From a quick look at the consultation, the proposals on firing ranges are quite limited in their ambit. Specifically, the proposals relate to permitted development rights (PDR) under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992. PDR cover those forms of development that don't need planning permission (because planning permission is granted under the Order itself). It looks like the people behind the proposals are concerned that Class 15 PDRs currently allows the creation of temporary firing ranges, with the associated risk of disruption and other impacts, especially noise. Class 15 is: "The use of land (other than a building or land within the curtilage of a building) for any purpose, except as a caravan site or an open air market, on not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, and the erection or placing of moveable structures on the land for the purposes of that use."

There may well be an anti-gun angle here, given the political background / Eskdalemuir etc. However, I think any responses to the consultation should be carefully written (which is why I would await BASC's guidance). For example, the Consultation itself says "It should be noted that any amendment to class 15 PDR would have no effect on established shooting or gun clubs with an existing planning permission." Any responses should, in my view, take that into account - whilst obviously being supportive of the sport in those situations where PDR might be used to allow temporary target shooting facilities to be put in place.

Why is BASC the go-to?

They have only acted to damage shooting in recent years.

 

[Liveonce]

Because it is the only training course (LANTRA may do one) in range safety. So in terms of due diligence (eg the pool attendant knows how to rescue people) it would be an obvious question to ask. "Have you any training in range safety?" "No, as anyone who shoots is automatically safety concious" is harder to defend than, "Yes, an RCO is present at all times during firing"

…….. that rifle ranges no longer have inspection by police or NRA

An RCO course is not intended to be a qualification for range design or inspection, it qualifies civilians to conduct live firing on military ranges.

We were shooting on private and military ranges long before the formal recognition of RCO or shooter certification cards existed. These simply replaced “experience” with “training“. Experience or training which trumps which?

Which would you sooner have a pool attendant with years of practical experience saving lives or one trained with no practical experience?

 

[Buchan]

Why would NRA range guidance be a good idea? and why would any court look for it? any legal action would be via the HSE why oh why do we keep wanting to put barriers up when not needed, the HO and police are quite happy for the responsibility to lie with the range operator, so no we do not need the NRA with safe shoot cards and reloading courses to interfere with ranges that have nothing to do with them, or clay grounds.

Because it is the only training course (LANTRA may do one) in range safety. So in terms of due diligence (eg the pool attendant knows how to rescue people) it would be an obvious question to ask. "Have you any training in range safety?" "No, as anyone who shoots is automatically safety concious" is harder to defend than, "Yes, an RCO is present at all times during firing"

…….. that rifle ranges no longer have inspection by police or NRA

An RCO course is not intended to be a qualification for range design or inspection, it qualifies civilians to conduct live firing on military ranges.

We were shooting on private and military ranges long before the formal recognition of RCO or shooter certification cards existed. These simply replaced “experience” with “training“. Experience or training which trumps which?

Which would you sooner have a pool attendant with years of practical experience saving lives or one trained with no practical experience?

If I'm a lawyer trying to nail wou, the piece of paper wins!

 

[Liveonce]

As a general comment, I think it would be appropriate to await guidance from BASC's Scottish branch. From a quick look at the consultation, the proposals on firing ranges are quite limited in their ambit. Specifically, the proposals relate to permitted development rights (PDR) under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992. PDR cover those forms of development that don't need planning permission (because planning permission is granted under the Order itself). It looks like the people behind the proposals are concerned that Class 15 PDRs currently allows the creation of temporary firing ranges, with the associated risk of disruption and other impacts, especially noise. Class 15 is: "The use of land (other than a building or land within the curtilage of a building) for any purpose, except as a caravan site or an open air market, on not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, and the erection or placing of moveable structures on the land for the purposes of that use."

There may well be an anti-gun angle here, given the political background / Eskdalemuir etc. However, I think any responses to the consultation should be carefully written (which is why I would await BASC's guidance). For example, the Consultation itself says "It should be noted that any amendment to class 15 PDR would have no effect on established shooting or gun clubs with an existing planning permission." Any responses should, in my view, take that into account - whilst obviously being supportive of the sport in those situations where PDR might be used to allow temporary target shooting facilities to be put in place.

lots of smaller gun clubs especially clay clubs will operate without planning consent, within the 28day exemption, either shooting every other week or half a day every week. Cannot speak for Scotland but certainly when the Police inspect the clay club i am a member of to issue the Section 11(6) exemption they ask for proof of planning or confirmation that the club complies with the 28 day rule.

 

[Mike 01]

Hi, in response to Caberslash, I mentioned BASC purely because an earlier post said:

I had an e-mail from Colin Shedden (BASC Scotland) on 1 June 2023 on this issue. Colin said - We are aware of this consultation and of the background. We are looking at the fine detail before we advise members, who wish to respond, how best to respond.

 

[Liveonce]

Because it is the only training course (LANTRA may do one) in range safety. So in terms of due diligence (eg the pool attendant knows how to rescue people) it would be an obvious question to ask. "Have you any training in range safety?" "No, as anyone who shoots is automatically safety concious" is harder to defend than, "Yes, an RCO is present at all times during firing"

If I'm a lawyer trying to nail wou, the piece of paper wins!

Only by your logic if an RCO piece of paper is a suitable qualification to design, construct and operate a private range which it is not when it’s specifically aimed in scope at running a military range by civilians.

Don‘t know of any such course for private ranges, in years gone by all ranges were inspected by the MOD but that all changed several years ago.

 

[Ettrick reiver]

OK guys, this is another consultation that requires our support - see below: This potentially affects anyone shooting at static targets on land that does not have planning permission in Scotland. If we could collectively respond that would be immensely useful.

online responses: Scottish Government Review of Permitted Development Rights - Phase 3 - Scottish Government - Citizen Space
Email responses: Planning.PDR3@gov.scot

Written responses:
Development Management Team (PDR Review)
Planning and Architecture Division
Scottish Government
Area 2F South
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

The following is from an email from my club:

The MSP for Scotland who covers Eskdalemuir area has proposed an amendment to the Permitted Development Rights contained within the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) act which would seek to make ALL SHOOTING AT FIXED TARGETS subject to planning permission, irrespective of how many days a year they are shooting (ie the end of the '28 day rule'). Ms Harper has specifically excluded Game shooting etc (please read proposed amendment below) and therefore this is a direct attack on target shooting only, which will have a significant effect on many ranges operating in Scotland, and not just rifle shooting (im thinking UKPSA???)
THIS NEEDS STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS BY AN OVERWHELMING RESPONSE TO SHOW THAT WE WILL NOT SIT DOWN AND LET THIS PASS!!
Responses can be made direct online, by email or in writing, see the links at the bottom of the page.

SHARE THIS FAR AND WIDE, ANYONE WHO HAS NRA OR SIMILAR CONTACTS OR BASC/ ETC PLEASE GET THEM INVOLVED TOO.

Scotland is the thin edge of the wedge, they will be coming for the rest of the UK if this gets through parliament.

Link to online article on Scottish Parliament website:
Permitted Development Rights review - phase 3: consultation

6.2 Temporary Use of Land: Shooting Ranges​

Current PDR for temporary use of land
6.2.1 Class 15 of the GPDO allows a temporary activity – or different use – to take place on land for up to 28 days, within a calendar year, without needing to apply for planning permission. The terms of class 15 are flexible: they apply to any activity, except use of land for a caravan site, and they do not apply to land within the curtilage of a building. Moveable structures associated with the temporary use can be placed on the land during the 28-day period but must be removed from the land at other times. The 28 days is a cumulative total in any calendar year.

Context for change: temporary use of land​

6.2.2 It has been brought to our attention that these provisions might be used to establish temporary firing ranges comprising the provision of fixed targets associated with the use of firearms. Concerns have been expressed about the potential disruption and amenity impacts that such uses can have, particularly in respect of noise. It should be noted that, whether or not a planning application is required, the use of firearms is subject to separate licensing and checks by Police Scotland to ensure public safety. For ranges this will include a requirement of a safety certificate issued by the National Rifle Association or a similar body, as well as having adequate insurance being in place.
6.2.3 In light of the potential amenity impacts associated with such uses or activities, we would welcome views on whether there is merit in excluding them from the scope of class 15 PDR. In considering such an amendment, our intention would not be to remove PDR for temporary activities that do not involve fixed targets, such as game shooting, clay pigeon shooting or paintball. In many instances, such activities carried out on a temporary basis may not constitute 'development' under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. In those cases, planning permission is not required – whether granted via PDR or following a planning application.
6.2.4 A further consideration is that certain types of shooting activities, which may involve target shooting, are exempt from authorisation under firearms legislation. Namely, activities which fall under:

• The following provisions of the Firearms Act 1968:
  • Section 11(4) (miniature rifle ranges);
  • Section 11(6) (approved shotgun events);
  • The activities of servants of the Crown, including cadet corps, operating in their official capacity under Section 54.
• The following provisions of the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015:
  • Section 17 (approved air weapon events);
  • Section 23 (recreational shooting facilities);
  • Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 (cadet corps);
  • Paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 (public servants carrying out official duties).

6.2.5 If class 15 is amended so that it does not apply to temporary target shooting ranges, the activities listed above would (where they involve development) require a planning application. However, they would continue to be exempt from authorisation under firearms legislation. Although planning and firearms legislation deal with separate matters, we would nevertheless be interested to hear respondents' thoughts on: a) whether it would be proportionate to withdraw PDR for those temporary shooting activities which are exempt from firearms authorisation; and b) whether there is sufficient planning justification for doing so (e.g., amenity impacts associated with noise).
6.2.6 It should be noted that any amendment to class 15 PDR would have no effect on established shooting or gun clubs with an existing planning permission. Nor would such a change affect organisations intending to use land for a particular purpose for more than 28 days a year, which would be beyond the scope of class 15 in any case. If an amendment is taken forward, those temporary uses no longer permitted under class 15 would need to be the subject of a planning application before they could be carried out (see paragraph 1.3.6).

Proposals: temporary use of land​

6.2.7 We would welcome views on potentially amending class 15 of the GPDO to exclude the use of land as a temporary shooting range comprising fixed targets associated with firearms.
Question 30: Do you have any comments on the potential exclusion of the use of land as a target shooting range from class 15 PDR? If such a change were taken forward, do you have views on the potential justification for exempting the activities discussed in paragraphs 6.2.4 and 6.2.5?
Please add any comment in support of your answer
online responses: Scottish Government Review of Permitted Development Rights - Phase 3 - Scottish Government - Citizen Space
Email responses: Planning.PDR3@gov.scot

Written responses:
Development Management Team (PDR Review)
Planning and Architecture Division
Scottish Government
Area 2F South
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh EH6 6QQ

Do we know who it was within the Eskdalemuir community who started this ? The range has home office approval and police have used it for training ? It seems all very underhand. I’ve only heard positive reviews from folks that actually used the range and I have a friend who lives in the area who has zero connection to the range and says they’ve never heard any shooting.
Totally agree this needs nipping in the bud asap.
Thanks for posting and giving us the heads up
Ettrick reiver