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

Selous

Well-Known Member
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
 
Hmm.
Anyone who does not do this pdq is sleeping their way to disaster for the entire shooting community. Don’t think that game shooting is safe - it is just as noisy if not more so when drives are used so I have no doubt it will be next!
Get it done!
🦊🦊
 
This affects anyone shooting static targets in Scotland without planning

Requires a coordinated and unified response across the board

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


Has this been placed on UKV Simon ?
 
Does this mean that anyone who has a FAC condition allowing them to zero on authorised land will need planning consent to do it?
 
Will respond but this looks utterly unenforceable and poorly written

Who is going to oversee the removal of targets on private land when not in use!?
Bonkers

This is one of the main reason I went with mobile targets and no structures for the 1000m range we run 5miles outside Edinburgh

That and the fact no one can turn up with a DOPe card from last week as the targets have moved!!
 
If anyone wants to copy my text I have included it below.

“I do not think there is any need for changes to the planning permission surrounding shooting clubs - currently clubs can operate a maximum of 28 days per calendar year without planning permission and this legislation was specifically brought about to address concerns around noise and potential impacts from the clubs lawful activities. The vast majority of these clubs also only shoot part of the day and tend to operate a 9.30-1pm or 10-2pm window, so perhaps 4 hours per day.

There should therefore be no need to further curtail or impede the lawful activities of these clubs given there is already legislation in place to address the concerns this consultation raises.

Shooting and the shooting community is already dealt a short shrift when it comes to regulation and treatment from our government - from attacks on game bird releases in Wales to the poorly thought out shooting related legislation hammered through as part of the OWB a year or two back. Any new legislation much be evidence led and proportionate to the issue being faced, as well as actually address the issues it needs to.

Shooting brings several billion pounds a year to the U.K. economy and employs thousands of people. These small clubs that would be hugely impacted by this legislation were it to be brought are the life blood of the shooting community, and a number of our world class shooting athletes started their careers at small “28 day” clubs. I am a member of one myself and I compete at a national level. Subjecting clubs to unnecessary and unneeded planning permission requirements would no doubt cause a good number of these clubs to simply close, with the related loss of peoples hobbies and livelihoods. The only “benefit” to this would be to those who live near the club AND are bothered by the noise (because surely not everyone who lives near the club would be bothered by the noise), and even then we are only talking of addressing 28 days per calendar year, less than 8% of the days in a year, and with the time they shoot being typically 4 hours per day that cuts the time down to under 3% of the full year.

Wrecking thousands of peoples hobbies and livelihoods to address the undefined “concerns” of an undefined group of people for an issue that effects precisely no one more than 97% of the time seems like a monstrous executive overreach I am sure you would agree. And as for the other sub-3% of the time I think we would all agree that live and let live is the best approach - you wouldn’t shut down football stadiums or race tracks due to the far greater and far more frequent noise caused by these events, not to mention the vast cost incurred to the public purse by additional emergency services presence. Shooting clubs make far less noise, far less frequently and require zero emergency services presence.”
 
That is unhelpful. We need to address relevant points. This is a Scottish issue. It is an extension of a bitter planning dispute in Eskdalemuir. They are seeking to extend it across Scotland for their own ends. Wales is not relevant, England is not relevant. Scot Gov only gives a **** about Scotland.

We need to address why this cuts across other Government priorities.

Thousands of peoples hobbies and livelihoods will not be wrecked by this. That level of disconnect is unhelpful. You have to give them some evidence that this goes against the governments interests.

Given the deer numbers up here and the drive to increase the number of stalkers to increase the cull, get more stalkers to a fit and competent standard through DSC2, it seems to me there is an argument that we need these facilities to increase the number of competent stalkers, ensure humane culling, and protect public safety. Removing the 28 day exception will reduce the number of ranges (there are already far too few) and threaten our ability to get the deer density down to NatureScot objectives outside the big estates.

These 28 day ranges are more important for rifle shooting as there are fewer commercial operations than for clay shooting.

It is also illogical. There are few users of target ranges in Scotland compared to the number of clay shooters. There are many more wee clay shoots and corporate days in a field behind a big house than there are range days. There are more clay shooters firing more shots and making much more noise yet target shooting is targeted while clay shooting is exempt. That is perverse and highlights that this is the extension of a bitter local planning dispute into national policy to the detriment of others.

You get the idea...
 
Yet again an MSP tries to discriminate against a particular secor of the 5.5m population of Scotland to get round a rule that does suit the views of him and one very small community.
If this gets approved it sets a very dangerous precedent
 
NullMac,You wish exclude & completely ignore England and Wales, WHY, If they succeed in Scotland what makes you conclude England and Wales are going to get a pass?, all the numpties who want to complain only need another village of monks.
 
That is unhelpful. We need to address relevant points. This is a Scottish issue. It is an extension of a bitter planning dispute in Eskdalemuir. They are seeking to extend it across Scotland for their own ends. Wales is not relevant, England is not relevant. Scot Gov only gives a **** about Scotland.

We need to address why this cuts across other Government priorities.

Thousands of peoples hobbies and livelihoods will not be wrecked by this. That level of disconnect is unhelpful. You have to give them some evidence that this goes against the governments interests.

Given the deer numbers up here and the drive to increase the number of stalkers to increase the cull, get more stalkers to a fit and competent standard through DSC2, it seems to me there is an argument that we need these facilities to increase the number of competent stalkers, ensure humane culling, and protect public safety. Removing the 28 day exception will reduce the number of ranges (there are already far too few) and threaten our ability to get the deer density down to NatureScot objectives outside the big estates.

These 28 day ranges are more important for rifle shooting as there are fewer commercial operations than for clay shooting.

It is also illogical. There are few users of target ranges in Scotland compared to the number of clay shooters. There are many more wee clay shoots and corporate days in a field behind a big house than there are range days. There are more clay shooters firing more shots and making much more noise yet target shooting is targeted while clay shooting is exempt. That is perverse and highlights that this is the extension of a bitter local planning dispute into national policy to the detriment of others.

You get the idea...

Fine apologies I will email them now and withdraw my submission… 🙄

How about you reply and make those points that I missed instead?
 
I had a quick look. Can Scottish colleagues say if the same applies in Scotland, that rifle ranges no longer have inspection by police or NRA, and that it is all down to the land owner and their insurance (or that of individuals). NRA range guidance would be a sensible move as it is what any court would look to for guidance
 
I had a quick look. Can Scottish colleagues say if the same applies in Scotland, that rifle ranges no longer have inspection by police or NRA, and that it is all down to the land owner and their insurance (or that of individuals). NRA range guidance would be a sensible move as it is what any court would look to for guidance

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.
 
NullMac,You wish exclude & completely ignore England and Wales, WHY, If they succeed in Scotland what makes you conclude England and Wales are going to get a pass?, all the numpties who want to complain only need another village of monks.
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.
 
Back
Top