The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Options For Change

Conclusion

This report brings together a reasonably comprehensive list of proposals which have been made for change to the planning system. These are all proposals which would, or could, require legislation, whether primary or secondary. However, this report has been prepared as an aid to identifying the content of a possible Planning Bill and it is unlikely that space could be found for all of the proposals that have been identified; indeed, some of the proposals are inconsistent with each other. Choices will have to be made; indeed, my brief asks me to identify 'key components' for consideration in the Bill.

By no means all of the options identified in the report can be regarded as priorities. Many of them are worthy but minor proposals for making the system work that little bit better; and some of them would require secondary rather than primary legislation and could be left over until such time as the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament

Identifying the 'key components' requires a value judgement to be made about what is important. Different people are likely to identify different proposals as 'key'. Their 'wish list' will reflect their view of the themes which they consider should drive change, whether it is unlocking the spirit of enterprise, improving quality, promoting more effective community involvement in planning or reducing complexity. I have taken the themes in the White Paper, Your place, your plan (2003), as the most recent statement of Executive thinking on the themes that should drive change and have listed those options which, in my view, will contribute most towards delivering these themes. In drawing together this list, I have been influenced also by the views of the stakeholders (listed in the Introduction) with whom discussions were held.

The White Paper sets out a number of themes which can be grouped under the headings of process and product:

1. Process:

• the Scottish Executive is seeking to widen public involvement in planning.
• the Executive aims to create a system which is more accountable.
• the Executive is endeavouring to streamline and speed up the planning system.
• the Executive is attempting to make the system more straightforward.
• the Executive is looking for ways to make the system less intimidating.
• the Executive wishes to promote a system which operates efficiently and effectively.

2. Product:

• a primary objective of the planning system is the protection and enhancement of the quality of the environment.
• the planning system should support economic prosperity.
• the planning system has a major role to play in health, education, crime, transport and jobs.

Two comments may be made about these themes. First of all, there is potential for conflict between some of them. For example, the goal of greater public involvement could well be at the expense of the goal of streamlining and speeding up the system. The aim is to strike an appropriate balance between the two. That is true also of the goals of safeguarding the environment and promoting economic prosperity. Secondly, as a generalisation, product goals have a better chance of attainment if the process is sound; get the process right and this should help to secure good product. This suggests that the emphasis in identifying priorities should be on getting the process right and, in choosing 'key components' from the menu of proposals, I have focused mainly on the process themes. Product themes are better promoted through SPPs.

Taking the process themes in turn, I have picked out those proposals which I think will contribute in a major, rather than a minor, way towards their delivery. Some proposals appear under more than one heading. I have also added a note of those proposals which seem likely to conflict with the theme. The goal of making the system less intimidating is not dealt with as that is to be the subject of a forthcoming consultation paper on modernising public local inquiries.

1. Widening public involvement in planning:

It seems likely that the promotion of Simplified planning zones (7.1), Local development orders (7.2) or Simplified consent procedures (11.0) would be at the expense of widening public involvement in planning.

2. More accountability:

3. Streamlining the system:

It seems likely that a number of the proposals, if implemented, would actually delay the process: Direct notification of policy changes in development plans (3.4); Neighbour notification (14.2) - but this would be implemented through secondary legislation; Public participation in agreements (16.6); and Third party appeals (17.0);

4. Making the system more straightforward:

It seems likely that extending the geographical extent of planning control would be at the expense of making the system more straightforward but it would promote environmental protection.

5. Creating a system which is efficient and effective:

One proposal, which might be regarded as a 'key component', does not fit neatly into any of these themes. This is 'The purpose of planning' (1.0). It has been omitted because I do not see it as contributing in a major way to any of the process themes. Unless it defines the relationship between the three components of sustainable development as proposed by the RCEP or by the developers, stating the purpose of planning would probably have no noticeable impact on the system. If it defines this relationship, then it would contribute in a significant way to the product themes of safeguarding the environment or supporting the economy, as appropriate.

Quite a number of the proposals for change have not got into the list of 'key components'. That may simply be because they are unlikely to make a major contribution to one or more of the themes. They may, nonetheless, be helpful in making a small change for the better.

« Previous | Contents | Next »