The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

MODEL POLICIES IN LAND USE PLANNING IN SCOTLAND: A SCOPING STUDY

CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND TO MODEL POLICIES

INTRODUCTION

2.1 This chapter outlines the background to the current interest in model planning policies. It sketches out the perceived benefits such policies may offer, as well as the practical concerns of users and providers. The Review of Strategic Planning Consultation Paper (Scottish Executive, 2001) set out the proposal as follows.

Background to the proposal for model planning policies

Source: Scottish Executive (2001: 9)

The Scottish Executive's intention is clearly to harmonise policy through the identification and sharing of best practice. Model policies are identified as having potential across a range of topics. They may originate from international and national designations, National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) and Scottish Planning Policy statements (SPPs), or arise from local practice.

2.2 The specific questions asked in the Consultation Paper which are of relevance to this scoping study were:

• Should model development plan policies be drawn up?
• If so, what subjects should model development plan policies cover?

The answers to these questions are briefly considered below.

Should model development plan policies be drawn up?

2.3 An analysis of the responses to the Consultation Paper was undertaken (Geoff Peart Consulting, 2002a). The individual responses themselves are documented in a Digest (Geoff Peart Consulting, 2002b). The analysis and Digest are important sources of evidence for this scoping study.

2.4 The responses were organised around five broad stakeholder groups: local planning authorities, public bodies, businesses, professional and academic bodies, and the public and voluntary sector. Whilst support for model planning policies extended across all the groups, the analysis reported that support was strongest amongst businesses (88%) and the public/voluntary sector (78%). It was relatively weakest amongst professional and academic respondents, although this group gave clear support to the proposal (65%). The statistics are reproduced below (Table 1).

Table 1: Should model development plan policies be drawn up?

Stakeholder Breakdown of Responses

Source: Geoff Peart Consulting (2002a: 21)

2.5 The evidence suggested 'widespread agreement that model policies could potentially confer a range of benefits' which include 'greater policy consistency across the country, reduced duplication between national and strategic policies set out in plans, time savings in plan preparation and approval as well as in public inquiries, where there is often much debate about the detailed wording of policies' (Geoff Peart Consulting, 2000a: 22). This wide-spread support for the idea of model policies provides the context to this scoping study.

What subjects should model development plan policies cover?

2.6 The Consultation Paper suggested a modest list of potential model planning policies which comprised international and national designations, listed buildings and development in green belts. The analysis of responses, however, recorded a wider range of topics which might be served by the introduction of model policies (Geoff Peart Consulting, 2002a). It was noted that only 30% of respondents answered this question. Most considered that there was potentially a wide range of topics, but not all gave a detailed reply.

2.7 There was general support for the basic principles that such policies should be developed where required by national or international legislation or directives, and where national consistency was clearly important. Of the thirty topics identified, the most frequently mentioned are set out in Table 2. Other policy issues mentioned included: planning gain, sequential tests, open space standards, hazard consultation zones, bio-diversity, retailing and windfall developments (Geoff Peart Consulting, 2002a).

Table 2: Most Cited Potential Topics for Model Planning Policies

Source: Drawn from Geoff Peart Consulting (2002a)

THE PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF MODEL POLICIES

2.8 The interest in model development plan policies was preceded by work undertaken by the Scottish Executive into the use of model conditions in development control (Scottish Executive, Circular 4/1998). It was also based on the Executive's casework role in commenting on all local plans and approving structure plans where the broad range of policy was evident, with what is perceived as unnecessary variety. This has led to an interest in targeting 'policies that work', in other words, the efficiency of the planning system. This resulted in consideration as to whether development plan policies could be standardised to achieve such efficiency gains. A number of perceived benefits were mooted with respect to sharing practice of what works and stimulating policy harmonisation.

2.9 First, it was held in the Consultation Paper that model policies would promote greater consistency. Indeed, the comments made by respondents in the Digest showed that the principal anticipated gain arising from the introduction of model policies would be in terms of improved policy consistency (23%). However, policy consistency in policy application and implementation may be considered to be important in different ways.

2.10 For the development industry consistency in policy is clearly important. Indeed, this dimension was shown to have the greatest support by this sector, together with professional organisations, and non-departmental bodies. The logic here is that common policy statements across Scotland would simplify the compliance of users with development planning policy objectives. Further, for the Scottish Executive and government agencies charged with delivering specific policy goals and responsibilities, a consistent approach to meeting international, national and strategic objectives is also desirable. Moreover, model policies would allow the latter to better discharge their responsibility as a statutory consultee to development plans and planning applications in a more internally consistent way.

2.11 Second, the perceived efficiency gains which would be associated with the introduction of model policies are identified as a potential benefit. There was a generally held view in the Digest that the drawing up of 'common policies' could be achieved. These models would take the form of standard formats in order to achieve efficiency gains in the administration of planning. Sharing best practice was seen as offering the potential of overcoming the perceived tendency of local planning authorities to 'reinvent the wheel' in drafting commonplace policies. Further, it was considered that efficiency gains might also arise from avoiding duplication, minimising legal argument and debate at public inquiry through the use of 'tested' policies, and reducing repetition and the overall length of development plans. Together, this would secure greater consistency, certainty, and clarity for the development control process, and achieve time-savings in administration and decision making for all users of the land use planning system.

2.12 Third, it was suggested that development planning would benefit from the sharing of best practice in the development of model policies. Amongst local planning authority respondents, 32% considered that the greatest benefit would stem from the reduced time spent at public inquiry and consultation procedures, and in reducing the amount of debate at the local level.

2.13 Consistency, efficiency and the sharing of best practice emerge as three desirable characteristics of a process of development plan policy making that works.

PRACTICAL CONCERNS OF SERVICE PROVIDERS AND SERVICE USERS

2.14 Yet, the enthusiasm for model planning policies was tempered, however, with a number of practical concerns. Indeed, it is important to be aware of the 'heavily qualified acceptance' for model policies (Geoff Peart, 2002a) in order to inform our understanding of how these practical concerns might be overcome.

2.15 First, the goal of consistency was not supported by all the respondents to the Consultation Paper. For example, the 'one-size-fits-all' approach to planning was challenged:

I am not convinced that consistency throughout Scotland is, in itself, desirable, as regional and local variety is one of the country's strengths. It is important, too, that local commitment to a policy is maximised to secure effective implementation. Furthermore, improvement comes only through innovation. However, there is a body of environmental policy where the scope for variation is very limited, and this could benefit from the model policy approach. Otherwise, models could be suggested in Planning Advice Notes, with no obligation that they should be simply copied without thought.

2.16 Second, in terms of efficiency, there was a range of concerns associated with workload and resource implications. It was anticipated that different types of effort would be required in, for example, developing and undertaking appropriate public consultation exercises, justifying following or departing from a model policy, and monitoring or evaluating the effectiveness of the model. Indeed, there was a perception that a greater emphasis would be placed on justifying departures from model planning policies (18%), monitoring the effectiveness of those policies and meeting policy targets.

2.17 Third, in terms of certainty, the Faculty of Advocates, for example, drew attention to the risk that even a standardised, "model" policy could mean different things in different plans depending upon the context of its use and in the particular plan in question.

2.18 Fourth, a number of practical concerns about the added value of a model policy were made. Respondents cautioned that 'there would be virtually no subject area where local circumstances would not require some amendment of the national approach'. It was feared that reducing a sense of ownership in policy formulation might result in a lack of commitment to the policies themselves. For some, the very existence of model policies was held possibly to lead to a 'ritualistic application' of such policies and to discourage local planning authorities from considering as fully as they might otherwise do the particular needs of their plan.

2.19 Fifth, there was a concern around the possible breach of subsidiarity in decision making arising from model policies. This argument hinges on the perceived need to retain autonomy and discretion in local planning practice. There were related concerns about the potential loss of responsiveness to local conditions. A paramount concern for all stakeholder groups was the retention of flexibility in order to meet local needs (25%).

2.20 Finally, the transferability of the model policy concept is questioned. The Scottish Borders Council, for example, raises a note of caution against a uniform approach to this initiative:

Model policies lend themselves to particular strategic issues relevant throughout Scotland (Natura 2000 sites, archaeology, flooding and minerals are four obvious examples) but may not be appropriate for all topics.
(Geoff Peart Consulting, 2002b: 41).

2.21 The counter arguments stress the need for sensitivity and flexibility both in the interpretation and application of model policies. They emphasise the importance of policy ownership and subsidiarity. They highlight the risks that the existence of model texts might bring in terms of their potential ritualistic use by policy makers and the blocking of innovative thinking. A critical point is the need to be certain about the appropriateness of a planning policy, whether this is in a model form or not. Chapters 4 and 5 consider these distinctions between product and process.

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER VIEWS

2.22 Table 3 below presents a summary of stakeholder views taken from the Digest. Here, the evidence is organised around a finer classification of stakeholder views. This demonstrates the distribution of perceived benefits and practical concerns across the land use planning community and shows that there are very different views about the scope for model policies.

2.23 The idea of model policies appears to offer the potential to realise a number of efficiency gains in land use planning and the attainment of a more consistent policy framework for users. There are, however, a number of practical concerns which need to be addressed in taking forward model policies. This includes providing a clear definition and attaining consensus of what is meant and understood by a model policy.

Table 3: Summary of Stakeholder Views from the Digest

Source derived from (Geoff Peart Consulting, 2002b).

2.24 This scoping study addresses the issues raised in this chapter in more detail. The intention is to identify where model policies have the potential to operate and where that potential can be shared to promote better planning practice. The next chapter sets out the approach taken in this study.

« Previous | Contents | Next »