The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

ANNEX ONE FOCUS GROUP BRIEFING PAPER

Model Planning Policies: Background Papers

The objective of the Focus Group will be to focus on the practical concerns and issues of taking forward model planning policies. We would therefore like to draw your attention to the following information which reflects the Scottish Executive's current thinking on model planning policies.

The Review of Strategic Planning Consultation Paper was published in June 2001 by the Scottish Executive following a commitment given by the Planning Minister in November 2000, to review the arrangements for strategic planning - the then Minister having confirmed that "the status quo was not an option". The Review of Strategic Planning was one of a series of consultation exercises which has been concerned with the purpose and operation of the planning system and the consultation paper followed a number of bi-lateral discussions with key stakeholders. One of the proposals for change to emerge from those discussions related to model planning policies.

Specifically, the Review consultation paper sought views on key issues. This included model planning policies and two related questions were posed:

(1) Should model development plan policies be drawn up?
(2) If so, what subjects should model development plan policies cover?

The Digest of Responses to the consultation exercise is available on the Scottish Executive's website. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/planning/rspd.pdf

For ease of reference, the analysis of the responses undertaken by Geoff Peart Consulting follows in full below.

REVIEW OF STRATEGIC PLANNING CONSULTATION PAPER: ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES [Extract]

Question 3: Should model development plan policies be drawn up?

The consultation document suggests that the Scottish Executive and local authorities should together draft model policies which might be generally applicable across Scotland. This would still leave councils free to develop or vary policies to reflect their particular circumstances.

3.34 Table 3.3 shows the breakdown of responses to this question for each of the main stakeholder groupings. Again a significant majority of respondents (75%) supported the proposal with only 11% expressing clear opposition. The 14% of all respondents classified as giving a "mixed" response to the question generally wished to qualify support in principle with concerns about problems with implementation, including lack of local commitment. Support extended across all stakeholder groups but was strongest amongst businesses (88%) and the public/voluntary sector (78%). It was weakest amongst professional/academic respondents, but even here 65% gave clear agreement to the proposal.

Table 3.3 Stakeholder Breakdown of Responses to Question 3.

Note: The overall response rate for this question was 71%

3.35 There was widespread agreement that model policies could potentially confer a range of benefits. These could include greater policy consistency across the country, reduced duplication between national and strategic policies 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. In this context, the view was advanced that model policies incorporated in plans should be immune from objection at public inquiries. A few respondents also thought that the use of model policies would represent efficient use of scarce staff resources in not having to, "re-invent the wheel".

3.36 This general support was qualified in equal measure by the desire for some flexibility, so that there would remain the scope to vary model policies to suit local circumstances, subject to sound justification. Typical comments included the following from a development industry respondent,

"Model development plan policies would be a useful tool in the preparation of new plans, providing that all users accept that they have to be viewed flexibly and amended to fit local circumstances. The use of model policies could be beneficial to all parties making representations on development plans, as they should reduce the need to comment on policies, which are commonly dealt with differently from authority to authority."

3.37 Exceptionally, there was a view that adoption of model policies should be optional, while an alternative strand of opinion favoured much stricter application, with the scope for local variation very limited. There was also the suggestion that the local application of model policies could form part of a national planning policy compliance procedure.

3.38 Opposition to the proposal or heavily qualified acceptance tended to be based on concerns about the potential loss of responsiveness to local conditions, that there may be a lack of commitment to and, consequently, ritualistic application of the policies. There were arguments in principle about the loss of local authority autonomy and breach of subsidiarity. More pragmatic objections were that the same policy might mean different things in different areas and that there would be virtually no subject area where local circumstances would not require some amendment of the national approach. Some respondents felt that there was no need for model policies as NPPG/NPPSs effectively did the same job, while others thought that NPPSs (and in one instance PANs) should incorporate model policies. There was a view that model policies could usefully be accompanied by a good practice guide, while one respondent thought that such a guide would in fact be a better option than the model policies themselves.

3.39 Consideration was given to the process of model policy formulation by a few respondents. While there was support for the involvement of the Executive and local authorities there were views that other stakeholders should also be involved in the process. Questions were also posed regarding the arrangements for consultation on draft policies and with whom the responsibility for monitoring their implementation would lie -- the Executive or local authorities.

Question 3(a): What subjects should model development plan policies cover?

The consultation document was not explicit on this matter but examples cited of potential model policy subjects included; the protection of listed buildings, development in green belts and in areas where there is a national or international designation. It was also suggested that some policies could derive from NPPGs.

3.40 Only 30% of respondents answered this part of Question 3 and not all of these gave a detailed reply. Most of those who did respond considered that there was potentially a wide range of topics which could be covered by model policies. 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. One respondent considered that the Executive should specifically undertake research in this area to determine which subject areas would be appropriate for the application of model policies. In a similar vein, a voluntary organisation asked,

"Will the Scottish Executive be establishing Task Groups to look at model policies for particular topic areas, perhaps in tandem with the review of NPPGs?"

3.41 Around thirty specific areas were mentioned as potential subjects for model policies. The most frequently mentioned topics, including those given as examples in the consultation document were:

A number of other issues were mentioned less frequently and these included: planning gain, sequential tests, open space standards, hazard consultation zones, bio-diversity, retailing and windfall developments.

As a result of the findings, the Review of Strategic Planning - Conclusions and Next Steps noted:

Proposal: that the Scottish Executive and local authorities should together draft model policies which might be generally applicable across Scotland. This would still leave councils free to develop or vary policies to reflect their particular circumstances.

Conclusion: We intend to adopt this proposal. The intention, however, is to commission consultants to take this work forward but probably not until 2003-04. A range of interests will help steer this work.

****

The Focus Group to which you have been invited is part of the process of taking the idea of model planning policies forward.

Drawing upon the list set out in Para 3.41, we would be grateful if you would bring with you examples of development plan policies which you consider are model.

We look forward to the discussion on the day.

Thank you for participating in the research process.

« Previous | Contents | Next »