RECOMMENDATIONS Functions Traditional functions - Government should provide a restatement of the functions of Green Belts. This should include two of the three objectives identified in 1985 - provide land for recreation, but excluding reference to institutional uses; and maintain the landscape setting for towns/cities.
- The first objective, prevention of coalescence of settlements, should be qualified, to emphasise that this is only where appropriate to local circumstances and only after having regard to an assessment of the optimal urban form for growth in the region.
- We see no case for reinstating a reference to agricultural land requirements.
More recent functions - Protection of the 'best' greenspaces, in landscape and ecological terms, should be a priority that is reflected in the functions of Green Belts.
- The use of a Green Belt to encourage urban regeneration should be included as a potential function, in the context of local strategies, but with the suggestion that this is most appropriate in lower-demand regions.
- Green Belts should not be used as a strategic land reserve; strategic allocation of land for future development needs should be long term and adequate.
Urban Form - Moving towards a more sustainable form of urban development should be a prime concern of strategic land use planning. However, the Executive should not prescribe an encircling Green Belt as an'off the shelf' means of achieving this. Rather, the Executive should encourage authorities to use sound methodologies for sustainability appraisal, involving a rigorous analysis of options within the planning process.
- Green Belts or other protective designations emerging from this type of robust analysis led by the planning authorities should be supported by the Executive and by Reporters.
- The Executive should seek to raise awareness at all levels and amongst all stakeholders in th1e Scottish planning system of international experience of the use of development corridors and nodes and green wedges, and the benefits of greenspace networks as spatial planning concepts. Such concepts could be reflected at the national level in the National Planning Framework.
Regime - The basic concept of a protective designation for greenspace adjacent to towns/cities should remain a part of the planning system in Scotland. However, serious consideration should be given to the institution of two tiers of 'Green Belt', as a way of recognising much of the diversity of function identified in this study.
- The first tier would comprise green areas adjacent to towns and cities which are deemed of national or regional significance, which might be called 'Green Heritage Areas'. This 'national' tier should be seen as effectively permanent (or very long term), and only subject to change after transparent and rigorous review involving very full consultation.
- There are various options for implementing this, which might involve national guidance and/or a Statutory Instrument. Significant development proposals would be subject to formal notification and call-in arrangements.
- The second tier, which might be called 'Urban Fringe Greenspace', would be of local or regional significance and would be identified in development plans as 'no go areas' for significant development within the life of those plans. Boundaries should be reviewed, without a prior presumption that these will necessarily coincide with existing Green Belt boundaries.
- The responsibility for identifying and justifying second tier zones would rest with the relevant local planning authority(/ies), based primarily on their contribution to the spatial planning strategy and sustainable urban form of the urban area. Their planning status and control regime should be seen as being broadly equivalent to that of the current Green Belts in Scotland.
- There should be experiments in using independent mediators to assist the process of reaching agreement amongst a range of stakeholders about the areas to be designated as Green Belt or equivalent
- Whether in the context of a single or multi-tier Green Belt, "washing over" should be discontinued in favour of consistent use of insets.
- Similarly, development plans should identify or safeguard sites or zones for future development sufficient to accommodate anticipated requirements for new urban uses and infrastructure, with a margin for uncertainty. Green Belts (or whatever they are called) should not be used as a strategic land reserve.
- There may be scope for model policies on development control in Green Belt equivalent designated areas to be produced by the Executive in consultation with stakeholders. One aim is to increase certainty; therefore, there should be a strong general presumption against exceptions.
Land Management - Designation of Green Belt or equivalent areas should carry with it a duty to prepare a Greenspace Network Plan, covering and integrating all these protected areas, and their links to other open space corridors. The plans should focus on realising the aims underpinning the designation of these areas, and would encompass, inter alia, the core network of footpaths and access ways for the area, and a range of positive management measures to secure and enhance the quality of the network.
- There should be attempts to form voluntary bodies linking a number of stakeholders behind the preparation and implementation of a Greenspace Network Plan, in the context of policies covering planning, environment and social justice. Such bodies should have charitable status and be able to acquire and hold land and property.
- There should be presumption that all new major developments adjacent to Green Belt or equivalent areas would be expected to make a significant contribution towards the enhancement of the environment and access network and facilities of these areas. These contributions should be placed in an earmarked fund for spending on these purposes, and expended within a defined period (e.g. 3 years).
|