The Scottish Government

Listen

Making Development Plans Deliver:
Analysis of Consultation Responses

December 2004

This document is also available in pdf format (348k)

Summary

1. The consultation paper was issued on 1 April 2004 alongside the consultation on Rights of Appeal in Planning. The consultation period ran for 4 months ending on 31 July. Because there are fewer council committees over the summer, we agreed to the late submission of some local authority responses. These and other late responses account for around a quarter of those received, with the last response (from a consultant) dated 22 September.

Responses

2. The Executive issued 675 copies of the consultation paper and electronically alerted 730 internal and external stakeholders of the publication of the paper (some consultees may be on both the hard copy and the electronic alert system). In total 141 responses were received. Using categories common to the Rights of Appeal consultation, we can classify these as:

3. Respondents who agree to their details being made public are listed at the end of this report. Where respondents agree to their responses being made
public, these may be seen on the Scottish Executive website ( www.scotland.gov.uk/planning) and at the Scottish Executive Library. Throughout this report, numbers in brackets indicate the reference numbers of responses.

Overview

4. Most of the respondents support the general tenor of the consultation paper explicitly or implicitly. A few responses take a different approach and choose not to address the questions posed in the consultation. Most of the respondents provide detailed comments on matters of concern or particular interest. There are a few outright objections to some proposals and rather more widespread caveats and concerns that particular detailed aspects are insufficiently explained.

5. The need for up-to-date plans to guide Scotland's vital new development, conserve resources and make wise use of infrastructure investment is emphasised again and again. A wide cross section of respondents demand nothing less, if the planning system is to be fit for purpose. An equally wide cross-section calls for the planning service to be adequately resourced.

6. Despite broad support for the main proposals, there are a number of issues which raise concerns in the local authorities or more widely:

• While most agree it is best to begin consultation earlier, the option to consult on draft policies and proposals is still seen by a few as valuable and necessary and they ask that this remain an option.
• Some authorities are concerned at what they see as new plan-making burdens if neighbour notification and action planning are required.
• There are also concerns about the new European requirement for strategic environmental assessment, which is likely to impact on the sequence of procedures for preparing plans and consulting the public.
• Some proposed city region authorities have concerns about what they see as an over-prescriptive approach by the Executive to their structures and staffing arrangements.
• Highland and North Ayrshire Councils remain sensitive to the loss of structure plans (or equivalent strategic plans approved by Ministers) in their areas.
• Around a quarter of those responding on the key subjects for city region plans believe they should be extended. Retailing is the most common suggestion, but waste, energy, major leisure and education facilities were also mentioned, often in terms of their likely impact on strategic transport planning.
• A significant minority sees the timetable for approving city-region plans as too optimistic.

7. Here is a short overview of the responses by question:

Q1: What are the most important factors in the successful management of development planning? Sufficient resourcing, political will, and proper involvement are the three factors appearing most frequently. Others are: vision; clear objectives; realistic timescales & targets; a proper understanding of the place; time to consult and negotiate; understanding options for change; and taking plans seriously by keeping them up-to-date and making decisions that are in line with them.

Q2: Should development plan schemes indicate timetables for plan preparation to provide some certainty for stakeholders? This idea is widely supported and some alternatives to the word "schemes" are suggested.

Q3: What are the most effective ways to ensure quick preparation and review of development plans? The various incentives suggested to ensure regular review of development plans provoke a range of comment, with support from authorities for a statutory duty to update and even some for the loss of fee income.

Q4: Do you agree that early targeted consultation on the key issues should replace consultation on draft policies and proposals? While it is widely thought helpful to begin consultation earlier, the option to consult on draft policies and proposals is still seen by a almost a quarter of respondents as valuable and necessary and they ask that this stage remain an option. Some respondents consider the new requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment to be a crucial factor here.

Q5: Should Health and Safety Executive, Local Enterprise Companies, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Water, and any other bodies have a duty to engage in development planning placed upon them? This duty was widely supported.

Q6: Do you have any suggestions for improving the involvement of businesses in the development planning process? There's a wide range of suggestions to analyse here, including local economic forums, business representation on development plan forums, more harmonisation in plans across Scotland and targeted efforts by planning teams to get alongside business and understand its needs locally.

Q7: Do you agree that the certified copy of the plan should remain a paper version? This is almost universally supported.

Q8: Do you agree that a Development Planning Forum should be formed to support better plan-making? There are different interpretations of this proposal, some see it as the kind of local consultation body outlined in Getting Involved in Planning and Your Place, Your Plan, others seeing it as a national group. Both are broadly supported provided their purpose is clear, though there are some warnings about resourcing.

Q9: Do you agree that action planning is a continuous process with formal publication an action plan every two years? There is general agreement among over 90% of those who respond to this question, though a few warn that the process might be too demanding in itself.

Q10: Outside the city regions, do you support the provision for an area-wide local development plan to set the overall context in areas where there continues to be a mosaic of local development plans? This is broadly supported, but there are some requests for continued discretion.

Q11: Do you agree that, where it can be demonstrated that there has been community and other stakeholder consultation, supplementary guidance should have a statutory backing? This question has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Like many of the questions it tends to receive an affirmative answer in shorter responses, while others take time to raise a series of detailed concerns.

Q12: Do you support greater consistency in the style of plans, particularly proposals maps? With the usual caveats, more consistency is very widely supported, and some respondents are specific in seeking greater use of model policies.

Q13: Under what circumstances should local authorities be allowed to depart from the Reporter's recommendations on the local development plan examination? Many reaffirm support for limiting authorities' scope, and there are suggestions for criteria. A full list from one council includes: where the Reporter's recommendation clearly fails to accord with the National Planning Framework or Policy, the city region plan, or the community plan; where it impacts on parties formerly unaffected or supportive who had thus not been represented at the earlier stage; where it is based on the reporter's views rather than evidence, or is impractical in delivery terms or is based on flawed reasoning.

Q14: Do you agree with the proposed content for city region plans? Around a quarter of those responding on the key subjects for city region plans believe they should be extended. Retailing is the most common suggestion, but waste, energy, major leisure and education facilities were also mentioned, often in terms of their likely impact on strategic transport planning. Built and other environmental resources are highlighted. Particular interest groups tend to cite their own subject.

Q15a: Should there be equal representation of local authorities on the joint committees? Q15b: How should costs be divided among local authorities on the joint committees? Many responses seek fairness and equity without going any further, some cite population, some equal shares, as the best way to allocate costs. Some proposed city region authorities have concerns about what they see as an over-prescriptive approach by the Executive to the structures and staffing arrangements. Highland and North Ayrshire Councils remain sensitive to the loss of structure plans (or equivalent strategic plans approved by Ministers) in their areas.

Q16: Do you consider that the proposed approval process will be quick and transparent? A significant minority sees the timetable for approving city-region plans as too optimistic, though its transparency is much more widely accepted. There are widespread calls for inclusion of Reporters' targets in the timetabling given.

Q17: Are the proposed transitional arrangements appropriate? Many think that they are, though some think there are still too many detailed issues unresolved.

8. The paper's discussion of Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA) - not dealt with in a question - led respondents to seek more details and to warn about procedural, resource, and delay implications. Proposals for neighbour notification and site selection - again not dealt with in a question - have prompted many warnings that the former will have to be strictly limited if it is to be practicable.

9. At both the local and the city region plan levels, several responses stress the need to consider the pattern of proposals as a whole, rather than as a series of specified themes. The responses include many helpful perceptions and suggestions, and we have tried to capture the essence of these in the fuller analysis set out in the rest of this report.

Responses in detail

Question 1: What are the most important factors in the successful management of development planning?

10. This question sets the tone of many of the responses, and even those who fail to answer questions directly throw some light on the issues they think are important. Resourcing, political will, and proper involvement are the three factors most frequently mentioned. Local authorities tend to focus on organisational aspects like staff, realistic timetabling, and project management, whereas users of all kinds tend to emphasise open, attitudes to consultation, a willingness to learn from stakeholders and communities, and to respond in practical ways to the real issues of the area. There is no hard and fast polarity: respondents across the several different categories mentioned the range of factors in roughly the order listed below:

1 Resources
2 Political will & belief in planning from Members and senior managers
3 Proper involvement, not token consultation, accepting creative inputs
4 Quality dedicated team: including training and maintaining it
5 Clear vision
6 Realistic timetables
7 Clear objectives and the means to achieve them locally
8 Time to consult and negotiate
9 Taking plans seriously by making planning decisions consistent with policy
10 Project management
11 Motivated staff for all stages in the process
12 Promoting wider understanding of the system
13 Capturing buy-in by motivating stakeholders
14 Securing agency commitment
15 Flexibility to keep on track
16 Understanding development economics
17 Insisting on up-to-date-plans
18 Inter-departmental co-ordination.

11. These head up the many positive suggestions. Some of them clearly arise from past frustrations, like the negative experience of one Community Council (14): "We are constantly astonished at the way in which planning is not a joined up process. Last year our local primary school was in danger of being closed but since then with the building of so many new houses it's close to being overcrowded. … Council publicly deplores the increases in traffic it is having to contend with but then creates new commuters by allowing … large scale expansion of up to 30% with no commensurate increase in local employment or indeed public transport facilities. We have long since concluded that Development Plans and Local Plans are not worth a jot. That they are easily and often modified with little or no local consultation and that the concept that they are in some way holistic is just wishful thinking."

12. A few respondents have particular distinctive ideas to put forward. A S Kerr (2) suggests the different levels of plan should be synchronised in 4-year cycles linked to the period between local government elections. NHS Grampian (21) proposes a "development plan champion", appointed by each local authority. Contracting out or joint working to get efficiencies of scale in development planning is seen as an option by both Fife Council (22) and RTPI Scotland (130).

13. Other responses are echoed more widely. The development plan is "absolutely key", argues the Scottish Coal Company (78). "A plan led system has to be properly resourced and managed" the Scottish Rural Property & Business Association (85) points out, adding that more strategic responsibility needs to be given.

14. Macktaggart & Mickel (71) are among those calling for the range of local issues to be recognised, and another response seeks a credible approach to infrastructure projects. Walker Group (75) notes that the Barker Report recommends the establishment of a Community Infrastructure Fund to fund the up-front costs of infrastructure for new development: "If this is to happen in England, it should also happen in Scotland to provide a level playing field."

15. Glasgow City Council (6) seeks to avoid new burdens and ill-considered changes. Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee (6) wants area coherence, integrating locally sensitive information and analysis, and a simplification of the plethora of "strategies" from different agencies. Highland Council (17) is also concerned about the relationship with other strategies, and wants development plans to seek focus on key issues, rather than try to be comprehensive. East Lothian (72) makes the point that recognising the plan can't do everything will be a mark of success. Unison (56) notes "there is a plan fatigue around and a lack of understanding amongst the general public about how everything links together".

16. Helensburgh Greenbelt Group (49) calls for structured public involvement throughout the development planning process with an agreed charter statement as a starting point, and the Confederation of UK Coal Producers (53) asks for maximum practicable public consultation. Plans should be stable with a five year minimum shelf life, and drafts should build on the current plan, be circulated widely, and set in terms suitable for use in schools, notes Helensburgh Community Council (69). Empowerment at all stages of preparation, adoption and implementation is a suggestion from Scottish Renewables (74), inclusiveness at these stages is also a theme of the Disability Rights Commission (82).

17. Many of the respondents believe the Scottish Executive has a key responsibility for factors that could make development planning work better. Here, the interest groups have some common and some distinctive priorities. Councils ask the Executive to speed up Inquiry reports (22), ensure local democratic power and accountability (26), secure adequate resources of finance and staffing (26,43), ensure the supply of quality planners from tertiary education (26), cut out some of the many competing calls on resources (29), think through the links to community planning (30), and set clear legislative deadlines and sanctions (39). Business asks the Executive to support an increase in resources for planning (33,70,81), recognise the value of planning and give it its place in education and health (59,99), be prepared to monitor local authorities and take appropriate action (101), make firm Directions instead of advice or guidance (40), apply sanctions (68), be more accountable itself (85), and speed up its own processes and deliberations (81). A firm of Planning and related professionals asks the Executive to resource the service (41). A Community Council asks it to approve development plan drafts against national guidance (69). And Unison (56) wants the Executive to promote a change in attitudes to planning along similar lines to that currently given to social work.

18. RuralScotland (123) asks that "whatever the system of development planning promoted, there must be exceptional powers of direction held and, if necessary, acted upon by Scottish Ministers to ensure that high quality development plans are produced promptly on a regular basis and to a format and framework in which we can take some pride. … However, to see these important documents as merely development frameworks is to do them a disservice. They must contain comprehensive and comprehensible survey information; logical analysis; sound, high quality and deliverable proposals and programmes; and the opportunity for objective monitoring and review of plans already prepared. Without such stages in which the wider community can engage, the process will be rightly seen as aloof, incomplete and frequently irrelevant until, as so often, a development control issue emerges to further highlight the plan's inadequacies."

19. East Renfrewshire (122) describes its own experience of the benefits of early approval of a Local Plan Charter, of having a special Officer/Member working group from the start, and of setting up a Development Plans Community Forum.

20. The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (106) argues that proposals should be linked more firmly to financial commitment as is done in France and Holland. "Development Plans should identify the means of paying for the proposals. What the planners identify as needed is followed up by action taken by other specialised departments. (Roads, education, sports, environment, health, etc.). Land tenure and land and property speculation is a significant factor in Development Plans and as such ought to be made more transparent to the public." RIAS seeks "More proactive planning (the model used in the new town development corporations, now wound up). Where land is in public ownership, it is relatively easy for publicly sponsored development to happen and for the public sector to control what development is brought forward."

21. Scottish Water (63) is keen to ensure sufficient linkage between planning and its investment programme. "Scottish Water needs a positive planning system that can deliver the changes and investment communities need. We recognise that there are cases when interests must be balanced against environmental and other factors, and that appraisal of complex planning issues cannot be effected overnight. However perceived public interest issues raised through the consultation process are significantly delaying the progress of projects urgently needed to improve water quality and environmental improvement. In Scotland's plan led system, we do not think it unreasonable to expect a system to be based on realistic, up-to-date information, which plans for the growth. Such a system would minimise uncertainty for all by making rapid decisions and encouraging innovative approaches… Local Authorities need to be made aware of development constraints on the water and sewerage infrastructure… Authorities have been informed of potential implication of potential development proposals to 2014 and the constraints… This will allow an adequate response to … the Scottish Executive that will set expenditure and charging mechanisms for Scottish Water in the future. Good channels of communication are essential between Scottish Water and Local Authorities to ensure proactive consultation. Scottish Water is committed to ensuring that such liaison adequately informs the planning process."

Question 2: Should development plan schemes indicate timetables for plan preparation to provide some certainty for stakeholders?

22. This proposal is almost universally supported. Many business respondents like the CBI and Homes for Scotland declare that in view of the real urgency for up to date plans, the Executive should see to it that timetables are set and are then fully complied with.

23. Agencies like SEPA and Scottish Water see the advantages of building development plan work into their own timetables. SEPA (50) thinks "this would be a useful step in setting out the process and allowing all those with an interest in the plan to prepare and resource appropriately. To encourage greater community and stakeholder involvement in the process of development planning, it would be useful to require planning authorities to take proactive steps to engage local communities once the scheme has been published so that they are made aware well in advance of the importance of the development plan and what opportunities they will have to contribute. We support the proposed requirement to review the scheme every year. The Executive might consider setting a common deadline for publication of the reviews. This would allow for a better structured, more consistent approach to managing development plans nationally." SEPA sees no reason for delaying development plan schemes: "it would be very useful for the Executive to encourage planning authorities to do this now."

24. West Lothian (18) points out that Development Plan Schemes "must be used for the right purposes and be supported by stakeholders and the public alike. The programme should include the commitment of the Scottish Executive in signing up to a timetable (its approval and examination responsibilities). Very many respondents -especially among the local authorities- refer to the advantages of proper project planning in their responses to both this question and the next. Dawn Homes (84) emphasises what it sees as "the wide variations in project management in producing development plans with some authorities being very good at sticking to timetables, notably East Ayrshire, West Lothian, East Renfrewshire and, latterly, the very impressive delivery of a city wide Local Plan for the City of Glasgow whilst some others' inability to manage delivery of local plans is simply derisory. We do wonder about, not the ability of local planners themselves, but the project management skills of their managers who should be replaced if they are not up to the tasks involved. We would be supportive of greater resources for local plans where the management are up to the task."

Question 3: What are the most effective ways to ensure quick preparation and review of development plans?

25. Many of the responses here cover similar ground to Question 1. Some develop themes at greater length. The various incentives listed in the paper provoke a range of comment, with support from authorities for statutory duty and even some for the loss of fee income. CBI Scotland (12) wants to see all seven of the listed options to be available to the Executive, and goes further in suggesting that "where a development plan is not produced on time, the former development plan should lose primacy and all planning applications deemed to have received consent until the new plan is approved." Homes for Scotland (33) has a similar view: "When the home building industry 'signed-up' for a plan led system it did so on the assumption that plans would be kept up to date. Up-to-date plans are essential if we are to create a climate to encourage investment and this is particularly the case when plans expect planning gain to generate the investment necessary to address infrastructure deficits. Plans will only be kept up-to-date if a failure to do so results in punitive sanctions. To that end, Homes for Scotland would propose that where a development plan is out of date the plan should no longer have "primacy". In addition, consent should be "deemed granted" after six weeks since there is no development plan to provide justified reasons for refusal." NHS Grampian (21) and Scottish Environmental Services Association (101) are other supporters of deemed approval when plans are out of date.

26. Many planning authorities and other groups see potentially damaging effects in some options. For example SEPA (50) sees dangers in limiting primacy "…such a move could have significant adverse environmental effects. Removing the primacy of plans would weaken parts of the plan which may be perfectly fit for purpose, including perhaps policies on protection of the environment. In such cases, we consider that there is a danger that environmental factors may not be considered as fully as necessary. SEPA puts significant resources into engaging with development plans to secure policy provision on environmental factors. We would be very concerned that these efforts are diluted, through no fault of SEPA's. We also fear that there is a danger that there would be an incentive for developers to use delaying tactics in plan preparation with a view to forcing the limitation of plan primacy which, one could argue, would be advantageous to them. Thus, we feel that this option should not be taken forward." Scottish Natural Heritage (32) sees no need to limit primacy formally, since reporters and decision-makers do this effectively anyway.

27. A statutory duty to update plans within a defined period is a popular option with many respondents. Also widely supported is Scottish Ministers directing that certain development plans be updated, based on an assessment of key areas of growth or national importance. Limiting the primacy of the development plan for decision making after a set period following adoption/approval, in the view of P Macalister Hall (46), in certain situations might become an incentive to deliberately let the plan lapse. The same respondent comments that an up-to-date plan "rushed through, cosmetically on time, in order to secure some form of bonus or positive appraisal produced to meet a performance indicator is not necessarily a good one. Too many performance indicators are poorly drafted, over-valued by management and abused by subordinates." SNH (32) suggests inducements and directions, not penalties, and Aberdeen City Council (35), also rejecting penalties, believes that resources need to be carefully targeted. NHS Grampian (21) states: "We would rather that every local authority was appropriately resourced rather than rewarding those who may have performed better. It may be better to set up a central resource task team to help those authorities who may be struggling to produce plans in time and to the appropriate standard." West Lothian (18) suggests that best practice be developed by the Scottish Executive, with additional resources introduced where problems arise, to support any audit team recommendations.

28. It is the need for timely updating of plans that is emphasised again and again, and not just by business and development interests: Newburgh Community Council (20), for example, takes a similar view. Agencies too have interests which may be threatened when plans lose their currency. SEPA (50) notes that "under present arrangements, at least the Structure Plans, on which there has been a great deal of progress, are broadly up to date and therefore offering a contemporary view. Under a single tier system however, out of date plans would very soon become a problem not just for agencies like SEPA, but also for the development industry, for local communities and ultimately for the local planning authority. Accordingly, we strongly support the moves made by the Executive to require Local Development Plan preparation within 3 years."

29. A G Stark (60) sets out his own suggestions for an effective approach: "Development plans do not age evenly. Some policies remain relevant for a long time, while others can be rapidly overtaken by events and need more frequent refreshment. … a statutory duty to update whole plans within a defined period is unnecessary when all that may be required is an update of certain elements. Indeed, it could have the effect of delaying rather than encouraging action, as any defined period would have to be fairly generous, whereas a review of part of a plan might demand early action. … Nor is limiting the primacy of the development plan for decision-making after a set period a good idea, as this gives the impression that one day the whole plan is relevant but the next day, none of it is. This assumption also underlies the threat to remove the right to charge fees on planning applications after a set period, which, if ever implemented, would seriously reduce an authority's resource to provide a proper planning service and would be counter-productive. It is also possible that the penalty is so draconian that a plan would be produced more with a deadline in mind than quality. All of this demonstrates the need to shift the emphasis from regular revisiting of the entire plan to regular and detailed monitoring, designed to reveal the continued relevance of each element of a plan. … In fact, recognising up-to-date, published and publicly debated monitoring as a performance indicator might make more sense than the age of the plan as a whole. Poor performance might then be perceived as failure to respond to issues revealed by monitoring, or perhaps even the quality of the monitoring itself. …The presumption that a plan should be replaced in its entirety every 5 years or so would be replaced by a presumption of a longer lifespan for the plan as a whole, with… alterations to refresh certain policies. These …. by their limited nature, would be less prone to delay; and any delay which did crop up would be limited in its effect, especially where a competent strategic plan or area-wide strategy is in place. In some instances… it should be possible to predict the intended lifespan of a policy. If this were to be reflected in a policy-specific 'sell-by' date, allocations which eventually prove unrealistic would automatically fall, rather than have to be actively removed. This would give incentive for local authorities and developers to pursue implementation vigorously, and effectively reduce any incentive for long-term speculative holdings on zoned land."

30. The Law Society of Scotland (62) states the much-repeated view that "the emphasis on speed should not be achieved at the expense of quality. The real need is for certainty, currency and predictability. The local plan process should be steady and thorough…" Scottish Retail Consortium (140) supports a statutory duty to update plans in a set period, their primacy decreasing with age. It thinks the review of plans should be rewarded (though not for simply restating plans without any detailed analysis) and adds that, if possible, planning fees raised should be kept in the planning department of each local authority. Walker Group (75) currently sees "no sanctions for poor performance and no rewards for good performance. Significant sanctions for poor performance could well be politically difficult to apply. Rewards for good performance could thus be a more fruitful avenue. If it is possible to link good performance with additional resources, it should be done and done publicly so that the reward is visible. This could give politicians an incentive to encourage good performance in their areas. … The biggest help of all would be a cultural change amongst local councils in favour of development generally and in this respect we commend 'The 20/20 Vision' document produced by West Lothian which must be unique in the U.K. and which seeks to convince the populace of the desirability of development to strengthen the economy and to provide jobs and a better quality of life for everyone."

31. Midlothian Council (61) comments that the options in the paper "are certainly designed to speed up the process and would generally help focus minds and actions." But a statutory duty to update plans in a set period would place an unfair burden on local authorities since delays can result from lengthy public inquiries if plans are council-wide (the PLI into the Midlothian Local Plan lasted a year) and delays in receiving service information can be outwith council control. The proposal to give Inquiry Reporters the discretion as to what evidence to hear and how to hear it will cut out uncertainty and delay from the process and is to be welcomed, but "any time saving at inquiry is likely to be more than compensated by time lost through neighbour notification (and additional objections generated through this action) and SEA requirements. The emphasis in the debate … seems to exclude reference to the quality of the development plan … in favour of speed of production. Speed does not always result in a better plan… Linking good performance with additional resources, in theory sounds like a good idea but…further penalising a service under pressure is going to achieve nothing and there is unlikely to be any political will to bolster a service viewed as under-performing. It would be more effective to target resources on authorities required to respond to greatest development pressure."

32. Aberdeenshire (30) makes its own set of suggestions, which include "greater, or more targeted special resources" and perhaps "dealing with issues of importance by buying in experience to address them. … Good data and intelligence will inevitably be a precursor to efficient plan preparation." This council argues that "Removal of the objection stage of the plan making process has the potential for great benefits, replacing it with an audit of objections against national policy and good planning practice (in effect the reporter considers the objections independently of the authority). Coupled with the removal of a consultative draft, this could remove about a year from the plan making process." The council suggests giving more attention to the important links with community planning. The idea that an up-to-date development plan might become a statutory performance indicator for community planning "implies a very direct relationship in which community planning partnerships would be held accountable for development plan progress."

33. Strathclyde University Estates (105) suggests "Excellent communication is needed with forums created to allow consultation with stakeholders. A consultation group from a cross-section of city users could be established to comment on proposals as the Plan develops with a council steering group set up to manage the process."

34. The Royal Town Planning Institute (130) supports having internal project plans for each development plan and propose that "in addition to a National Development Plan Forum, which might assist with both policy and practice development by authorities, the Executive should seek to enter a specific concordat with COSLA, following the outcome of the research report on resources and management in planning, which will set out agreed parameters for good practice in management. This should be based upon a much wider set of options than might be available to most authorities at present (eg the use of consultants, or even other authorities, to contract out stages of plan production and the sharing of specialist skills)." The RTPI adds that dedicated strategic planning teams in each of the 4 city regions should provide a focus for plan coordination and management in their areas.

Question 4: Do you agree that early targeted consultation on the key issues should replace consultation on draft policies and proposals?

35. While it is widely thought helpful to begin consultation earlier, the option to consult on draft policies and proposals is still seen as valuable and necessary by almost a quarter of respondents, and they ask that this stage remain an option. Some respondents consider the position relative to the new requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment to be crucial in this respect.

36. NHS Grampian (21) believes "openness is key to a successful consultation process and policies should not be hidden until the single 'proposed plan' is produced". The Garden History Society (19) "would oppose being given less time to respond to drafts and modifications which can demand careful consideration". The experience of Clackmannanshire Council (141) "tends to suggest that the 'issues' stage does not normally inspire the best responses or input".

37. SEPA (50) broadly agrees with the move towards a single 'proposed plan' to which objections or expressions of support can be made. "This will expedite the plan making process and make it easier to understand." But there are features of the draft stage they would like to keep: "a draft stage allows for 'ironing out' policy coverage and/or wordings or proposals in the plan. Without such a stage, if SEPA did not agree with a policy or proposal it would be forced to object and potentially have the representation heard at public inquiry. Thus deleting the draft stage may save time in preparation but increase time at inquiry. It would also be necessary to set out the steps required for 'targeted consultation' and the matters which qualify as 'key issues'. That said, SEPA accepts the draft policies and proposals stage is often time consuming and can be confusing in that it differs from the deposit stage where there is a right to object and have that objection heard at public inquiry." SEPA wonders whether 'early and targeted consultation' might be best achieved via synergy with Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). "As all development plans will require to be subject to SEA and therefore subject to the requirement to provide 'early and effective opportunity' to comment on the plan subject to SEA, we consider that this might provide for this stage. This would have the advantage of joining up the SEA and development planning processes more closely and also ensure that there is no duplication of activity".

38. SportScotland (91) wonders "how such an approach can involve individuals. It seems unlikely that the planning authority can enter into meaningful dialogue with all the individuals who may wish to participate in the process. In such circumstances, it also appears likely that there would be more objections to the final plan than at present. In addition, there should be a responsibility on the planning authority to advise consultees on specific proposals that affect their interests (for example, to advise SportScotland of any development proposals in the emerging plan which may affect playing field land). Consultees do not always have the resources or local knowledge to scrutinise every draft development plan in detail to ensure that none of the individual proposals affect their interests."

39. Scottish Wildlife Trust (28) sees difficulties in early topic-based consultation on specific policy areas given the cross-cutting nature of many issues. But "if plans can be kept up-to-date then consultation should be easier, as the basis for discussion would be updates and amendments to the existing plan, without the need to produce an entirely new draft consultative plan."

Question 5: Should Health and Safety Executive, Local Enterprise Companies, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Water, and any other bodies have a duty to engage in development planning placed upon them?

40. This duty was almost universally supported. But Aberdeen City Council (35) thinks it unnecessary. "With the exception of HSE, all these agencies are involved in our Land Use Forum. Recently set up, this comprises community representatives, businesses, environmental interests and agencies in Aberdeen. It is part of the community planning process and meets to discuss land use issues, including the development plan. Relations between the city's planning authority and these groups is generally considered good. We therefore see no need to impose a further statutory requirement on them".

41. The Garden History Society (19) notes that "No attention has been paid to the cultural heritage of Scotland in the list of bodies who may be required to engage in development planning. The inclusion of Historic Scotland would redress this imbalance."

42. Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee (13) responds that this list of organisations does not include all the key stakeholders that the Joint Committee involves in its planning process. Others include SE (Roads and Energy Divisions), SPTA and Historic Scotland. Experience shows that these bodies in general do engage well in the process. The level of commitment can be improved but it is considered that this would not arise from a mere direction to 'engage'. It would be more effective if bodies where aware that their programmes and policies would be assessed in terms of their accordance with the spatial planning framework embodied in the Development Plans, similar to the ERDF process."

43. Dundee City (57) points out that Communities Scotland, SportScotland, Historic Scotland and Scottish Executive TRNMD should also be included and there should be strict time limitations for the involvement (identified in the project plan). Aberdeenshire (30) adds that local Health Boards, Regional Transport Partnerships, Local Economic Forums, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, Trunk Roads Authority, Ports Authorities, Forestry Commission and Communities Scotland should be required to engage in the process.

44. The Health & Safety Executive (58) would not oppose its own inclusion, adding that as far as operators of Major Hazard Installations and pipelines are involved, they should effectively be made statutory consultees in the development plan process." In strongly supporting a 'duty to engage', the Scottish Council for Development & Industry (59) makes a clear distinction with 'statutory consultees'. "A positive duty to engage in plan preparation should extend, in addition to the bodies listed in the consultation, to the other public utility providers (telecommunications and energy), transport undertakings and the health service. The role of the Health and Safety Executive could, however, be limited to that of a 'statutory consultee'."

45. Angus Council (11) points to the position of Scottish Water as a "particular concern both in Angus and elsewhere in Scotland … . Scottish Water expenditure plans focus on meeting environmental and quality standards and do not in the main allow for growth. In practice this has broken an essential link where there is now little or no practical opportunity … to suggest to Scottish Water how investment within Angus should be prioritised having regard to Development Plan Strategy and policies. This situation, which is replicated throughout Scotland, constitutes one of the most serious threats to effective development plans, and should be addressed by the Scottish Executive as a matter of urgency…"

46. Glasgow City (6) welcomes the principle of ensuring that information relating to the delivery of sites and infrastructure for development is provided at the right time to support decision making. "A statutory duty on some of these bodies e.g. the local enterprise companies and Scottish Water, to align investment programmes in support of delivering development plan objectives should also be a requirement. This would reinforce the plan-led system. Without this commitment, there is clearly less merit in the proposal. This issue is also touched upon in question 9. In the Glasgow Conurbation there should also be a statutory duty on Strathclyde Passenger Transport to engage in development planning."

Question 6: Do you have any suggestions for improving the involvement of businesses in the development planning process?

47. The difficulties in obtaining sustained business involvement are referred to by many. Muir Smith Evans (80) remarks that "As long as the time horizons for plan preparation are so much longer than the business planning process applied within the business community it is hard to see how the interest of both can be reconciled."

48. Local Economic Forums are by far the most common route suggested for involvement, with local Chambers of Commerce also referred to regularly. More harmonisation in plans across Scotland and targeted efforts by planning teams to get alongside business and understand its needs locally are both seen as helpful steps. P.M.Hall (36) suggests more frequent updates as proposed in the paper as an incentive: "Immediacy and relevance are clear motivators to involvement."

49. Aberdeenshire (30) points out that support for the development of a voice representing business interests has been a marked achievement of the Aberdeenshire Towns programme. "It encourages businesses to become engaged in the development of the proposals at an early stage. Greater support through the Enterprise Network for businesses to engage in the development plans could be provided as part of the process taking forward the economic development element of Community Planning".

50. Unison (56) notes that businesses should be engaged in the process with communities and planners at an early stage. "Currently they all too often wait until the process reaches PLI and then use their financial clout to employ counsel to disrupt and change the direction of the process."

51. Scottish Water (63) answers this question by pointing out: " Developers need to be aware of the constraint issues facing Scottish Water. As Scottish Water are not required to contribute to works that are outwith 'reasonable cost' and there are no 'growth drivers' currently in the Investment Programme, it is likely that developers will be required to pay for any works to mitigate against deterioration of the water and sewerage infrastructure. Planning Authorities must ensure that the developers make contact with Scottish Water as early in their planning stage as feasible."

52. Colinton Amenity Association (67) seeks to add to question 6 on improving the involvement of businesses. "In the apparent absence of an equivalent question for communities" their response offers a checklist of 16 suggestions which they believe would enable communities to become more engaged and supportive of the planning process.

Question 7: Do you agree that the certified copy of the plan should remain a paper version?

53. Although many responses point to the convenience of internet communications, the endorsement of paper as the certified copy is well-nigh universally supported. An exception is Falkirk Council (29) in its statement that "The requirement under the current regulations for certified paper copies of a plan is considered bureaucratic, outdated and unnecessary. The document approved by a council is a matter of fact and is capable of verification without a limited number being signed to that effect. However to meet government requirements development plans should be easily accessible on Council's websites."

54. A S Kerr (2) sees it as "imperative that the total energy of the education system is harnessed to the making of the development plans…. A rational clear, system of monitoring is now possible through computer aided programmes (e.g. Sim City). A planning programme that will fire the imagination of Primary and Secondary school pupils and prepare them for participation. They are not only two and three dimensional aids, they are time enhanced: the 4 ^th dimension. … If we can achieve uniformity of purpose and presentation… Scottish Planning can be on par with our European neighbours."

55. St Andrews Preservation Trust & St. Andrews Green Belt Forum (52) think planning authorities should be required to post their plans on the internet, and to engage in public consultations through this medium. "There is no excuse except incompetence for a local planning authority that claims difficulty in complying with this requirement: newly trained planning officers are all computer literate and expect to communicate electronically, while public library services nowadays increasingly provide free access to the internet. The present archaic lodging of plans in local offices is a costly and time-wasting impediment to efficient public engagement. A move to electronic posting would also provide an obvious way of gaining greater engagement by local businesses, many of whom cannot spare time in busy hours to make a visit to inspect plans in local offices."

Question 8: Do you agree that a Development Planning Forum should be formed to support better plan-making?

56. There are different interpretations of this proposal, some understanding it to be the kind of local consultation body already outlined in Getting Involved in Planning and Your Place, Your Plan, others seeing it as a national group. Both are broadly supported provided their purpose is clear, though there are some warnings about resourcing.

57. Homes for Scotland (33) quotes the consultation: "the plan should be fit for purpose. It must begin by creating a sense of place - identifying the defining characteristics of the area and the drivers of change." HfS believes "a failure to deal with the "drivers for change" goes to the heart of the deficiencies of the current planning system. While recognising that the planning system must balance economic, social and environmental considerations, any new development planning system will not be fit for purpose unless it identifies not only the drivers of change but the mechanisms necessary to release the investment which will bring about the improvements sought by the development plan. That will demand a major shift of emphasis requiring not only new techniques but also a cultural shift in terms of the planning system's view of development. If a Development Planning Forum was tasked to deal with these issues, Homes for Scotland would both support the proposal and give an undertaking to actively participate in the work of the Forum."

58. Tesco plc (120) would like to see the proposed Development Plan Forum look at effective ways to engage the community in plan-making. "Private-sector expertise should be sought and shared. Modern marketing techniques, including focus groups, opinion polls, and consumer panels, all have a crucial role to play. The use of information technology could be widened. Open days in schools, community centres, shops and pubs could be rolled out. Local authorities, and the communities they represent, could embark on proactive engagement with local businesses and potential investors."

Question 9: Do you agree that action planning is a continuous process with formal publication an action plan every two years?

59. There is fairly general agreement among over 90% of those who answered this question. Many did not and some were equivocal, making up the undecided 34% in the table. A few - including some local authorities - warn that the process could become too demanding in itself, and that it must have a strictly practical focus. Walker Group (75) says "In general we support the proposal to produce action plans which are updated every two years, provided that they are in fact action plans and not merely a statement of vague intentions. They must identify obstacles to developments, what action is required to overcome them, and by whom."

60. Renfrewshire Council (129) remarks that "The Local Plan is in many respects a 'sign-posting' vehicle which guides the development strategy in the Plan area. Contributory to that function is the identification of known proposals; projects; study areas etc consistent with that Strategy. However, in many - if not most - cases, such projects and proposals will not have grown out of the Local Plan, and the planning authority has little or no direct influence in terms of their implementation or timescale. An action plan updated every 2 years could provide an audit of progress in respect of such projects. Local authorities however should not be held to account for success or failure in 'delivering' these schemes, nor should the action plan be used to judge the 'success' of one Local Plan relative to another… An important element of the successful 'delivery' of the development plan is whether it contains … interlocking policies … against which development proposals can be assessed, thereby guiding future development to meet the Plan's aims and objectives. Painstaking monitoring of the Plan is the only way to gauge whether the strategy, aims and objectives of the Plan are being achieved. The action plan update could be built into the regular monitoring and appraisal of the development plan on a regular basis as already advised by PAN 49."

61. NHS Grampian (21) points out that "Two years, however, may be too long to wait for a full version/update of the action plan and we would suggest that an interim update is published electronically in the years that the paper version is not." SEPA (50) signals that Action Plans and their periodic updates may be subject to SEA where the amendment may result in a significant environmental effect.

Question 10: Outside the city regions, do you support the provision for an area-wide local development plan to set the overall context in areas where there continues to be a mosaic of local development plans?

62. Some respondents were puzzled by the question or the particular issue it aimed to address. Although widely supported, there are some requests for continued discretion on this matter. Some think that cross-boundary issues, or major infrastructure questions will still require planning that goes higher still, while others see this proposal as adding a layer of unnecessary complication. Dundee City (57) for example supports the idea in principle but sees practical difficulties. The area wide plan must be kept up to date to provide a context for individual local plans. Changes to the area wide plan may require alterations to the individual plans. "The proposal is likely to demand significant resources and may hamper efforts to maintain up to date development plan coverage."

63. The Scottish Council for Development & Industry (59) sees such a context plan as a welcome proposal following the decision to abandon Structure Plans. "But the provision should not be restricted to single authorities - where neighbouring authorities have an interest in cross-boundary strategic issues a wider area 'framework' Development Plan should remain an option with statutory force." Making a similar point, North Ayrshire (16) notes that "what the document does not address is the issue of strategic matters which cross local authority boundaries in areas such as Ayrshire which is excluded from the city region." And RuralScotland (123) states: "While we are prepared to accept that area-wide local plans can be produced well and timeously, as well as being site-sensitive when this is required, the idea that there should be no strategic planning above this level has no merit. In all the examples cited - housing land supply, indicative forestry strategies, renewable energy and green belts - there will be many councils where cross-boundary issues demand strategic planning and it is not clear from where this will be provided."

64. The Highland Council (17) welcomes the paper's recognition of the need for Area Wide Local Development Plans in areas such as Highland, but notes that the paper envisages in the longer term a single local development plan for each authority as the main focus of development planning with a short statement on location specific issues. It responds: "Although the Council is looking to reduce the number of Local Plans covering its area, it is unlikely to ever produce only one plan. The Council does, however, support the concept of Area Wide Development Plans to cover strategic issues across local planning authority areas and avoid these being debated or challenged for individual local (sic) development plans. Ideally these should be subject to Ministerial approval, or at least confirmation that the plan is in accordance with Scottish Planning Policy. This would give the Plan more status at appeal. The consultation paper makes reference to the fact that existing Structure Plans will remain in force for three years …reference should also be made to this in relation to Local Development Plans".

Question 11: Do you agree that, where it can be demonstrated that there has been community and other stakeholder consultation, supplementary guidance should have a statutory backing?

65. This question has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Like many of the questions it tends to receive an affirmative answer in a good many of the shorter responses, but a few take time to raise a series of detailed concerns. Homes for Scotland (33) signals its increasing concern at the use of supplementary planning guidance (SPG). "SPG is rarely tested at Public Inquiry and there is evidence that, contrary to SPP1, it is being used as an easy alternative to updating local plans. Homes for Scotland recognises that there are circumstances where SPG is required and, indeed, may be essential to the proper operation of the planning system. It does, however, take the view that better independent testing of SPG is required. At the very least it should be a requirement that the scope of LPIs be widened to include all relevant supplementary guidance to ensure that the policy justification is sound. It should not be acceptable for a local plan inquiry to conclude that a policy position is acceptable subject to SPG."

66. Consultants Muir Smith Evans (80) think there has been a tendency in the past for supplementary guidance to be used as a way of avoiding or short-circuiting the proper democratic process through which local development plans must pass. "If the accent is now to be on shorter, more concise development plans there is a real risk that decisions affecting the users of the planning system will be made under the guise of supplementary guidance. The suggestion therefore is that some form of statutory requirement for consultation on such matters should be introduced."

67. Marks & Spencer plc (64) opposes the question "because there is no external scrutiny of Supplementary Planning Guidance proposed and it would be all too easy for a Council to approve such guidance while ignoring public or other stakeholder comment. Nevertheless "more use should be made of supplementary guidance, but only if it is subject to comprehensive public consultation and if it is regularly and frequently updated, following monitoring and review as to its effectiveness."

68. Tesco plc (120) says it "agrees with the Scottish Executive's aims for LDPs to be shorter and more concise. To achieve this they need to be limited only to what is essential to give guidance, clarity and certainty to applicants and communities. Tesco is of the view that supplementary guidance must be subject to both public consultation and to independent examination as part of the LDP process. Alternatively, there may be merit in abolishing supplementary guidance and thereby ensure that all policies and proposals become part of the statutory process by including them in the LDP."

69. EnviroCentre(34) believes supplementary planning guidance must be developed to provide a framework for innovation and implementation of over-arching policies. "The development of Brent Council's SPG on Sustainable Design & Construction was one which took place through rigorous and transparent public participation. It represents guidance which, across the construction industry, is considered to be innovative and leading edge. It provides a practical template to encourage more sustainable construction projects."

Question 12: Do you support greater consistency in the style of plans, particularly proposals maps?

70. More consistency is very widely supported, and some respondents are very specific in seeking greater use of model policies (though affirming the occasional need for tailored ones). Developers, agents, advisors and environmental interest groups who are active across local authority boundaries are among those making specific points, though planning authorities also appear to concur. The Garden History Society (19) writes: "It would be useful to have a reasonably consistent layout and basic policy content within the documents. So often our comments are to correct terminology or secure accurate wording of policies or reasoning which relate to the historic and designed landscape."

71. Shetland Islands Council (15) is concerned that "consistency in plans may be too restrictive and that a 'model' style of plans may dilute the unique quality of a plan for a given area. The danger with imposing consistency is that you may be dictating what is seen as a minimum standard. This may not be entirely relevant to a Local Plan area where there is a need for novel policy and map style and key".

Question 13: Under what circumstances should local authorities be allowed to depart from the Reporter's recommendations on the local development plan examination?

72. Many reaffirm support for limiting authorities scope, and there are suggestions for criteria. A full list from one council includes: where the Reporter's recommendation clearly fails to accord with the National Planning Framework or Policy, the city region plan, or the community plan; where it impacts on parties formerly unaffected or supportive who had thus not been represented at the earlier stage; where it is based on the reporter's views rather than evidence; or is impractical in delivery terms or based on flawed reasoning.

73. Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee (13) notes that most Reporters' recommendations are accepted and that the exceptions arise when the Reporter has recommended a policy which is not in accord with the Structure Plan or national guidance; has introduced an analysis which has not been the subject of any testing at the Public Inquiry, rather than seeking to arbitrate between the opposing views presented at the Inquiry; or where the Reporter's recommendation is based upon flawed reasoning. G&CVSPJC suggests that this experience could be a basis for identifying when a Reporter's recommendations should not be binding. Inveresk Village Society (54) is concerned about the style of Inquiry being open to Reporters to decide. "There needs to be consistency across Scotland and confidence that everyone with a view will be heard in the same way."

74. City of Edinburgh Council (97) argues that "In the interests of local democracy, it is vital that the present scope for elected planning authorities to ultimately decide the best local development planning solution for their local areas is retained. Planning authorities are responsible for adopting local plans and should logically have the power to control their content. Introducing effectively binding reporters' recommendations would not be in the interests of local democracy and accountability. Procedures exist for Ministers to call-in local plans and determine their compliance with national policy and this provides sufficient checks and balances. There is an inconsistency between this proposal and the statement in the 2002 White Paper Your Place, Your Plan, that the local plan belongs to the local authority. If this procedure is to be adopted, then for consistency, Ministers' discretion to depart from Reporters' recommendations on City Region Plans should be similarly limited."

Question 14: Do you agree with the proposed content for city region plans?

75. Around a quarter of those responding on the key subjects for city region plans believe they should be extended. Retailing is the most common suggestion. It is "central to all city regions" in the view of the Glasgow & Clyde Valley Joint Committee (13). But waste, energy, major leisure and education facilities are also mentioned by respondents, often in terms of their likely impact on strategic transport planning. Built and other environmental resources are highlighted. Particular interest groups tend to cite their own subject.

76. Angus Council (11) believes that "City Region Plans should cover the strategic land use dimension of the wider Community Planning vision. However, there is no single wider Community Planning vision which will cover the city region area. The Scottish Executive should consider requiring local authorities to prepare this single agreed wider vision for the city region area which would set the broad context for City Region Plans."

77. George Wimpey Housebuilders (89) believes it essential to ensure that, under a plan led system, all plans are sufficiently detailed to be of direct use in the determination of planning applications. "If a plan is too general, or serves only to offer indicative guidance, then its value is lost. Furthermore, city plans should be subject to the same requirement for regular review as other development plans."

78. Inveresk Village Society's (54) concern for City Region Plans is whether strategic rail infrastructure improvements will actually be delivered, and co-ordinated with strategic development. "We are more confident that this will be the case if the Scottish Executive takes over the role of the SRA, but rail and indeed other transport investment must be taken more seriously than it has been in the past when, taking Edinburgh as an example, major development has taken place without the necessary transport infrastructure to support it."

79. Health & Safety Executive (58) sees a crucial omission in the content for city region plans and any other development plans: "they should all as a matter of course cover human health and safety. This can be an area of contention when planning and Major Hazard Installations and pipelines come into conjunction and should be resolved in the development plan; but unless human health and safety is made an explicit requirement, this problem area is likely to continue."

Question 15a: Should there be equal representation of local authorities on the joint committees? Q15b: How should costs be divided among local authorities on the joint committees?

80. Most responses suggest equal representation as the best way forward, though the issue in relation to costs is less clear-cut for some, with equal shares or a population based division both receiving support. Many responses seek fairness and equity without going any further, or suggest that local wishes should determine the issue. Some proposed city region authorities have concerns about what they see as an over-prescriptive approach by the Executive to the structures and staffing arrangements. North Ayrshire Council (16) and The Highland Council (17) remain sensitive to the loss of structure plans (or equivalent strategic plans approved by Ministers) in their areas.

81. Community groups in Fife argue strongly for their voice to be heard. Auchtermuchty and Strathmiglo Community Council (36) fears that Fife is to be arbitrarily divided between the cities north and south, and that its own unique diversity and quality of place "is to be sacrificed on the political expediency of opening up cheaper and easier land to the Scottish House Building 'lobby'… We urge the Executive, in the strongest terms, to abandon this dated and dangerous method of addressing the perceived problems of the Cities, and if the Community Councils in Fife are indeed to be regarded as 'Stakeholders' then to please treat us as such!"

82. On representative membership, Aberdeenshire (30) argues that though a joint committee with only two from each authority might work in the Clyde Valley, in Aberdeen City Region this "would be neither representative nor democratic." It suggests that a Joint Committee (as used for the structure plan) rather than a Joint Board would best integrate with council services, and its role should focus on preparation and alteration, monitoring and guiding implementation. "It should not have powers of 'call-in' or any authority to decide planning applications." St Andrews Preservation Trust & St. Andrews Green Belt Forum (52) make a rather different point. While they welcome drawing together the areas that are part of the Dundee labour market instead of having separate Perth & Kinross, Angus and Dundee City, and Fife structure plans they have profound reservations about the mechanisms proposed, and argue that it would be wrong for representatives on any joint city-region planning committee to have no connection with the area for which the board is responsible in terms of strategic planning.

Question 16: Do you consider that the proposed approval process will be quick and transparent?

83. A significant minority sees the timetable for approving city-region plans as too optimistic, though its transparency is much more widely accepted. There are widespread calls for inclusion of Reporters targets in the timetabling given.

84. City of Edinburgh Council (97) says that though the proposals introduce some transparency they are "unlikely to deliver time savings in reality. Structure Plan Examinations in Public have not been held in Scotland for many years. The requirement to carry out a mandatory examination could introduce delay into the process; in the case of this city region, a two week examination in public is likely to be a very significant underestimate, although it is accepted that the form and content could to some extent be controlled by the reporters. The costs of administering an examination would fall to the Joint Committee and represent a significant extra cost which would need to be compensated by the Scottish Executive".

85. Inveresk Village Society (54) again opposes the discretion for Reporters to choose how to hear objections, adding that "from personal experience 8 months should be allowed from the end of the consultation period to the production of the report. I cannot see the value of allowing two months in which everyone can comment on the report. This will simply give rise to numerous representations from those with whom the Reporter has disagreed, repeating what has been said at the examination, and will not move things forward. As an alternative, after receiving the report the Scottish Ministers should be given two months to produce a final version with reasons for not following the Reporter's recommendations where they choose not to. There should then be a one month period for representations on this version, after which a final decision should be issued within a further two months."

Question 17: Are the proposed transitional arrangements appropriate?

86. Most who respond to this question support the transitional arrangements, though some think there are still too many details unresolved and some fear a brief period of uncertainty. Glasgow & Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan Committee (13) notes "The three year time limit on plans after enactment seems arbitrary, since in some cases plans, which have not been reviewed, could be still highly appropriate. Whilst the Joint Committee would seek to have its Plan reviewed in this timescale, in practice, it would be better to have a programme agreed with the Executive when legislation comes in, may be using the process for setting out programme of plan review to achieve this agreement. There is also a risk of excessive loading on the Reporters' Unit if all plans were to be reviewed with the same time frame".

87. Though accepting the transitional arrangements, Scottish Chambers of Commerce (81) sees the chance of things getting worse: "The document discusses a development plan scheme, development plans, action plans, master plans, area-wide local development plans, supplementary guidance and city region plans, covering 32 local authorities, six cities and two national parks with planning responsibility. SCC wants to see fewer burdens on business growth, and reforming the planning system to make it simpler, more flexible and quicker would help deliver on the Executive's stated priority of growing the economy. The planning system should focus on stimulating sustainable development, rather than on controlling development and investment and on preparing plan after plan after plan." JJ Gallagher Ltd (27) also sees complexity in the proposed system, believing the need for significant extra resources to deliver the plans in reduced timescales may mean a real potential for more delay in getting up-to-date plans.

88. Dawn Homes (84) welcomes the move towards a unitary planning system outwith the City Regions, but considers "it is Local Plans and their slowness and lack of delivery which have proved to be the failure, rather than Structure Plans themselves. It is therefore somewhat ironic that the Ayrshire Structure Plan is to be disbanded even though it is to be the model for the 3 City Regions in the East of Scotland whilst the Ayrshire local authorities will continue to be responsible for site specific development plans, when two of them are just getting round to Local Plan Inquiries this year to implement a Structure Plan approved … over 4 years ago. One aspect we do however fear with yet another reorganised development plan system is that it will, just as it did in 1996, lead to a virtual 3 year hiatus on development planning throughout Scotland and this is not something we would wish to see repeated."

Site selection in development plans

89. The consultation paper's proposals for site selection and neighbour notification and its references to Strategic Environmental Assessment did not form part of a question, but they have prompted comments and warnings from councils and others. Craig Connal (51) notes that making site selection more transparent is of critical importance. "Transparency of financial interest will be essential so that an ultimate decision maker can determine whether an asserted independent selection process can truly be regarded as such (for instance where there is an astonishing coincidence in time between conclusion of valuable missives and insertion of site in plan as preferred location). SEPA (50) also considers the issue important. "It should extend not just to the identification of those sites in which the Local Authority has an interest, but should be clear why these sites have been chosen over others. For example, we would expect local authorities to undertake a strategic assessment of certain sites for inclusion within its Local Development Plan as part of both SEA and as good practice in plan preparation."

90. Dundee City (57), noting that the paper encourages site selection 'transparently and independently of financial interests in particular sites' and that this is specially important for Council owned land, adds that "By its very nature the Council is very probably the biggest single landowner in any administrative area. Councils are often required to endure substantial losses as a result of residential or infrastructural regeneration. This process can, however, also generate opportunities. It should be made clear that there is nothing wrong in principle with pursuing these opportunities as long as the principles of proper planning are applied".

Neighbour notification of development plan proposals

91. Argyll & Bute (24) and some other councils mention the proposal for neighbour notification for development plan proposals, fearing extra costs and complexity. East Dunbartonshire (7) takes the view that "neighbour notification is in the public interest; however this should be restricted to areas where policies or proposals are clearly and unambiguously changing. Also in the interests of consistency and natural justice, where objections are made to local plan policies or proposals which, if incorporated would alter the status of a site, these should also be neighbour notified. If the Council is to be required to undertake further neighbour notification, timescales and budgets available to local authorities must reflect this; and the requirement for objectors to submit appropriate documentation must be fully laid down."

92. The Highland Council (17) believes its experience with the Wester Ross Local Plan demonstrates the possibility of getting to the Deposit Draft stage within 12 months. "Whilst SEA was not part of the process, neighbour notification was. The latter is extremely time consuming and the timing of this stage is significant. Early notification of site allocation will undoubtedly delay the Deposit Draft and could focus engagement on a limited part of the population and specific sites, rather than the wider issues which need to be addressed. Leaving notification to the Deposit Draft stage, whilst reducing the number of those being notified and potentially the number of objections, could be seen as paying insufficient attention to the site selection process."

93. Clackmannanshire (141) suggests that local circumstances should always influence the methods used to consult and inform. "Encouraging too many frivolous representations is not in anyone's interests", adding that public consultation and participation should be focused and guided by understanding on the main issues and options available at any given time. "With this in mind it is not considered desirable or beneficial for neighbour notification type exercise to be carried out in every instance or stage. When targeted at the Finalised Local Plan stage as for Clackmannanshire it was effective (if not as far reaching as hoped). It is better to use a range of media and measures suited to the locality involved accompanied by wider publicity when appropriate. Experience tends to suggest that the 'issues' stage does not normally inspire the best responses or input. It is assumed that the current requirements for Publicity and Consultation Statements will continue."

94. RTPI Scotland (130) seeks further debate and clarification of the practicalities of neighbour notifying site specific policies and proposals, and how these might be defined. "It might discourage authorities from including certain proposals on the basis that they can be encompassed within the general intention of policy criteria." While this might simplify presentation of proposals of lower impact, RTPI would be concerned about its use to defer difficult decisions on waste management sites, minerals or renewable energy search areas.

Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA)

95. The implications of Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA) draw a good deal of comment from councils and agencies, with many warnings. RSPB Scotland (98) welcomes the references to SEA but queries how this will sit with the removal of the consultative draft plan. Midlothian (61) sees dangers in resource requirements and delay: "This is a very significant additional piece of work for both city region plans and local development plans and an additional expense whether the authority prepares it or engages consultants to do so. The fact that the SEA has to be prepared prior to the plan being approved means that any efficiencies gained by cutting out the need for a draft plan could be lost or reduced. In addition the paper suggests the possibility of carrying out sustainability appraisals over and above the requirement for a SEA. This is totally unrealistic as it would place additional burdens on very limited staff resources and budgets, and lead to delays in delivery. It is suggested that reference should be made to the findings of the Planning Audit Unit with respect to the delivery of the development plan service across councils before additional burdens are considered." East Dunbartonshire (7) says the Executive should clarify exactly what is expected, suggesting that SEA and Sustainability Appraisals could effectively be amalgamated, and adding that this must be factored into expected timescales and budgets. The Highland Council (17) warns that the resource and time input to the new requirements for strategic environmental assessment and neighbour notification will offset any gains made elsewhere.

Further ideas

96. Many ideas put forward by respondents have already been described under the relevant question. Here are some further ones. Homes for Scotland (33) argues that beyond the planning procedures, the planning authorities themselves have to change: "in parts of Scotland the planning system actively seeks to restrict the release of land for development to the point where market forces cannot generate the investment necessary to renew Scotland's physical and community infrastructure. Much of this resistance stems from a political environment that encourages politicians to take short-term decisions at the expense of strategic planning. In that context Homes for Scotland would urge Scottish Ministers to consider the introduction of Planning Boards which would incorporate representation from bodies charged with facilitating strategic investment, infrastructure providers and representatives from industry and commerce."

97. West Garioch CC (14) proposes that "Local Plans should be completely devolved to Community Councils who have a far better understanding of local issues. By all means allow Councils and the Executive to set the ground rules but it should be the Community Councils that actually fill in the details. This does not mean that Community Councils will always oppose developments. On the contrary, most Community Councils are very pro-development but only providing it is actually sustainable in terms of employment, amenities, schooling, transport etc."

98. In a joint response, chairs of Millerston, Lochview & Willow Park Residents Associations (65) want to see local councillors allowed to take part in decisions about any development their area, whether or not they have spoken out against it earlier. Debarring them is undemocratic and unfair to the people represented.

99. In similar vein to A. G. Stark's (60) ideas under Question 3, The Highland Council (17) suggests that in local plans, "improvements can be made in addressing those key issues where the plan can make a difference. A further step might be to consider the possibility when reviewing local development plans of being able to recertify those elements of the plan which are still current and thereby concentrate on those matters which need updating. A loose leaf plan, as used in Wester Ross, would assist this process."

100. EnviroCentre (34) argues that the fast changing nature of environmental law means that local authorities will increasingly require support from external specialists: "one model could involve the appointment of specialists by local authorities, who are then paid for by developers. The lack of specialist skills in government, combined with increasing pressures to deliver on sustainable development, will act as a deterrent against innovation."

101. Elphinstone Group (40) highlights "the deficiency that currently exists within Scotland for an agency, in particular charged with the task of assembling land, and resolving the infrastructure problems in order for developments to take place. In the past, agencies such as the New Towns provided 17% of the land supply for the housebuilding industry and a vacuum exists following their demise. South of the border, English Partnerships, whilst not a perfect solution, are an agency who are being empowered and financed to assemble land, resolve infrastructure difficulties and assist in the regeneration of many communities. A similar agency is sadly lacking in Scotland and I would actively encourage the Minister for Communities and the First Minister to consider setting up a similar Agency in Scotland. It should engage and actively involve the private sector in the direction and management of such organisations."

Form of consultation

102. Aberdeenshire (30) is concerned at the way the consultation was handled. "The nature of the consultees with which you are engaging shows inconsistency… particularly the selective nature in which the Executive have chosen to consult with Community Planning Partnerships and Community Councils."