« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Requirement to update Plans every 5 years
Local Authorities
Aberdeen City Council: The need to keep development plans up to date is seen as very important. It is, however, more appropriate that the statutory requirement is to prepare a regular monitoring statement to demonstrate that the plan is still up to date, or to highlight those parts that may need review. It is considered that an on-going process of monitoring and review would be most responsive to change than a wholesale review every 5 years.
Angus Council: Angus Council have already noted that in addition to assessing progress on plans, the opportunity and need to roll forward planning guidance after five years is likely to be relevant. This, in practice, reflects the general approach already adopted by Angus Council for Structure Plan and Local Plan preparation and review.
Argyll & Bute Council: Welcome the greater priority attached to Plan Making. Further clarification is needed on what the Executive means by update/review? Local Plans Policies and proposals age at different rates. Many policies stand the test the time without renewal. Settlement boundaries in many areas do not need to be reviewed on a regular basis due to a lack of development pressure. A complete review of a Local Plan the size and complexity of Argyll and Bute, without a structure plan to comply with, will take a considerable period of time. This will result in almost a constant and costly cycle of change and uncertainty with regard to land use planning in the rural areas and actual implementation of the plan will suffer. Suggest that selective sections of Plans should require to be updated, where necessary, every five years in rural areas rather than a complete review. The Scottish Executive needs to be made aware that many Development Plan teams do not have sufficient resources or skills to undertake their current workload never mind additional duties. This is particularly the case in rural planning authorities where there are no specialists employed solely on Structure Plans. Equally, while there is considerable merit in the majority of the other new development planning initiatives, there is concern over the cumulative effect on the ability of Development Plans teams to delivery the new requirements together with others that have been introduced recently such as SEA and the inclusion of new controversial areas (that attract significant objection by industry groups and local communities) such as renewables and aquaculture. What analysis has been done on the manpower hours required to complete the new requirements? Has an audit been undertaken on the current capacity of Development Plan teams to delivery the reforms some of which could be introduced in the near future? Development Plan teams are currently finding it extremely difficult to attract staff with sufficient skills and experience to undertake complex development plans work. How does the Executive propose to tackle this shortfall in terms of available planning skills/qualified staff and increased GAE for planning requirements?
City of Edinburgh Council: This does not address the Committee's previous issue about penalties to be imposed if a plan fails to meet the deadline, and whether external pressures such as legal challenges would be a mitigating factor. The White Paper identifies the ability to confirm, at no greater than 5 year intervals, the relevancy of policies that do not require alteration. However, it fails to identify that such plans should make sufficient development land allocations for periods longer than 5 years and that each review need not address the direction of land provision. The Council reiterates its view that penalties should not apply where external factors such as the availability of reporters to conduct examinations frustrate the local authority's targets. The Council also reiterates its desire to see shorter periods from examination to adoption.
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: It would be more in the spirit of attaining an efficient system if the proposed 5 - year update of development plans allowed for proposed changes only, as a number of the planning policies could reasonably be expected to stay the same - particularly in a rural context.
East Dunbartonshire Council: This is already practice in East Dunbartonshire although the imposition of new procedures and particularly an SEA requirement will make this more challenging.
East Lothian Council: Reviewing plans every five years is important if they are to remain relevant, the demands this will place on authorities, especially in the city regions, must not be underestimated.
Falkirk Council: The proposal for a statutory provision to require development plans to be replaced within 5 years of adoption is an admirable aim in trying to keep development plans up to date. There are some concerns over whether this can be achieved, particularly with more onerous tasks being introduced into the process such as notifications, together with SEA provisions. It should also be borne in mind that the pace of change has been so great in recent years that a 5 year review period will not ensure that a plan is up to date. In Falkirk Council's case the Structure Plan was approved by Ministers in 2002 but is now with the Ministers again for Alteration within 3 years. Again the resource implications for planning authorities are considerable.
Fife Council: This is supported, as it will ensure that all Local Authorities resource planning activities adequately and will reduce the number of determinations contrary to Local Plan Although the power to direct plans to be updated may be contentious, this measure is supported as it ensures that Ministers can work in partnership with Local Authorities to drive the implementation of the National Planning Framework
Glasgow City Council: It is not clear how realistic a 5 year timescale will be in a situation where local authorities will have to do more than before but within the same time period, e.g. wider consultation and public engagement, the notification of new site specific development proposals and the preparation of a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Plan. It would appear that whilst certain planning procedures are being streamlined or removed, the time and resource implications of those being introduced could well outweigh any benefits which this may bring about. Local Authorities also do not have full control over some aspects of the development plan process and subsequent timetable. For example, the number of objections received and subsequent length of any Local Plan Inquiry. The Council would be concerned over the introduction of any penalties imposed on local authorities who could not rigidly stick to the 5 - year timescale. Whilst supporting the need to properly programme and manage development plan activity, attempting to ensure rigid compliance with a statutory timescale could result in basic standards being pursued, with little scope for innovation on, e.g., public consultation. There is also a need for transitional arrangements to be introduced where a Plan is already committed to a process of update through public consultation when the provisions of the Bill are enacted. With reference to the proposal that Scottish Ministers to have powers to direct that plans be updated/commenced to accommodate key areas and issues of national growth and importance, further information is required before a view can be developed on the implementation of this proposal.
Inverclyde Council: This is accepted subject to the resources being made available to deliver this aim and presumably, the required 'culture change' within LAs where it is supposedly lacking at the present time. The SEDD appear to see Planning as a central legislative function within Government policy, and it is welcomed that this is being encouraged and promoted through this White Paper.
Moray Council: Development Plans have to become more dynamic, and not be constrained by their 5-year 'Adoption'. Amendment procedures should be easier to promote, to allow Plans to react to new strategies and Action Plans in related subjects ( e.g. transport, housing, economy) and be updated 'in situ'.
Perth & Kinross Council: Perth and Kinross Council in common with the majority of Planning Authorities throughout Scotland has failed to meet the target of reviewing Development Plans every 5 years. This has been a result of over-cumbersome statutory procedures and a lack of resources. Placing a statutory duty on Planning Authorities to keep plans up to date will have considerable resource implications for the Council.
Midlothian Council: Midlothian is already working towards a 5 year cycle of plans. In meeting this demanding timetable, it is essential that the process is not delayed unreasonably by other processes such as SEA. The expectation is that the majority of policies would roll forward in replacement plans. It would be helpful if it was clarified that SEA would be restricted to new and significantly altered policies only.
Renfrewshire Council: It is accepted that it is essential to have up to date development plans and that a five year review period is reasonable.
Scottish Borders Council: The principle of a development plan scheme is supported. There is no objection in principle to the requirement to update development plans every 5 years. However it must be recognised that in the context of annual local authority budget reductions, greater public participation in the planning process, new burdens such as SEA and the difficulties in recruiting planning staff, the capacity of the system to comply with the new targets must be in doubt. This Council would call on the Scottish Executive to acknowledge such constraints and make appropriate resource provisions.
South Ayrshire Council: Whilst every effort will no doubt be made by Councils to comply with this proposed requirement, various factors can delay the process of local plan preparation, some of which are outwith the control of planning authorities. These factors commonly include constraints in staff resources, and a high level of public interest in the plan, which increases the workload required to either resolve or respond to objections. The White Paper proposals include measures to encourage greater community participation in the preparation of development plans. Clarification should be sought on what sanctions are proposed for planning authorities that have been unable to replace their local development plan within 5 years.
West Dunbartonshire Council: Currently efforts are made to review development plans every five years although, in the case of the Dumbarton District Wide Local Plan this target has not been met. The statutory requirement is desirable, but will have resource implications particularly, as in our case, there will be a requirement to update two levels of plans every five years
West Lothian Council: This proposal is generally supported, particularly when it is related to some of the reforms proposed for development control (to be called development management) which will rely on up-to-date local plans. However, it should be recognised that there may be some circumstances where updating on this timescale will not be possible, for example, where changes in the National Planning Framework have to be reflected in the strategic development plan before they can be incorporated in the local development plan. It is not clear from the proposal if plans are to be replaced within five years or reviewed within five years as both terms are used. Replacement is likely to result in more up-to-date plans than reviewed within five years, unless the intention is to have the review complete within five years from the date of adoption. This matter should be clarified. The ability of Scottish Ministers to direct updating of plans needs to be balanced by a right of appeal against such direction.
Other LA Organisations
COSLA: Concerns regarding whether a 5-year development plan cycle can be delivered. In real terms, this will mean that as soon as a development plan is approved, planning authorities will have to start the process afresh. While this may involve 'carry-forward' from one development plan to another, nonetheless the adoption of new proposals may be delayed for reasons beyond the control of planning authorities, which may in turn cause difficulties in meeting the 5-year timeline. Planning authorities need to have reassurance that they will not be penalised, should they not achieve the proposed timeline, through no fault of their own. COSLA would expect that the Scottish Executive and Ministers seek to' raise their game' in approving development plans timeously, as this will also play a major part in achieving a successful 5 year cycle.
Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan Joint Liaison Committee ( ELSPJLC): While there is no objection to a statutory requirement to update development plans every 5 years, Scottish Ministers must not underestimate the demands that this will have on the financial and staffing resources of planning authorities, especially those with City Region responsibilities in addition to local development plans. Ministers must also recognise that achieving this timescale is not wholly within the gift of planning authorities, and some allowance must be made for the influence of external factors. There must be clarity on any penalties that might be imposed if a plan fails to meet the required timescale and on the status of a development plan that is more than five years old.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Defence Estates: Defence Estates supports the introduction of a new 5 year limit on the development plan review process. However, this limit is likely to result in a further resourcing issue for local authorities which may not be able to maintain this accelerated timescale. Therefore, it will be important to maintain an element of flexibility in the statutory development plan structure to accommodate rapid change in land use priorities which might occur ahead of a formal development plan review. The role of supplementary planning guidance to provide an interim stage of policy for areas of major change must therefore be maintained in the system.
Health & Safety Executive: We support the intention to update development plans every five years. We see this as crucial to the monitoring of population movements around MAH sites so that the opportunity may be taken to reduce risks to people by re-designating land from residential to industrial, where possible, in cluster areas of MAH sites.
Highlands and Islands Enterprise: A statutory requirement to update Development Plans every 5 years is a very welcome step, though as always we would stress that the economic development process will continue to throw up new forms of development within the life of plans for which flexibility of response is crucial.
Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian: To make this easier to enforce, there should be a significant penalty placed on those authorities which do not comply with this statute. Furthermore the time horizons for Local Plans should be consistent to ensure that work undertaken for strategic issues across local boundaries is easier co-ordinated.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency:SEPA have consistently identified out of date development plans as a risk to both the protection of Scotland's environment and to the delivery of needed environmental infrastructure such as waste and water management facilities. SEPA would, however, question what sanction may be imposed upon Planning Authorities that do not meet this new statutory deadline. In the MDPD consultation, there was reference to such plans losing primacy status. As indicated in our response to that consultation, SEPA would strongly oppose such sanction as we would be concerned that such a move could have significant adverse environmental effects. Removing the primacy of plans would weaken parts of the plan which may well be perfectly fit for purpose, including perhaps policies on protection of the environment. SEPA puts significant resource into engaging 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. It is clear that a range of incentives and penalties may need to be considered and clarification of these, as Executive thinking develops, would be most welcome.
A statutory 5 year update will assist SEPA with its resource planning for development plan casework.
Scottish Water: While welcoming that the development plan-making process will become more regular and predictable, we would advise that this cycle differs from our own 4 - year investment cycle. As our performance objectives are stipulated by our Regulators in response to the legislative environment we will continue to find challenge in supporting finite plan-led land allocation uses. In addition we will meet a significant challenge if there is a desire for a fully integrated approach to development plans incorporating our investment plans.
Other Public Bodies
Central Scotland Forest Trust:CSFT supports the preparation of a Planning Advice Note to collate best practice on Community Engagement - this should assist planners to move towards a system where the public have more influence on development plans. Placing early proposals for development plans on local authority websites, with a system for public comments by electronic means, may assist community engagement. However not all groups will have access to the internet, so this should not be regarded as a replacement for other methods of community engagement).
The Development Industry
Bett Homes: It is of vital importance for an efficient Plan Led system that all of its parts are up to date and reflect community, business and government land use requirements and ambitions. Bett Homes strongly support the statutory requirement for five-year reviews.
EDI Group Ltd: The statutory duty to update Development Plans every 5 years is welcomed, but deadlines for plans are not new. Ministers have to be prepared to intervene where programmes slip and direct that reviews take place. There is a concern that in a rapidly changing situation the plan-led system may prove unresponsive. The opportunity for participants to comment annually on the authorities programme for plan making should be used to trigger early reviews.
Elphinstone Land: The proposal in the White Paper to have a statutory requirement to update plans every two years is particularly welcome and is central to this review of planning legislation - but its achievement could be jeopardised by the skills/resources issue. However, given proper resourcing it would be reasonable to expect plans to be brought up to date within two years of the commencement of the Act. This may involve outsourcing, but up to date plans will be essential if the new system is to work effectively. This will be a new additional priority and responsibility for Local Authorities. There must be guidance on; when; how; and by whom this work will be undertaken. The Executive should also consider making provision for action to be taken and sanctions to be applied if planning authorities fail to keep plans up to date, by taking over responsibility for plans making in their area
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): We welcome the intention to modernise what is clearly an out of date development plan system but it is clear that the proposed changes, including a statutory requirement to update development plans every five years, will significantly increase the current workload of the planning authorities. The increased workload created by the new Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA) obligations has already caused concerns among many local authorities.
Grosvenor Investments: Grosvenor Ltd is very supportive of this proposal as it will aid efficiency and strategic planning. Plans must be updated every five years and planning officers must have adequate training. If the system is introduced properly these plans will provide an authoritative, up to date, genuine guide to policy which will be extremely useful for the community and businesses such as ours. However, the consultation process must be effective, therefore the local authorities must ensure the buy in and input of the local communities. This will require significant advertising and encouragement.
Homes for Scotland: Generally Homes for Scotland supports the proposals put forward on this matter. We welcome in particular the requirement for the new development plans to be reviewed and replaced with updated and approved plans every 5 years. While there may be a role for sanctions to address poor local authority performance, this would be an inadequate alternative to up-to-date local development plans. While the White Paper gives prominence to the need to review, publish and adopt local development plans every 5 years, it is silent on the starting point. Homes for Scotland recommend that there should be an effective starting point with up-to-date local development plans available in all local authorities within 2 years of the commencement of the new Planning Act. We acknowledge that this will be challenging in terms of resources, both manpower and financial, but an effective up-to-date plan-led planning system cannot take place without it. We are of the view that a range of options should be provided for in the new legislation, including outsourcing to consultants. Without an increase in resources, both staff and financial, together with a change in the culture of local authorities and the management of the planning process, we are not confident that the proposed changes will be able to achieve the regular updates as set out in the White Paper. Should this come about, there must be clear advice from the Executive on the status of local development plans more than 5 years old. Likewise, there should be advice on the status of existing plans in advance of new plans being completed and adopted. Without such advice, there could be an increase in planning appeals with resource implications for the Executive and SEIRU. Homes for Scotland is not persuaded that possible sanctions for not meeting the 5 year commitment would necessarily be effective or particularly helpful. Our preference therefore is for local development plans to take a longer-term view as required through SPP3: Planning for Housing. The new development plans should provide scope for other sites coming forward beyond the 5 year period and which would meet the requirements of the 5-12 period within the context of a longer-term settlement strategy. While this requirement has existed in SPP 3 since its publication, it has had little impact. The Executive now needs to give further advice on this matter. If necessary a more flexible approach to local development plan review is preferable in order to secure the delivery of new housing rather than the imposition of sanctions. Additionally, monitoring by the Scottish Executive Planning Division should be reviewed. To date, monitoring has focused on where plans are in the process i.e. started, in draft, finalised and adopted. Monitoring should be extended to the implementation of policies and proposals and there should be a statutory requirement for an annual monitoring report if the primacy and worth of new development plans is to be improved and strengthened.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): While this is a welcome proposition, it is imperative for the effective day to day running of the planning system that an element of flexibility is retained to allow for the recognition that development plans do take time to prepare and cannot be expected to keep apace with changing circumstances across the full range of land use planning matters. Retaining the system of outline planning applications is considered a pre-requisite for a flexible system and proposals to abolish outline planning applications should not form part of a future planning bill. The proposal to give Ministers the power to direct that certain development plans be updated is an essential additional tool to ensure that these new requirements are adequately enforced.
Mactaggart and Mickel Ltd: There is a long history of encouragement to speed plan preparation with mechanisms for sanction. This has been the position since certainly the 1969 Act which introduced the requirement for local plans in Scotland. 'Possible sanctions' has meant call-in of local plans (which has seldom happened in practice) or possibly a direction that they should be altered in some way, for example to ensure compliance with the structure plan. But there are no sanctions to speed up the process so that Section 25 of the current Act means something. The White Paper unfortunately does not explain how the mandatory five year review of development plans will be enforced. Central Government will not call-in local plans even where the local authority has received a direction to update or commence a plan. It is therefore essential that sanctions should exist, for example, that there should be some form of interim arrangements. There could be many types of such arrangements, from the radical of deemed approvals after two months, to approval deemed to be in accordance with the development plan if it accords to a pre-local plan inquiry plan where the present plan is out-of-date. The statutory requirement to prepare development plans every five years, when at present 75% are older than that, seems to be a near impossible task unless there is a large hike in resources and manpower. In the early days of post-1947 planning, much of the development plan preparation was carried out by private consultants. It is suggested that the same considerations apply now, but where local authorities would maintain overall control of policy. Unless the tools for implementation are there, it will not be seen as fair to impose sanctions.
Manor Kingdom Group: Accepts and supports the proposals put forward on this matter, particularly the requirement for the new development plans to be reviewed and replaced with updated and approved plans every 5 years. If Plans are going to provide approval in principle to alleviate the necessity for outline planning applications in some cases, then slow delivery of and poor performance in reviewing local development plans will be unacceptable. Where development plans are more than 5 years old, the submission and granting of outline planning permission should remain acceptable. While the White Paper gives prominence to the need to review, publish and adopt local development plans every 5 years, it is silent on the starting point. Manor Kingdom supports Homes for Scotland recommendation that there should be an effective starting point with up-to-date local development plans available in all local authorities within 2 years of the commencement of the new Planning Act. Without an increase in resources, both staff and financial, together with a change in the culture of local authorities and the management of the planning process, we are not confident that the proposed changes will be able to achieve the regular updates as set out in the White Paper. Should this come about, there must be clear advice from the Executive on the status of local development plans more than 5 years old. Likewise, there should be advice on the status of existing plans in advance of new plans being completed and adopted. Without such advice, there could be an increase in planning appeals with resource implications for the Executive and SEIRU.
Muir Group: It is vital that Development Plans are kept up to date and we have a serious concern that without proper and adequate finance regular updating will not be achieved and adequate sanctions for failing are not in place. The Barker Report suggests that effective monitoring of Development Plans should be carried out at regional level and our opinion would be that the monitoring should be undertaken by independent economists rather than reliance on Councils monitoring their own performance. In particular, The Strategic Development Plan, as the successor to the Structure Plan, requires to forecast housing demand but to date no methodology for this has been put in place
Persimmon Homes: This proposal is broadly welcomed given the current position that 70% of Local Plans are more than 5 years old and 20% are 15 years old.
Stewart Milne Holdings: In general, we support the proposals put forward by the Executive on this matter in particular the requirement for new development plans to be updated every five years. Within this context, although the use of sanctions for poor performance is recognised as potentially controversial, slow delivery and performance in reviewing Local Plans is currently wholly unacceptable. In this respect, we would suggest that Plans more than five years old lose their primacy status and simply revert to being a material consideration.
Stewart Milne Homes: We note that Development Plans should be updated every five years. We believe that Development Plans should be updated within the five year period rather than the process to replacing a plan starting every 5 years.
The Buchanan Partnership: Supports the focus on improving the efficiency and timely updating of development plans -especially the projected 5 year target. This will enable the Development Plan to be used as a more reliable resource when consulted, addressing the more relevant up-to-date needs and objectives of the area in question. Additionally, regular updates to the Development Plan will provide consistency, certainty and efficiency in development decision making.
Other Businesses
Aggregate Industries UK Ltd: We welcome the statutory requirement to update development plans every five years. This proposal is long overdue. In a supposed plan-led system, it is very frustrating to be operating within a regime which more usually results in the plan following rather than leading. However, we are concerned as to how this is to be achieved. Most Local Authorities fail to keep their development plans up to date at the moment or provide either site specific or generalised areas for mineral search, so where is the incentive for them to do so in the White Paper? Without imposing sanctions on Local Authorities who fail to perform, the Scottish Executive will be seen as something of a "toothless tiger" and we will be left in the same situation as we are currently. It would perhaps have brought more pressure to bear on individual Planning Authorities to update their development plans every five years if the weight given to outdated plans decreased accordingly.
Arqiva: Reviewing the plans on a 5 yearly basis is considered to be too often and will prove to be labour intensive. It is thought that this will be an almost continuous process with such a review pattern. It will detract planning officers and resource from day to day matters.
ASDA: Where an authority fails to meet the requirement to maintain up-to-date plans, then their plans should not be used to screen appeals (see comments on appeals screening below).
Association of Electricity Producers: The Association welcomes the proposal to keep development plans up to date. This is vital for an effective planning system. The Executive should not underestimate the amount of work that will be required in keeping the plans up to date. Adequate resource will be vital.
British Energy: We fully endorse the proposal for Planning Authorities to update local plans every five years and produce an annual report for the SE on progress. The consistency and certainty this will bring will help all participants in the planning process. However resourcing must be adequate to enable such a significant change.
CBI Scotland: We fully endorse the proposal to give local authorities a statutory duty to update their local development plan every five years. Up-to-date local plans will be crucial in restoring trust in the planning system. The process needs to start quickly. Every council should have to update their local plan within no more than eighteen months of the Planning Bill gaining royal assent. Sufficient resources must be made available to local authorities to permit this and, if necessary, the local authority should be able to outsource the preparation of the local plan to private sector consultants. This would not undermine local 'democracy' because the local authority would oversee the production of the plan and all the relevant local participation and engagement would stilI take place. Because local development plans are so important, we are concerned that the White Paper is silent on the question of sanctions for local authorities that fail to meet their statutory obligation to update their plan. The Executive must be firm on this point and should be willing to consider a range of powerful sanctions. Obvious options include 'naming and shaming' under-performing councils but more innovative sanctions should be given serious consideration, for example, sending in external 'improvement teams' or fines for councils.
First UK Bus Division: Revision of development plans on a five yearly basis is also welcomed as it will help prevent retention of an outdated or inappropriate framework for the planning process.
Forth Ports PLC: Supports the focus on improving the efficiency and regular updating of development plans, including placing a statutory requirement on local authorities to do so. A clear omission in the Paper, however, is any reference to what, if any, sanctions would be brought against local authorities failing in their statutory duty.
Institute of Directors: There must penalties against Local Authorities who fail to produce Local Plans on time or fail to process applications in the stipulated period - otherwise there is a danger of slipping back to the current dreadful situation. There needs to be a carrot and a stick to ensure compliance.
Mobile Operators Association ( MOA): We support the proposals to ensure the replacement of development plans within 5 years of adoption. This will increase confidence in the planning system for both developers and the public.
SITA ( UK) Ltd: The Company welcomes the commitment to the provision of up-to-date development plan documents and shares the Executive's view that the average age of local plans is 10 years is unacceptable. A modern and relevant development plan is crucial in a development control system that purports to be plan led. In the field of waste management, however, plans must avoid being overly prescriptive. Techniques available to the industry are in a state of flux and an overly prescriptive plan, even one based on a 5 year review cycle, could become irrelevant or restrictive given the pace of industry evolution. Site specific policies are particularly vulnerable to obsolescence due to change within the sector, whereas criteria based policies are much more flexible in this regard.
Tesco Stores Ltd: Tesco have previously responded positively to the Executive's proposals to modernise Development Plans in Scotland. The most important requirement for a plan-led system is that relevant and up-to-date plans should exist. Regular reviews are desirable and a statutory requirement to update development plans every 5 years seems realistic and beneficial.
The Scottish Coal Company Limited ( SCCL): This proposal is to be welcomed, as up to date development plans will be more able to address the changes in the National Panning Framework and more readily reflect the situation on the ground. However, there does not appear to any mechanism to ensure that planning authorities are made to comply with the new review proposals.
UNITE Group plc: Supports the introduction of a new 5 year limit on the development plan review process. However, this limit is likely to result in a further resourcing issue for local authorities which may not be able to maintain this accelerated timescale. Therefore, it will be important to maintain an element of flexibility in the statutory development plan structure to accommodate rapid change in land use priorities which might occur ahead of a formal development plan review.
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): We welcome the intention to modernise what is clearly an out of date development plan system but it is clear that the proposed changes, including a statutory requirement to update development plans every five years, will significantly increase the current workload of the planning authorities. The increased workload created by the new Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA) obligations has already caused concerns among many local authorities.
Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC: Supports proposal that timely development plans are delivered in order to provide consistency and certainty and smooth the efficiency of development decision making. In this way, Morrisons support the introduction of a new 5 year limit (or less if so directed by Scottish Ministers) on the development plan review process. There needs to be some penalty on local authorities if they do not meet these timescales. For example, the primacy of the development plan in making planning decisions is reduced or given less weight.
Professional Organisations
Institute of Civil Engineers Scotland: This will greatly assist the planning and prioritisation of development and infrastructure in private industry and in the public sector.
RIAS: The RIAS is generally supportive of updating of structure and development plans on a regular and frequent basis but we question whether this is a realistic proposal in view of the past performance of local authorities in this respect and the known resources available to them.
RICS Scotland: The timescales for updating Local Development Plans are noted and supported by RICS Scotland. Whilst we welcome the proposal that the Plans are reviewed every 5 years it is still unclear to us how this will be achieved in practice.
RTPI Scotland: A five year review is an essential discipline. It will also focus more attention on the principle of continuous monitoring and review. The proposed two yearly action programmes should include not only updated implementation intentions but monitoring reports on the overall progress of the plan's objectives and of changes in the marketplace and in the policy environment which will require to be addressed immediately or at the next five yearly review. We feel that the continuous process of plan preparation, monitor and review, properly resourced, will make it easy to address issues requiring urgent attention, and that this should be encouraged
Scottish Association of University Directors of Estates: The need for planning authorities to update development plans every five years should be of greatest advantage as it is the out of date plans that cause confusion and delay. Although the requirement for only one proposed plan could speed up the development process, this could reduce the ability to object to allocations in the local plan.
Scottish Chambers of Commerce: It is vital that Development Plans are kept up to date and there is a real concern that without proper and adequate finance and staffing - or use of outside consultants - regular updating will not be achieved. A question remains over whether adequate sanctions are in place for failing to achieve the five year timescale. The Barker Report suggests that effective monitoring of Development Plans should be carried out, and this is something that could be undertaken independently rather than rely on Councils monitoring their own performance.
The Law Society of Scotland: The Society firmly welcomes the proposal for a statutory time limit for the preparation and review of development plans but feels that some of the benefit of this will be lost if there is no sanction for default. Adequate resources, ring fenced where necessary will be needed to support the new stronger plans.
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Bell & Scott: So far as a statutory requirement to update Development Plans every five years is concerned - we are in favour of this proposal but are concerned that the "sanctions" to apply if Development Plans are not updated every five years are not sufficiently clear. In our view statutory provision should be made stating unequivocally that any Development Plan which is over five years old should have increasingly less weight accorded to it when any determination under the Planning Acts is made and, accordingly, other material considerations should have increased weight. This is close to the current position following the House of Lords judgement in City of Edinburgh Council v. Secretary of State for Scotland (1997 SCLR1112) but we feel that there would be considerable benefit in enshrining this concept in legislation. We are not opposed to consideration being given to additional measures designed to ensure that the five yearly update is carried out in practice but we feel that this measure should be introduced to the planning bill irrespective of any other measures designed for that purpose.
Collar, Neil: The statutory requirement to update development plans every 5 years is a constructive proposal. However, the lack of any sanction is worrying, since the only means of enforcing that duty would be to seek a court order. Also, there is no mention of the difficulty of timing plans to take account of emerging national guidance. The abolition of the 2 tier development plan system will avoid the current timing problems in coordinating the local plan to comply with the structure plan. The White Paper says that the local development plan for the 4 city regions will require to comply with the strategic development plan, so the timing problem will remain in those areas. Given the extent of the proposed changes to the development plan system, there is a significant risk of a hiatus, with local authorities producing no new plans for several years while the new statutory provisions come into force. There will be an understandable reluctance to prepare draft plans until the new National Planning Framework is published in 2008. The Ministers must issue guidance to local authorities soon to prevent such a hiatus.
Colliers CRE: A requirement to have a statutory review of development plans every five years is welcomed and hopefully will act as a catalyst for local authorities failing to provide up to date development plan coverage for their areas. But to have teeth, the Scottish Executive has to be prepared to intervene where a local authority is failing to meet this statutory requirement. The Scottish Executive currently have the legal authority to participate in and call in local plans, but have chosen not to intervene, this will require a change of attitude at the Scottish Executive to become more 'hands on' in the development plan process.
Drivers Jonas: We welcome the intention to modernise what is clearly an out of date development plan system but it is clear that the proposed changes, including a statutory requirement to update development plans every five years, will significantly increase the current workload of the planning authorities. The increased workload created by the new Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA) obligations has already caused concerns among many local authorities.
GVA Grimley LLP: Supports timely development plans and the introduction of a new 5 year limit on the development plan review process. However, this limit is likely to result in a further resourcing issue for local authorities which may not be able to maintain this accelerated timescale. Therefore, it will be important to maintain an element of flexibility in the statutory development plan structure to accommodate rapid change in land use priorities which might occur ahead of a formal development plan review.
Hargest & Wallace Planning: This is supported as an ideal target but is it realistic and how can it be ensured? If anything the process of change will cause uncertainty and delay. The system must have penalties and incentives otherwise the system will fail to deliver (it has failed badly so far - why should it change?). In the case of penalties a straightforward approach is to down grade the status of development plans over a specified age to a "material consideration". . A second element could be to remove the requirement for development plan departure hearings - if the plan is out of date the application cannot be a departure - it should not be advertised as a departure in the press and there is no requirement for a notification. In other words if the planning authority fail to put resources in place for development plans they lose the benefit of the presumption in favour of the development plan.
Keppie Planning Ltd: Concern about how Scottish Ministers will enforce the statutory duty for strategic Development Plans and Local Development Plans to be replaced within five years of the date of adoption. Currently there is a statutory obligation for planning authorities to process planning applications within a two-month period - this is not adhered to without any recourse from Scottish Ministers.
Humberts Leisure Consulting:HLL welcomes the proposal for up-to-date and relevant development plans but recognises this needs to be balanced against current skill shortages and the raft of ongoing changes and financial implications of such.
Ledingham Chalmers: Hope that the proposed enhanced priority and the statutory requirement to ensure that development plans are updated every 5 years will provide results. We have serious concerns about deliverability of this proposal. Under our current system, development plans were supposed to be supreme and they are not. Development plans were supposed to be reviewed regularly and they are not. Too many plans are out of date and too many applications are being determined as departures. The proposals simply restate what should have been done anyway. One of the main complaints about deliverability under the current system will equally apply to the new and that relates to resources. Up to date development plans that are subject to continual scrutiny and review cannot realistically be achieved unless there is a significant increase in resources for Planning Authorities. A resource is not all about money. Planning authorities are failing to attract and retain suitable qualified staff. The reasons for that are many and go far beyond the remit of this response.
Maclay, Murray & Spens: We welcome the statutory requirement to update development plans every five years. However, we are concerned as to how this is to be achieved. Most Local Authorities fail to keep their development plans up to date at the moment, so where is the incentive for them to do so in the White Paper? It would perhaps have brought more pressure to bear on individual Planning Authorities to update their development plans every five years if the weight given to outdated plans decreased accordingly. It is also absolutely essential that there be flexibility in the system in order to take advantage of development opportunities. We have serious concerns as to how possible windfall sites would be dealt with, if they were not in accordance with the development plan.
MBM Planning & Development: The proposals to place a statutory requirement on planning authorities to update development plans every 5 years is to be welcomed but in reality how will this be enforced? Where a development plan passes 5 years from its adoption it should lose weight and simply become one of a number of the material consideration in the determination of any planning application. This would then focus planning authorities to reviewing development plans more effectively. In effect there should be no reason why the timescale cannot be achieved if the system is to be altered where only one development plan is to be produced, instead of the current system of draft and then finalised plans. This change in emphasis of the development plan would then penalise those authorities who continue to fail to properly guide development every 5 years.
Muir Smith Evans: The proposed 5 year cycle for the review of development plans may seem ambitious for many planning authorities. This also raises the question of development plan departures? How are planning authorities to make sure that they don't miss the opportunity to land a beneficial development just because it was not foreseen in the last development plan? There is a real risk that further emphasising the primacy of the development plans will be used by some planning authorities to stifle competition and innovation, both of which are vital to economic grown and social inclusion.
Paull & Williamson: No sanctions are specified for failure to comply with the statutory requirement to prepare a plan every 5 years. As the intention is that development plans should carry even greater weight in the system, it is vital that the timetable is adhered to. However, in the absence of a sanction, this requirement is likely to be less effective than may be hoped. There is little reason to suppose that encouragement alone will secure compliance; it has not in the past. Possible sanctions include an inability to charge planning application fees, the disapplication of s.25, or the assumption of responsibility for the plan by the Executive. An effective sanction would ensure that local authorities allocated the necessary resources to fulfil the requirement.
Scottish Planning Consultants Forum: The Forum is sceptical that the statutory requirement that plans be prepared every five years will necessarily improve matters -planning authorities have, after all, been long aware that they are expected to review plans on a 5 yearly cycle and have not done so. We have considered how the Bill might provide teeth in order to secure timeous review. The Scottish Executive might take powers to carry out a review should a planning authority fail to deliver; the ability to levy application fees might be rescinded or right to refuse on grounds of departure from the development plan might be withdrawn if the plan is out of date. These are all, for different reasons unsatisfactory. It is preferable that planning authorities know long in advance that their plan will be examined in public at a given date. We are not of the opinion that the 5 year requirement should be universally applied -it may not be the case that one size fits all. We do however believe that Planning Authorities should be required to enter into an agreement to review by a given date and that the stages leading to delivery should be monitored to provide early warning of slippage. In this context we see an important role for NPF in ensuring that national and sub national strategic thinking is available and provides the context for the LDP as it progresses.
Turley Associates: plans must be up-to-date, and the proposal to make this a statutory requirement is supported also. A timescale of 5 years for replacement is realistic, but currently planning authorities persistently fail to achieve this. A statutory requirement should therefore be supported by some form of incentive or disincentive, otherwise it may not be adhered to. One suggestion is that Councils should not be permitted to charge planning application fees if the development plan is out of date.
Warren Consultants: We note that the White Paper is proposing that Local Plans should only last for 5 years and presumably that means that after 5 years a Local Plan will no longer benefit from the Section 25 "primacy rule" but would simply be a material consideration. However, this approach is crude because it is in the nature of Local Plans that some policies will be robust for a long period and others will be very quickly obsolete. The removal of the primacy principle would mean that policies would stand or fall according to their natural authority. This is how things should be.
Academic Bodies
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: The realization that local plans are out of date and create uncertainty and inconsistency in planning decisions is not disputed. However in many cases the problems arise out of complex protocols through which planning proposals have to proceed.
University of Edinburgh: The UoE welcomes a statutory requirement to update development plans every five years. Although the requirement is statutory, what is not stated are the sanctions to be imposed where development plans are not updated within the statutory time-scale.
Universities Scotland: The need for planning authorities to update development plans every five years should be of greatest advantage as it is the out of date plans that cause confusion and delay. Although the requirement for only one proposed plan could speed up the development process, this could reduce the ability to object to allocations in the local plan.
Community Councils
Broughty Ferry Community Council: An up to date plan will reduce the opportunity for justifying contravention.
Currie Community Council: It is stated that 70% of Local Plans are over 5 years old. We do not consider this increases uncertainty either for local people or developers. The uncertainty arises when Local Authorities place more weight on unadopted modifications to Local Plans. A short Local Plan that is 15 years old may be substantially appropriate for present day use, more readily understood by local people (because it is more parochial) and may well be more concise. There is absolutely no doubt that "the planning system is out of touch with the local people it is supposed to serve", which is why a TPRA has been demanded. There is a considerable need for the Scottish Executive to modify the planning system to "reflect local views better". Consequently, we disagree that because a plan is over 5 years old it should be seen as out-of-date. It might need some slight adjustment. But as the White paper points out, the majority of Local Plans are significantly more mature than 5 years old so massive resources will be needed to overhaul them to the point where they have up to 5 years' life ahead of them. The "solution" appears to be that by having dramatically fewer Local Plans, each covering much larger areas, this target can be achieved, but in so doing, the individuality of community-sized Local Plans will be lost, rolled up into an administratively convenient Grand Plan that is no longer Local and that has little meaning for the communities it has to serve. It also means that administration of these enlarged Plans will be more centralized than before with less inclination by local people to stand out above a uniform mediocrity. The only way 5-year targets can be met is by a greater degree of generalization and more discretion placed in the hands of those charged with their administration. This does not represent an improvement in environmental control -even though it might represent financial savings to the Scottish Executive and to Planning Departments.
Earn Community Council: 5-year development plans, with wider public participation in their formulation, are welcome. Development proposals not complying with the 5-year plan should not be considered - in order to give the public more confidence in such plans.
Gatehouse of Fleet Community Council: The idea of replacing the development plans every 5 years seems to us to be creating a cycle of almost continuous review, which will be expensive and time-consuming. When one considers the time and effort spent in consultations, discussions, drafting etc, time can pass very quickly. The aim of creating an up to date relevant plan is to be applauded, however, we feel it will be a costly exercise
Grange-Howard Community Council: There is a measure of doubt about the proposal to review these plans on a five yearly basis. Given the speed of change in many fields it would seem better to subject the plan to constant review and earlier change if this is desirable and attainable after taking into account the various factors that would be affected. If desirable change can be accommodated earlier then the changes should be made after due process.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: The statutory proposals to require local authorities to update development plans on a 5 yearly basis receives our wholehearted support. Although most of the major urban authorities already undertake 5 yearly reviews, particularly since the adoption of unitary plans, many outlying areas and rural areas still use plans that are significantly out of date. We would however remind the executive that this is often down to financial and manpower constraints.
Milngavie Community Council: The emphasis on development plans is welcome and these should be publicly reviewed frequently. Unfortunately they seem to take 3 or 4 years to prepare, be open for examination and be approved and then apply for 5 years so that any provision may be about 10 years old when it is applied and by then it may not be wholly relevant and has probably been forgotten by the general public. It is difficult for lay-persons (and probably the planners too) to envisage the implications of particular propositions 10 years ahead and the requirement for one proposed plan, rather than consultative and final drafts should help.
The Royal Burgh of Cupar & District Community Council: There is a fear that the additional emphasis on the quicker production of development plans may be a pipe dream. It is difficult to see additional resources being made available in Fife when forward planning staff are already fully stretched.
Tillicoultry Community Council: It also is acceptable that Development Plans should be updated on a regular basis. The five-year cycle suggested is adequate but circumstances can change quickly and it could be that the Development Plans would be incongruous with such change. Hence there must be allowance for altering the Development Plans on an ad hoc basis if required.
Voluntary Organisations
General Trustees of the Church of Scotland: The Trustees support this proposal as it would end the current system whereby every Local Authority is effectively operating on its own individual review cycle. The new proposal gives applicants a regular opportunity to propose inclusion of land in development plans thus avoiding land being frozen out of development for too long a period.
Greenspace Scotland: This is essential to address the current situation where many local plans are well-past their review date. However, this welcome is caveated with the need to ensure that plan-making is given the right priority and is adequately resourced to ensure that the planning system can perform its function of guiding and shaping developments rather than becoming increasingly reactive.
Helensburgh Green Belt Group: Support for the update of the LDP every five years, but with the reservation that Green Belts should have a 20-~ear duration. (See draft SPP 21, recently released for consultation.) A sense of certainty and longevity to Green Belts is essential.
Helensburgh Study Group: We accept this However, as we see it, the programming will have to include at least the following: collection and dissemination of data/ advance involvement of community groups and the public in the preparation of the Main Issues Report not just consultation further collection of data following public involvement (as above) and then drafting of the Local Development Plan/ consultation on the LDP post-consultation negotiations with objectors/ examination of unresolved objections by SEIRU/ revised draft LDP/ public local inquiry/ finalisation. The implications for timetabling are substantial. It is more important to get the LOP right than to get it fast.
Peebles Civic Society: We agree that it is essential to keep development plans up-to-date and that therefore the requirement should be statutory. The enormous delays currently experienced create all sorts of problems. Whilst updating needs to be every 5 years, the plans themselves need to provide for the longer view - at least 10 years - to cater for eventual settlement capacity limitations and the consequent need for development phasing.
Portobello Campaign against the Superstore: The intention that planning authorities update development plans every five years after thorough consultation with their communities is a step forward to achieving some certainty for local residents and developers alike. It is a disgrace that successive administrations have allowed a local authority to work from a plan prepared in 1953. But what are the sanctions against a planning authority that does not adequately consult on or fails to update their plans regularly?
Shelter Scotland: The average age of a Development Plan in Scotland is 9 years old. In order for the new structure to work effectively and for the need for affordable housing to be identified, the commitment to and process for keeping Development Plans up to date should be monitored to ensure it is operating successfully.
St Andrews Preservation Trust: We very much welcome this decision. In St. Andrews we are working on a Local Plan that is now around eleven years old and the replacement plan will not appear until next year. In a town under development pressure this leads to a considerable number of problems not least the claim by developers that the plan was out of date and thus no longer relevant.
Scottish Civic Trust (and civic trust network): This is a welcome suggestion. There will need to be clarity in terms of the process for dealing with local authorities who do not keep plans up to date.
Scottish Wildlife Trust: Achieving a situation where all plans are up to date will require a considerable amount of new resources, if this is to involve genuine public participation and engagement. The form of many existing plans is not conducive to meeting the 5-year timescale. It is therefore likely that in the future plans will focus less on specific spatial allocations and more towards the provision of a broad policy framework. As a policy based approach offers less certainty but more flexibility, judging departures from the plan may become more problematic, especially where decisions contradict stated environmental aims. Certain protection policies for wildlife such as statutory or non statutory sites work in a spatial way and should remain part of plans and be shown on indicative maps. By putting in place up to date and properly resourced wildlife site systems Local Authorities will be able to speed up the plan making process and improve decision making. This will also have resource implications which must be addressed and not underestimated.
The Council for Scottish Archaeology: Much of the archaeological potential for understanding Scotland's past is currently unknown. New discoveries, such as crop mark sites, are uncovered every year and there would have to be a mechanism whereby development plans could have environmental and heritage information updated as it becomes available. If revisions to new plans in light of new environmental data were only possible every five years there would be a significant risk of the loss of important heritage information and resources. Online provision of plans would facilitate public access to this revised information.
Politicians and Political Groups
Scottish National Party: With reference to Strategic Development Plans Local Development Plans, it is welcome that the latter will be required to be updated at least every 5 years as many have fallen into disrepute. Local participation in these must be actively promoted and have clarity of content so that they can be relied on by the community.
« Previous | Contents | Next »