The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Two Stage Development Plans

Local Authorities

Aberdeen City Council: This proposal should be welcomed in terms of assisting the Plan to focus on the key issues and speeding up the process. Ongoing dialogue with the community will, however, be important to reduce objections on the final proposed plan as far as possible.

Angus Council: Recognising the balance between public involvement and speed, Angus Council has previously supported the removal of the consultative draft stage and replacement by early engagement on the key issues leading to the preparation of a single 'proposed plan' to which formal objections or expressions of support can be made. The inclusion of this within the White Paper is therefore welcomed.

Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: Early and targeted consultation on key issues determined by the Local Planning Authority is an important part however, the key focus should rightly be the 'proposed plan' at which stage objections or expressions of support can be made. Making the initial key issues stage too complicated would not contribute to improving the efficiency of the development plan system.

East Ayrshire Council: The requirement to prepare a single "Proposed Plan" is welcomed as the proposal will simplify the plan preparation process, while the need for greater public engagement follows the practice already adopted by the Council.

East Dunbartonshire Council: This appears to be in fundamental conflict with the requirements of SEA.

East Lothian Council : The suggestion that plans be prepared via a two stage process, an issues paper and a preferred plan, is not compatible with the view other parts of the Scottish Executive are taking on the point in the process at which Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA) is required. The advice available on SEA points clearly to the need for a consultation draft plan, i.e. a third stage in the process. The Executive must agree its position on this and provide councils with clear advice; advising councils to obtain legal opinion is not satisfactory.

East Renfrewshire Council: It is unclear as to how the key issues stage will inter-relate with the SEA process. This is unlikely to bring about a significant speeding up of the process.

Fife Council: This proposal is strongly supported but it relies on early and effective involvement at the issues (pre-proposed plan) stage. Fife Council has a strong track record of pre-plan consultation with community groups, the public, the business community and developers, meaning the requirement for a consultative draft is minimised. The increased emphasis on supplementary guidance instead of detail in plans and model national policies from the Scottish Executive will help ensure consistency and quality in policy plan preparation across Scotland. Removal of a stage will simplify and may speed up preparation. Some concern, however that unresolved objections will not be minimised if communities feel that they've missed something in the options stage (counter proposals). Needs clarification of how this will sit with the requirements of the SEA Directive, particularly in relation to consultation measures.

Glasgow City Council: Resolution is still required of the conflicting advice emanating from different sections in the SE with regard to development plan preparation and Strategic Environmental Assessment ( SEA) requirements. For City Plan 2, the Council has committed itself to the preparation of a Consultative Draft Plan because of the advice it received from the Scottish Executive on meeting the SEA process legal requirements; and Circular 2/2004 Strategic Environmental Assessment for Development Planning also appears to point to the need for a Consultative Draft stage (paragraph 27).

Inverclyde Council: This again is welcomed but still has the same resource and culture issue. However, as with the aim to make planning more inclusive, the proposal to replace the Consultative Draft by more intensive and targeted consultation probably requires more experienced and skilled practitioners and equally, has the potential to be very time consuming and therefore resource intensive.

Midlothian Council: When SEA was first introduced, it was intended that it be applied to the draft plan stage. Now that the draft plan stage is being dropped, it is understood that SEA will apply instead to the proposed key issues stage. Presumably, documentation for the key issues report should therefore include site specific information and options. The Executive should clarify what the SEA expectations are with respect to each stage. If the Environmental Report is to relate to the key issues stage, will it need updating for the proposed plan?

Moray Council: The removal of a draft Development Plan may not be more efficient than the present: it may result in more formal objections. There needs to be an informal testing of public reaction to proposals at an early stage. It has the advantage of allowing the Council to 'change its mind' without the rigours of an Inquiry.

North Ayrshire Council: The Scottish Executive should make provision for appropriate advice on member engagement in the local development plan process. The Scottish Executive should introduce measures to allow plans to be adopted with outstanding issues to be resolved later and included in an addendum.

Perth & Kinross Council: The dropping of the Draft Plan stage and the enhanced role of the issues paper may result in both time and financial savings although these may not perhaps be as significant as assumed by the Ministers. Bearing in mind one of the key aims of the reforms is to make the process more inclusive I would suggest the there is a need at the stage of the issues paper for a significant public consultation exercise, equivalent if not more extensive than currently carried out at the Draft Plan stage.

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. However the cumbersome plan preparation procedures would also require to be significantly altered and the proposals appear to go some way towards this with the abandonment of the draft plan stage and the other stated changes.

Scottish Borders Council: There is support for the proposal to remove the need for a consultative draft local plan. The extent to which this will speed up the process is however questionable as it may simply shift the focus of option appraisal and consultation to the "issues" stage of the plan. There is no objection in principle to the proposal to consult with statutory consultees and neighbours - including the need for neighbour notification for development plan proposals. These proposals will however slow down the process. As the public becomes ever more active and vocal in the planning process, so the number of representations and the time taken to resolve them will grow. Increasing amounts of officer time are being spent in dealing with representations rather than on plan preparation. These factors must be borne in mind by the Scottish Executive in respect of the 5 year target.

South Ayrshire Council: This is welcome and will assist greatly in reducing the length of time taken to adopt a development plan. In addition there are a number of other proposed changes to the development plan process, which whilst generally welcome will have a significant impact on resources and staff workload

South Lanarkshire Council: The proposals for the development plan process are broadly supported and will require a more 'project managed' approach to the production of the strategic development plans and local development plans and place a greater emphasis on the continual review of these documents. In turn it is anticipated that this will require additional resources to ensure that plans are continually reviewed and kept up to date. The move towards a single proposed plan is welcomed; however it appears that this does not accord with Scottish Executive legislation in relation to Strategic Environmental Assessment which requires the production of a consultative draft plan. Members will be aware that South Lanarkshire Council has had recent experience of this situation. As such this issue requires to be clarified.

West Lothian Council: This proposal is supported. The replacement of draft plans and finalised plans with a key issues report and a proposed plan should simplify the process and reduce preparation times. However, benefits here may be offset, to some extent, by the need for more frequent inquiries for local development plans (every five years), mandatory examinations for strategic development plans, and an additional stage in the local development plan process where authorities need to seek Ministerial approval to depart from the reporter's recommendation. The proposals are also contrary to the current Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations, in that these regulations require the preparation of draft plans. This issue will have to be resolved as part of the process

Other LA Organisations

Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan Joint Liaison Committee ( ELSPJLC): This proposal is supported, although there is some concern that the benefits may, to some extent, be offset by the need for more frequent inquiries, mandatory examinations and the additional stage where councils must seek Ministerial approval to depart from a reporter's recommendations. The implications of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations are a particular concern in this regard. While a key issues report followed by a single proposed plan is supported, the ELSPJLC cannot presently envisage how this can be consistent with the SEA Regulations. Given that these require the preparation of draft plans, there is a concern that a key issues report may not be able to provide the required level of site specific detail to allow effective engagement in the SEA process at that stage. Furthermore, if the proposed plan departs in any significant way from the key issues report, then there is an argument that the Environmental Report should be updated for the proposed plan. If that proves to be the case then this would have a significant impact on plan preparation timescales. The ELSPJLC requests that these matters be clarified.

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee:

The basic argument underlying this move is that a six month publication, consultation, synthesis and reporting stage is deleted from the preparation process when the current Consultative Draft stage is removed. The argument then runs that Strategic Development Plan Authorities ( SDPAs), like the Joint Committee, can move directly to a Finalised Plan, which then triggers the full consultation and objections stage. The White Paper acknowledges that this step may raise accusations of inconsistency with its objectives of greater inclusion and therefore proposes alternative mechanisms. This mechanism is intended to place greater weight upon a 'Key Issues' stage with 'early engagement'. In effect, this accords with the actions of the Joint Committee on its current 2005 Plan, where the process was founded on a 'Key Issues' publication and early rounds of targeted consultation. Yet it remains an issue for the Executive and SDPA as to the scale and intensity of that 'early engagement' following the removal of the Consultative Draft stage. The White Paper gives little guidance in this respect. In reality, however, the deletion of the Consultative Draft stage will be offset by the introduction of a mandatory EIP and all the issues associated with what is effectively a large scale Inquiry process. This inevitably makes considerable demands upon staff and time resources, let alone organising the actual process of the EIP. In practice, it is considered that the proposed new system will not shorten the process of preparing a Plan; it will simply substitute effort at an early stage with that at a later stage.

Non Departmental Public Bodies

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: We consider that this will speed up the preparation process as well as improving clarity. Speed should not, however, be at the expense of effective participation and consultation. The "draft plan" stage under current arrangements does provide a useful stage for ironing out policy coverage and/or wordings or proposals in the plan. SEPA has therefore found this stage useful in the past. We accept though that this has been at the price of lengthy plan preparation. It would be useful if the proposed key issues report could partly fill this role by providing clear indication of proposed policy areas and direction. This will help stakeholders like SEPA to engage early in the process. It will likely be necessary through Executive guidance to set out the steps required for "targeted consultation" and the matters which qualify as "key issues".

Sportscotland: If there is to be quicker drafting of plans and just one draft pan for consultation and objection, then it is even more important that proper in-depth consultation takes place at the key issues stage. It will be vital that a range of supporting strategies are available to feed into the development plan at this stage, such as open space, playing field and sports and recreation strategies. There might also be a place for such strategies to form part of the supplementary guidance.

Development Industry

Bett Homes: The White Paper proposes to streamline the plan preparation process by promoting a shorter and more focused plan preparation process, which would involve only one finalised plan for comment. This is a proposal that Bett Homes would support.

James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): The current system of development plan preparation can and does take a significant number of years with the net result that many plans are in need of review as soon as they are adopted. These new proposed procedures should go some way to alleviating this situation.

Other Businesses

Association of Electricity Producers: We also endorse the proposal to remove consultative drafts with a single proposed plan. The proposal for the Scottish Ministers to produce guidance on model policies is also helpful and should reduce plan preparation times.

British Energy: The proposal to introduce a single development plan is to be welcomed. It will provide a clearer reference point for all parties. However the challenge will be to combine local and structure plan policies into a coherent single plan.

Scottish Rural Property & Business Association: The Development Plan Scheme will set the programme for producing and reviewing the plans. This must be a statutory timescale, with penalties for failure to perform. There must be a meaningful sanction imposed upon local authorities that fail to meet the five year deadline - proportionate to length of delay. Otherwise the requirement for up to date plans will not have teeth and there is the risk that the mistakes of the past will be repeated. All local authorities must start with a level playing field through a statutory requirement to get their development plans updated within say 2 years from Royal Assent. It must be recognised that this will entail a one-off injection of funds at the outset of the new Planning Act over and above the additional resources earmarked in the current Planning and Development Budget.

Professional Organisations

RTPI Scotland: We fully support the emphasis on a key issues report stage. This should achieve a number of important objectives: -

SSDP: The Society fully agrees with the need to produce simpler and consistently up to date local plans. However a number of factors need to be taken into consideration in achieving this aim.

• The Scottish Executive must appreciate that the local plan process may be dependent on the characteristics of the local authority in respect of size and geography.
• Similarly there must be an understanding that local plan preparation and adoption will inevitably be subject to localised political situations.
• There requires to be a better definition of the reporter's function in the local plan process to allow local authorities to focus on the better management and programming of a local plan adoption.
• It is felt that there should be no requirement for local authorities to accept the reporter's recommendation per se, and that there should be a requirement for reporters to justify their decisions with evidence of the need to change the local plan proposals.

Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers

GVA Grimley LLP: The reduction of plan preparation time through publication of one proposed plan only, by amalgamating the draft and consultation draft stages, is strongly encouraged. More focus on a singular plan rather than on several versions, will assist in achieving the Executive's aims to increase public participation in development planning, as well as serve a role in raising general awareness of planning.

Turley Associates: The White Paper's proposals to speed up plan preparation are supported insofar as they go. Engagement in the context of a 'key issues' stage followed by a single 'proposed plan' that is subject to formal objection strikes the right balance between participation and scrutiny.

Warren Consultants: We do not agree however, with getting rid of consultation drafts of Development Plans. We commend the approach, for example, of South Lanarkshire Council which having decided initially not to have the consultation draft of its Local Plan, has now decided to do so because of the SEA regulations. It is the SEA regulations that have made all the difference because if the plan has to be subject to the SEA appraisal then there is merit in having a consultation draft and for the SEA being applied to all of the proposals. The proposed South Lanarkshire approach is also good for public participation because it means that all of the proposals are subject to public scrutiny right from the outset.

Community Councils

Broughty Ferry Community Council: The title "Proposed Plan" is preferable to misnomers such as "Finalised Plan".

Currie Community Council: It would be helpful to know at what stages the process of creating the Development Plan would be advertised for public scrutiny. It appears that there are two stages. We approve of any document being written in plain English. That also applies to some of the more impenetrable parts and jargon in this document! For example "unilateral obligations" (page 71) only receives a partial explanation on page 78. It is not clear how documents requiring a signature (which implies a "top copy") can be processed electronically.

Knightswood North Templar Community Council : Whilst the proposals to allow early engagement around key issues does provide some opportunities for communities to comment on and influence the content of local plans, 'key issues' tend to be identified by local authorities and not communities. Likewise, the removal of a second draft stage significantly removes the potential for local communities to influence the content, proposals and policies contained within the final adopted plan. Given the number of objections and representations received by local authorities in response to second drafts, it is highly unlikely that any conflicts will be resolved after a single draft.

Largo Area Community Council: It is considered the proposal to have only one plan to replace the current two stages of draft and finalized plan will reduce the opportunity of consultation with Community Councils and local communities. It is also considered that the present local Plan consultation helps to establish a consensus and should be maintained. It should be the duty of local Authorities to listen to objections as a result of consultation not aim to reduce objections in themselves.

Portobello Community Council (and Amenity Society): The new procedures will, it is stated, "ensure public participation in the formation of development plans" yet development plans will no longer go through draft and final versions, but will be speeded up, with a report on key issues followed by a proposed plan. This would allow groups such as community councils, which meet only once a month, less time to present the report at a meeting, circulate copies to interested members, collate views and submit a response within a time limit. "Key issues" might miss out local detail that local people will be aware of and need to consider.

Voluntary Organisations

Friends of the Earth Scotland: If simplification of local plans is to be constructive, the nature and scope of remaining local plan consultation must be enhanced to enable wide participation.

Galloway Preservation Society: We see involvement of Galloway Preservation Society with the planning systems in Local Plans. Draft plans are complex documents and make comment difficult. We would prefer consultations to take place at pre-draft stage for positive input from Galloway Preservation Society. Attendance at Local Inquiry is too cumbersome and expensive.

Greenspace Scotland: We strongly agree that involvement needs to happen "at the front end of the process" (page 14). The text indicates that this is in the production of the development plan, we consider that engagement needs to happen at the earliest possible stage and in our view this should be in identifying the key issues that are included in the key issues report.

Helensburgh Green Belt Group: The HGBG would support replacing the Consultative Draft Local Plan with a 'Report on Key Issues' or 'Main Issues Report' as long as a clear system of local community involvement at an early stage is introduced. We also suggest that its title is confirmed as 'Main Issues Report' and that it is developed in conjunction with communities well in advance of the Draft Local Development Plan ( LDP) and is not treated as a trivial exercise of superficial 'consultation'.

Helensburgh Study Group: We support that since we think that the delays, costs and tensions caused by Consultative Drafts have not been worthwhile. The abolition of consultative drafts would therefore be right as long as greater openness and genuine interactive involvement are introduced at an early stage, both before the Main Issues Report and before and after the draft Local Development Plan.

Peebles Civic Society: It is difficult to see how the proposal to replace the present system of consultative and finalised versions of structure and local plans with one draft of a single tier development plan is compatible with the proposal to ensure wide participation in the formulation of development plans. Before the draft there would be no firm basis for consultation, and amendments resulting from comments on the draft would presumably need to go towards producing the finalised plan which would be subject to appeal. In a plan led system it would be essential to have sufficient consultation about the detailed provisions.

Scottish Civic Trust (and Civic Trust Network): Should be adequate provision for participation and scrutiny. Need very clear policy guidance on the preparation of scooping reports/ issues papers as these will be key in getting community involvement.

« Previous | Contents | Next »