« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Approval in Principle conferred by Development Plans
Local Authorities
Aberdeen City Council: This underlines the crucial importance of detailed consultation in particular with statutory consultees at the plan preparation stage. This may have education and resource implications for other public bodies. Following engagement, it may be useful if there is a requirement for public bodies to align their plans.
Argyll & Bute Council: Clarification needs to be sought with regard to the extent of the removal of the current provision of outline planning permission. Notwithstanding this it is considered that there should be a revised prescribed minimum for outline permission rather than the "basic site edged red". This would be to take into account design statements, landscape assessments, SUDS schemes, access standards, drainage arrangements, private water supplies, layouts, safety by design and open space requirements. These requirements impact to greater or lesser degrees on even one or two house developments, but significantly impact on five or greater house proposals and certainly on commercial/industrial applications.
City of Edinburgh Council: It is too simplistic to suggest that allocating a site in a local development plan for a use or mix of uses will be a sufficient basis on which a developer will prepare a detailed planning proposal or can enter into land acquisition contracts. The investment programme needs to be nurtured and increasingly involves planning authorities working with developers and landowners to prepare masterplans and development frameworks. This issue has been addressed in the Planning reforms in England and has been subject to further consultation in recent months. The proposed changes in England would allow applications for outline planning permission if they include additional details such as the quantum of development, the indicative layout, scale parameters and indicative site access points. Additionally they would include design and access statements which allow development principles to the subsequent detailed designs. This is not the same as that required for full planning permission but can still permit meaningful community involvement, without committing an applicant to the resource implications of a detailed planning application at that stage. The Council's support is given to continued provision to allow applications for outline planning permission to provide certainty for developers of major schemes. Specifications of minimum information requirements should be made in order that "red-lining" of sites is defined as incompatible with early community consultation.
Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: The proposal that the allocation of a site in a Local Development Plan would indicate 'approval in principle' (akin to outline consent) is a welcome step in speeding up the planning process.
Dundee City Council: The Council doubts whether this will be effective. Outline planning permission is an effective way of the planning authority setting out its detailed "ground rules" for the future consideration of reserved matters applications by way of conditions and legal agreement. Applicants also welcome a certificate of outline planning permission as contractual documents facilitating valuation and land/ property transactions. It is doubtful if local development plan allocations, policies and reasoned justifications could ever be definitive enough to serve these purposes.
East Dunbartonshire Council: It is acknowledged in many cases that outline planning applications serve little purpose other than allowing developers to meet contractual targets. Planning Authorities will however need to consider how this gap in understanding of site potential can be filled and there will probably be a considerably increased role for site development briefs. This will place a significant workload burden on Councils wishing to see development proceed at key sites.
East Lothian Council: The proposal to remove the provision allowing applications for outline planning permission has much to commend it. Further thought is, however, required to cater for the small number of unforeseen developments that justify a departure from the development plan; a recent example in East Lothian is the re-location of Queen Margaret University College. A mechanism will need to be identified that can test the acceptability of the principle, it is unrealistic to expect developers to go direct to the expense of preparing an application for full planning permission without any comfort that the proposal will obtain planning permission.
Falkirk Council: This proposal is thought to be worthy of support although further investigation of the implications is needed. Sufficient information would have to be provided by the statutory consultees at the preparation stage of the plan to allow this work effectively. This suggests that supporting information normally requested of applicants will have to be provided by the planning authority. This could incur considerable costs. Additionally, the position of any statutory consultees in relation to the site would not be able to change between the plan being published and any subsequent planning application being received. If this did happen the approval in principle would no longer apply as the circumstances under which the plan was prepared would have changed. One example of this could be where a number of windfall opportunities have been developed in the vicinity prior to an application on an allocated site being received and their cumulative impact has resulted in infrastructure capacity problems. Other instances where outline permissions may still be desirable are, for example, for windfall developments within an urban area.
Glasgow City Council: This proposal would have major implications. The development policy principles in City Plan 1 were fairly broad brush. This approach to the designation of land was recently supported by the Scottish Executive. Unless very specific designations are incorporated into City Plan 2, residential development (for example) could be construed to be acceptable, in principle, on local greenspace within a development area. The Council considers that the proposed approach to using land designations as the basis for deeming development to be acceptable in principle would not work in urban areas with complex land-uses. In addition, this proposal could prove unpopular with developers who can require an outline planning consent in order to secure the necessary funding for their proposal. Consequently, this proposal is not supported and the SE is requested to reconsider the measure.
Inverclyde Council: At present a Local Plan allocation of a site for a clearly specified purpose should effectively indicate approval in principal. When it is combined with the fuller public participation and involvement envisaged, including the proposed neighbour notification of site-specific proposals in local development plans, then this gives a stronger indication of the acceptability of the type of development. At the planning application stage the principle of development should not be an issue if it is in accordance with the Local Plan. However, this is not perhaps as straightforward if the site is designated as 'mixed use', as is increasingly the case in areas under going change where the exact mix of uses has correctly not been identified at the Plan preparation stage. In such situations it would still be appropriate to submit an outline planning application. Ironically, this "mixed use" designation is being used more often in local plans in order to retain greater flexibility and to achieve quicker plan preparation times.
Midlothian Council: The concept that outline planning permission is no longer required for sites for which the principle of development has been established in the adopted local plan can be supported. However, there is a concern that the Executive has not thought through sufficiently the proposal to scrap outline applications. There are a great number of new proposals that come forward and are worthy of consideration, even though they had not been anticipated in the development plan. For these applications, it is extremely important that the option of an outline application is retained, as they need to establish that the principle of development is acceptable on the site before incurring considerable expense on a detailed application. The Executive must review this proposal, as it risks curbing the many windfall developments that come through the system. Removal of outline planning permission could also result in a marked drop in fee income.
North Lanarkshire Council: The proposal to remove 'outline' permissions will need to be carefully considered. Outline permission is sought in order to give a certainty to proposals for specific sites. Unless Development Plans are to be quite specific in terms of constraints, design parameters and developer contributions for all sites that there will be uncertainties about the extent of development that could be expected to take place on a site. There may be particular uncertainties where development plans indicate that mixed uses may be acceptable. From the section on Form and Content, the White paper does not appear to anticipate that development plans will carry such a level of detail. While supplementary guidance should be helpful, it would not provide as firm an indication of likely development as an outline permission.
Renfrewshire Council: Opposed to this proposal. While it is accepted that in many small scale and straightforward developments an allocation for a specific use in the development plan would suffice as planning permission in principle, the same would not apply to larger scale, more complex developments that raise a number of different issues. At present an outline planning application allows a developer to establish the acceptance of his proposal not only in terms of development plan policy regarding land use but also possibly the arrangement of these uses based on a master plan, traffic generation, water and drainage proposals, contamination and ground conditions. An outline application allows issues such as these to be examined and approved without the necessity of the submission of detailed drawings for the site layout, building design, roads, landscaping etc. The Council regards the option of an outline planning application as essential to both the developer and the planning authority and should therefore be retained.
Shetland Islands Council's (interim response): We have a serious concern about the suggestion that there may no longer be a need for outline planning applications. We agree that, in an ideal world, every site identified for development in a Local Development Plan would have been thoroughly examined and passed as fit, in a technical sense, for development. However, this approach is frankly unworkable in remoter rural and crofting areas. We must clearly offer guidance as to where development is likely to be acceptable and where it is unlikely to be so, and our solution to that, in relation to housing development, has been the development of a system of indicative zoning. However, it is impossible to be sure that every parcel of land within a large zone will be suitable, in all respects, for such development. There should continue to be an option for a developer to submit an application in outline in order to allow technical matters to be assessed before the applicant goes to the trouble and expense of preparing detailed drawings for the development. The proposal to remove outline applications may also conflict with the spirit of flexibility inherent in PAN 72 Housing in the Countryside and PAN 73 Rural Diversification. We also have concerns that the absence of an outline procedure might make it more difficult to implement, in a flexible and sensible way, the proposed new legislation enabling the creation of new crofts. We have not examined how the absence of scope for outline applications would interact with the provisions of the Water Framework Directive, but that may well be another relevant consideration.
West Dunbartonshire Council: Outline planning permission is seen by many developers as a necessary or desirable determination even in instances where the current development plan gives a clear indication that the proposal would be acceptable in principle. From the planning authority's point of view there is no real issue with this proposal provided it is clear to all that there may be outstanding matters such as land contamination, transportation issues or similar constraints which have not been by any means fully addressed in the plan preparation and if they cannot be resolved then refusal may follow
West Lothian Council: This proposal is supported in principle, although it is not clear that the allocation will remove the need for an outline planning application, particularly in mixed use developments or for key developments such as significant floorspace extensions with shopping centres / town centres. In such cases the principle of retail use will have been established, but the scale and local arrangements (access, transportation, etc.) may still require to be tested in outline before a full application is submitted. This would not be possible if the proposals are implemented. In addition, there should be a mechanism for submitting outline applications where the development plan is out of date, where national planning policy is amended and where there is a major inward investment opportunity. In these instances, the local authority and the developers may wish to establish the principle of development without the delay and expense of preparing detailed proposals.
Non Departmental Public Bodies
Health & Safety Executive: We support the proposal to indicate the uses of land in the development plan subject to the caveat that the use of land is accepted provided that account has been taken of its impact on or the impact of MAH sites in the vicinity
Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian: This amendment will also save time taken with processing planning applications. This gives the Development Plan allocations much more significance.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Can see both positive and negative aspects to this proposal. While there are certainly benefits in terms of better certainty in development plans and a clearer process for consenting, SEPA does have some concerns about how this proposal may work in practice: 1. Information - Given the weight that will be given to allocated sites under this proposal, this will require planning authorities and statutory consultees like SEPA to be completely aware of the environmental (and other) effects that development on a particular site may have. To do this, the planning authorities may require greater levels of information about each site than is perhaps the case currently. We note that this proposal will not apply to projects requiring EIA. We support this, but would caution that there may well be other non EIA sites with potentially significant environmental effects (such as the flood risk that may be given the status of "principle accepted" without due regard to environmental effects. It should be made absolutely clear to planning authorities that when allocating sites they should do so with appropriate levels of information about the effects of development of that site. When consulted on a plan that identifies sites where the impacts are uncertain, SEPA will adopt a precautionary approach and use its powers to object on that basis.
2. Resources - The implication of this is that planning authorities and consultees like SEPA will be required to look at every single land allocation in development plans to assess the potential environmental effects. SEPA will need to ensure that it is content that, in environmental terms, each allocation is suitable. While this amount of rigour is wholeheartedly supported, it is resource intensive and will place a significant burden on SEPA to deliver. While SEPA will need to understand further the potential effect of this proposal on our business, we may well require new resources for such work. For sites to be properly assessed prior to identification this may well also require additional resource input from planning authorities.
3. Outline Permission - It is not clear from the White Paper whether outline planning consent is being replaced completely. SEPA has expressed many concerns about the use of outline consent and its implications for effective environmental protection. Again, further clarification of the Executive's intentions in this regard would be helpful. Overall, SEPA is most concerned that sites may be approved in principle without due consideration of their environmental effect and, accordingly, SEPA does not feel able to support this proposal unless appropriate mechanisms are put into place to ensure that proper consideration is given.
Scottish Natural Heritage: The proposed 'approval in principle' in development plans could greatly expedite the planning process. We agree strongly that it should not extend to developments requiring EIA. We see it as essential, moreover, that developments falling within the 'approval in principle' provision are handled in such a way as to avoid granting planning permission until sufficient detail is available to allow their environmental impacts to be fully assessed. The Bill would provide an opportunity to address this by indicating that in these instances, applications for full planning consent will be required in order to establish the acceptability of proposals and their compliance with the development plan. By extension of this reasoning, similar principles should also apply to developments which may affect Natura 2000 sites, to ensure that these are fully subject to 'appropriate assessments' as required by the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994.
Scottish Water: Would seek flexibility in this respect as the majority of our existing assets do not benefit from specific development plan designation and planning applications for the upgrading of existing sites are regularly considered by planning authorities to be development plan departures ( e.g. in terms of green belt and countryside policies). In this respect we would welcome the non-spatial application of "approval in principle" by means of model policies with presumption in favour of development. We would support this proposal to the extent that any development on existing Scottish Water operational land would be approved in principle.
Other Public Bodies
Central Scotland Forest Trust:CSFT supports this proposal, which should save time and resources for planning departments. Its success will depend on keeping development plans up to date.
Strathclyde Passenger Transport: Unsure whether this would provide a level of comfort expected by developers. While the approach appears to offer the promise of streamlining, developers have traditionally valued permissions in principle so as to have the confidence to pay for investigations which can be costly, i.e. test bores, utilities checks, feasibility studies and so on. Whether sufficient comfort can be provided by a planning authority in its development plan is a moot point. It is likely that developers of major developments would still wish to have an approval in principle. The granting of permission would provide a clear indication of the local authority's views on the site and, in particular, is likely to provide the range of conditions which reflect the unique characteristics of the site. This would allow developers to focus on what is expected of them to proceed more quickly and in greater comfort in terms of cost and time
The Development Industry
Bett Homes: Bett Homes strongly support this approach and believe that such an approach would reflect the original intention of primary legislation relating to outline planning permissions. The White Paper is however silent on how this proposal would be implemented and if this approach were to be adopted Bett Homes believe it is important for the Planning Authority to publish design briefs to consider issues such as number of units, density, design etc for the adopted sites in the Local Plan. It would also be important that an approval in principle would have a statutory basis.
Dawn Homes Limited: We are opposed to the loss of outline planning consents because it is a vitally important aspect to potential investors' confidence in pursuing matters further through to a detailed planning stage. With regard to large scale residential development led by a masterplan approach, as correctly desired by the Scottish Executive, it is indeed hard to envisage how development can proceed without a masterplan approved at the outline planning stage.
Elphinstone Land: Whilst we welcome the "approval in principle" for specific sites as part of the Local Development Plan process it is our view that this should be in addition to, and not a replacement for the option of obtaining outline planning consent. It is not clear how windfall sites (those not included in the development plan) would be dealt with under such a system since some proposals are simply too complex to be dealt with solely by means of a detailed application. Also, outline consent established land values and can be used developers to raise funds. It is therefore an essential part of the development process and needs to be retained.
Glasgow Harbour Ltd ( GHL): Does not support approval in principle in the development plan and request that it is withdrawn for the following reasons. Firstly, the achievement of an outline planning consent is a recognised milestone in the development process. It is often the case that developers obtain an outline planning consent to enable the necessary funding to be put in place for a project. The cost and time involved in the preparation of an application for outline planning permission is often considerably less than that of an application for full planning permission. Secondly, recent local plans, such as the Glasgow City Local Plan, have adopted a development policy principles approach in which the allocation can cover a number of different land uses. Such an approach has been seen as best practice in recent times. This approach would require to be completely overhauled if the Scottish Executive's proposals were to be implemented. Thirdly, we do not consider that this proposal would operate successfully for complex mixed use schemes. It should be noted that the proposal to remove outline planning permission was withdrawn from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in England.
Grosvenor Investments: We feel that this would not be a useful change as the process of achieving outline consent is very helpful to draw out strategic issues. Apart from use, outline consent allows agreement of layout, heights, massing, car parking, affordable housing and other planning gain, etc, while leaving the detailed design of individual buildings for reserved matters approval later. For a development that spans 10 years or more, it neither is appropriate or practical to design buildings for planning consent years ahead of construction.
Homes for Scotland: We welcome the proposal that allocation of a site in a development plan will indicate that the principle of development for a particular use has been accepted on a site. This should, in particular circumstances, deliver speedier planning decisions. But this new provision can only apply in the case of proposals which conform to the development plan. This presumption is likely to be undermined by the frequent and increasing reliance on housing land audits for housing land supply and development plan purposes on windfall sites, often based on past annual contributions to the land supply rather than an objective assessment of future supply. Consequently, a legislative provision to provide for approval in principle should be additional to, not in place of, outline planning applications. Where development plans are more than 5 years old, the submission and granting of outline planning permission should remain acceptable. Even in the case of conforming applications, some pre-detailed application procedure will be required. Planning gain matters are also usually dealt with at the outline stage on major sites and agreement on planning gain at an early stage avoids increasing incremental burdens being placed on developers over time. Likewise, unless the development plan provides for the reuse of, say, PFI school sites for housing, then such windfall sites will be subject to an outline planning application.
Additionally, many major applications are too large to deal with wholly at the detailed stage. Indeed, without an outline application it may not be possible to master plan a large site like Ravenscraig where the generation of value through outline planning permission is an important part of the regeneration process. An outline planning permission establishes value and enables developers to raise funds for development.
James Barr Ltd (on behalf of various development industry businesses): The proposed introduction of an 'Approval in principle' in development plans seems to provide the justification for the proposed abolishment of outline planning applications. The reasoning and benefits of this approach seem to be lacking in the White Paper, as is a proper explanation of why the current procedure of outline planning applications is no longer deemed appropriate. While the primacy of the development plan in the decision making process is supported and acknowledged, one of the current benefits of the current system is its flexibility to react to changing circumstances and the fact that it allows full and proper consideration of schemes that do not necessarily accord with the provisions of the development plan, but where it is considered that material considerations justify an exception to established policy. In practice only through the submission of a planning application will the finer aspects of a particular land use be able to be assessed and therefore the overall acceptability of a particular use determined. The submission of outline planning applications is often the preferred and most logical means of a developer trying to establish the acceptability in principle of a use on an unallocated site, giving early consideration to key issues such as access, traffic generation, drainage arrangements etc with certain matters such as detailed design reserved for subsequent approval. This level of assessment clearly cannot take place in the preparation of a new development plan and to expect applicants to test the acceptability of a particular use every time through the submission of a detailed planning application is unreasonable. Withdrawal of the outline planning application process would also unreasonably require applicants to incur significant expenditure in preparing a full planning application (which under the current proposals needs to be even more detailed than at present, to allow for the possibility of an appeal) prior to the principle of the use having first been established. Such a move would effectively remove any remaining flexibility in the system, which is advocated as one of the strengths of the system in SPP1 (paragraph 5), and effectively render the modified development management system a simple administrative exercise.
Mactaggart and Mickel Ltd: The suggestion of approval in principle of developments which accord with the development plan's proposals are entirely logical when the system as envisaged is up and running. However, as indicated, the interim stage is extremely worrying while the 'culture change' is being sought.
Manor Kingdom Group: We welcome the proposal that allocation of a site in a development plan will indicate that the principle of development for a particular use has been accepted on a site. This presumption is likely to be undermined by the frequent and increasing reliance in housing land audits for housing land supply and development plan purposes on windfall sites, often based on past annual contributions to the land supply rather than an objective assessment of future supply. This non-planning approach must be stopped if the continuing primacy of Development Plans is to have support as it runs counter to a plan-led approach. An outline planning permission establishes value and enables developers to raise funds for development. Outline planning permission therefore plays an essential role in the operation of the land market. It also enables phasing and infrastructure issues to be resolved and that this concept should be retained.
Persimmon Homes: This proposal may save on the requirement for an additional outline planning application. The concern would be if this resulted in more onerous requirements from LAs at the Local Plan preparation stage with resulting cost implications on a site which might then not proceed to be allocated within the Plan.
Scottish Retail Property Ltd: We are against the proposal in the White Paper to remove the need to obtain outline planning consent where the application site has been allocated for the proposed use in the development plan. In progressing our own retail development proposals, the obtaining of outline consent is imperative in order to enable us to proceed with tenant negotiation with confidence. The preparation and submission of a detailed planning application involves considerable design fees and other costs and so going straight to a detailed application could be a significant financial risk for property companies such as ourselves.
Stewart Milne Holdings: We are firmly of the view that the outline planning application status should be retained within the emerging new planning legislation given the importance of this stage in the planning process. Indeed, we would strongly support the view held by Homes for that the outline planning permission stage not only plays an essential role in the operation of the land market by establishing value, but also enables local authorities to clearly define the level, context and phasing of Planning Gain associated with large scale strategic proposals
Stewart Milne Homes: We do not support the proposal to remove the right to apply for outline planning consent. Many major applications are too large to deal with at the detailed stage. It is imperative that the outline stage is retained in order to agree a masterplan, phasing and resolve infrastructure issues. It also allows planning gain to be agreed at an early stage. Furthermore, although there is an undertaking to review plans every five years, changes do occur at a faster rate and accordingly it will be necessary to establish the principle of development of windfall sites with outline planning applications in the intervening period.
Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd: "Approval in principle" is not the solution to deliver speedier planning decisions. This new provision will only be relevant in the case of proposals which conform to the development plan. Approval in principle should be additional to, not in place of, outline planning applications. We have serious concerns as to how possible windfall sites would be dealt with, if they were not in accordance with the development plan. By their very nature, windfall sites are unlikely to be identified in the development plan and certainly not in out of date plans. Failure to maintain up to date development plans could also result in many proposals being "filtered out" of the appeal process on the basis that they were contrary to the development plan. The consequences of a failure on the delivery of windfall sites would be a shortfall in the housing land supply.
Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd: The proposal to remove the need for an outline planning consent and move straight to a full application when a development plan is approved is welcome. There are circumstances at Waterfront Granton, where in the absence of an approved development plan, but with approved supplementary planning guidance, that there could be approval in principle. It would be beneficial and is an area where the White Paper is unclear
Other Businesses
ASDA: This proposal appears to ignore the fact that there are many legitimate reasons why outline planning permission is useful. It would also remove an important advantage that the Scottish Planning system has which is the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. For this proposal to work, it would be necessary for up-to-date development plans to be in place and for these to be kept up-to-date. Even then many local plan "zones" allow for a variety of uses rather than one single use. Furthermore, it is unclear how this system would easily be applied to mixed use development.
Forth Ports PLC: Seek clarification on the issue of 'approval in principle' in the White Paper. The reference in the White Paper is unclear and will fail to address the key requirement for certainty in the planning process. The right of an applicant to choose to submit an outline planning application must be retained in the Planning Bill to ensure that the flexibility afforded by this route continues.
Scottish Rural Property & Business Association: We support the idea of "approval in principle" for particular sites identified within the local development plan. However, this mechanism should not prevent development in rural areas, in which by their nature, sites could not all be identified at the development plan stage. Outline planning permission must therefore remain for use in specific circumstances where the "approval in principle" mechanism cannot apply.
Tesco Stores Ltd: We support the "approval in principle" of sites allocated in development plans as a way of speeding up the system, and giving greater certainty to applicants.
The Buchanan Partnership: The Buchanan Partnership believes efficiencies should focus on the 'front end' of the planning process prior to decision making, rather than changing the longer time period which is available post decision making (for appeal and in relation to the duration of planning permission).
Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd ( USS): Does not support approval in principle in the development plan and request that it is withdrawn for the following reasons. Firstly, the achievement of an outline planning consent is a recognised milestone in the development process. It is often the case that developers obtain an outline planning consent to enable the necessary funding to be put in place for a project. The cost and time involved in the preparation of an application for outline planning permission is often considerably less than that of an application for full planning permission. Secondly, recent local plans, such as the Glasgow City Local Plan, have adopted a development policy principles approach in which the allocation can cover a number of different land uses. Such an approach has been seen as best practice in recent times. This approach would require to be completely overhauled if the Scottish Executive's proposals were to be implemented. Thirdly, we do not consider that this proposal would operate successfully for complex mixed use schemes. It should be noted that the proposal to remove outline planning permission was withdrawn from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in England.
WBB Minerals: The principle of site allocations in development plans is supported, however to exclude site allocations for EIA developments is contrary to the principles of minerals planning. Site allocations are clearly appropriate for maintaining a steady and adequate supply of minerals to meet the requirements of society and ensure economic growth. Such allocations also have environmental benefits in allowing appropriate screen planting to be planted in advance of a development proposal. However, most if not all minerals developments are EIA developments and surety is needed in the proper planning for minerals.
Professional Organisations
Association of Regional and Island Archaeologists:ARIA supports the proposal to remove the provision for outline planning permission, as the lack of a fully detailed application can often make it very difficult to assess the full impact of a proposal on the historic environment, and outline applications should not be allowed to be submitted in relation to known archaeological resources in particular. We note that the ability to accept the principle of the use allocated in the development plan would not extend to developments that require Environmental Impact Assessment, which we would also welcome. We would however draw attention to the fact that not all developments which require prior archaeological evaluation, for example by trial trenching, would necessary qualify for EIA. Under the new proposals, consent could only be conferred in principle via the development plan, if prior archaeological evaluation of the allocated areas had already taken place. This is at variance with the guidance in NPPG 5 and PAN 42 which places the responsibility for this evaluation squarely on the prospective developer. ARIA has concerns about how the proposal to confer consent in principle will mesh with the current policy guidance in NPPG 5 and PAN 42; whether the local authorities will be expected to have done the evaluation in advance of allocation in local plans which would be a fundamental shift away from the "polluter pays" principle and also a burden on local authority financial resources. This proposal may eventually lead to the policy of preservation in situ of finite archaeological resources being superseded by a policy of preservation by record only, which is currently seen as the second best option in NPPG 5.
Institute of Civil Engineers Scotland: This is welcome as many outline applications have effectively had to be prepared in detail to cater for transport and drainage impact assessments
SSDP: While the Society acknowledges the value in giving greater credence to development plan allocations thus minimising the need for outline planning applications it feels that the principle of outline planning permission should be retained as a mechanism for securing windfall development and economic investment.
The Faculty of Advocates: The white paper makes much of increasing the public's participation in the preparation of the development plan. But we doubt the proposals intend to provide the equivalent of a formal neighbour notification as would be the case in an outline planning application. However, once the development plan is adopted, it is proposed that there be in effect an outline planning permission in favour of the zoned use. This means that neighbours will not have had the formal notification to which they are presently entitled in an outline application. This may be convenient to planning authorities and developers, but is likely to be at the expense of individual potential objectors. We believe the Executive is running the risk of Article 6 challenge. If 'notable neighbours' are not specifically notified of specific proposals (or 'objections') in the sense of a proposed new zoning, it is not difficult to conceive of arguments that the plan is contrary to the rules of natural justice. Certainly the proposal amounts to erosion of existing rights of the individual.
The Law Society of Scotland: The proposal that local development plans should establish the principle of certain categories of development is welcome and should help to speed up the system. However, the outline planning application procedure is an extremely useful mechanism for land development and may still be needed for unanticipated developments which do not conform to the development plan. Care must be taken to ensure there is still some flexibility in the system. Even with a revitalised local plan system, there should still be some scope for "testing" the principle of a new suggestion or a new opportunity
Planning Consultants, Architects and Lawyers
Bell & Scott: We do not consider that that is appropriate. While we are in favour of strengthening the effect of Development Plans (provided they are up-to-date), abolition of the facility to apply for outline planning permission appears to us to be unduly restrictive and might prejudice wholly satisfactory and appropriate development. Circumstances will change in the five year period between updated editions of the Development Plan and an application for outline planning permission might well be the most appropriate route by which to seek development.
Collar, Neil: I agree with the example given that a site specific allocation for residential use should be made equivalent to a grant of outline planning permission so that no outline application requires to be submitted. However, it is unclear from the White Paper whether all outline applications are to be abolished. Such applications can playa useful role, for example for wind fall development. Also, development plans often do not identify specific sites for some forms of development, such as waste management. Without a site specific allocation, it is useful for developers to have the option of applying for outline planning permission. It would place an unnecessary burden on local authorities if all applications have to include detailed designs, since the detail would have to be considered even if the principle of the development were unacceptable. That is not efficient.
Drivers Jonas: Does not support approval in principle in the development plan and request that it is withdrawn for the following reasons. Firstly, the achievement of an outline planning consent is a recognised milestone in the development process. It is often the case that developers obtain an outline planning consent to enable the necessary funding to be put in place for a project. The cost and time involved in the preparation of an application for outline planning permission is often considerably less than that of an application for full planning permission. Secondly, recent local plans, such as the Glasgow City Local Plan, have adopted a development policy principles approach in which the allocation can cover a number of different land uses. Such an approach has been seen as best practice in recent times. This approach would require to be completely overhauled if the Scottish Executive's proposals were to be implemented. Thirdly, we do not consider that this proposal would operate successfully for complex mixed use schemes. It should be noted that the proposal to remove outline planning permission was withdrawn from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in England.
GVA Grimley LLP: Reserves its position on the proposal to remove outline planning in place of local development plan allocations forming an approved use in principle, subject to further debate.
Hargest & Wallace Planning: In a number of cases this will be helpful. But outline planning applications have important additional benefits ( e.g. they facilitate development contracts) and can address some detailed matters leaving others for reserved matters. This proposal should not, therefore, remove the opportunity for outline applications to be made
Muir Smith Evans: : We anticipate tension between the aspiration for simpler, slimmer local development plans (which we support in principle) and the need for the plans to be sufficiently detailed to effectively grant outline planning permission for allocated sites. This will also require much more involvement at the development plan stage from other agencies (Scottish Water, SEPA, SNH, etc) which is a good thing, but with the best will in the world is certain to lead to extended processes.
Paull & Williamsons: We support the proposal that local development plans should establish the principle of development where land is allocated for a particular use. We are uncomfortable about the proposal to abolish the outline application procedure which might still be of value for unanticipated developments (and these always crop up) which depart from the plan. A major development ought not to have to go to the enormous expense of preparing a detailed application when the principle of the suitability of the site remains to be established.
Roberts, GM: Any 'approval in principle' in development plans, will require clear descriptions of acceptable uses: not just 'mixed uses': -nor 'a development opportunity site'. You mention in this context, that 'significant justification' would be required to support approval for a development plan departure: We are back to the similarly thorny problem of what a LPA might consider to be significant, before notification to the SE.
Turley Associates: The proposal for "approval in principle" for allocations in local development plans seems well intentioned, but the benefits may not outweigh possible disadvantages. Aside from potential legal complications of this approach, the process of obtaining outline planning permission is often an important stage in the evolution of a development proposal to a form that is acceptable to the developer, planning authority and third parties, as well as providing legal certainty.
Warren Consultants: We agree with the proposed approach, but it should be recognised that conditions on outline consents are very important and the burden of devising these conditions will fall on the local planners. At present, even if the principle of development is accepted, there is quite a lot of work in processing a planning application to consider the appropriate conditions. This will now have to be done at the Development Plan stage. This approach has the benefit that any purchaser of the site knows exactly what restrictions will affect the price they pay for the land.
Academic Bodies
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute: The term Simplified Planning Zones already exists and is a useful planning tool which is more meaningful that the term "Approval in Principle".
University of Edinburgh: This proposal is of concern to the UoE. Obtaining outline planning permission for alternative use is an integral part of achieving best value for surplus assets by clearly identifying the constraints on development, infrastructure issues, planning conditions and legal agreement obligations. The removal of the opportunity to submit an outline planning application will potentially result in the site constraints only being truly understood when a detailed application is submitted, and after the considerable expense of preparing a proposal. It is our experience that utilities companies such as Scottish Water do not provide sufficient information on site constraints until an application has been submitted. Consequently, removing the opportunity to submit outline planning permission for allocated sites should only proceed if utilities companies can provide the same level of information at plan preparation stage or on enquiry by a site owner pre-disposal as they would if an outline planning application has been submitted.
Community Councils
Currie Community Council: We note that if the Development Plan states that a particular site be allocated to housing, that effectively grants permission in outline for that purpose. However, there will be many situations where an applicant will choose to vary the designation of a site, in whole or in part. Designation of sites in Development Plans will have to allow developers freedom to offer alternative usage, especially if the 2-year "action programme" (the "near future") is unlikely to be met. We disagree with the suggestion that 'planning applications for developments on land not allocated for that use in an up-to-date development plan are unlikely to be approved" - there are times when the proposed alternative use would better suit the community. It should also be accepted that there are times when no development at all is preferable to a designation for housing or business/commercial use.
Helensburgh Community Council: The HCC supports the abolition of outline planning permission as long as the LDP is to be treated as more certain than at present. If "Development Management" means greater uncertainty and more departures from the LDP then the concept of outline planning permission should remain.
Knightswood North Templar Community Council: This may cause difficulty. Faced with future uncertainty and the need for regeneration in an uncertain economic climate, local authorities may be tempted to allocate more sites to 'mixed use' or 'alternative' non-specific land uses, thereby creating greater uncertainty for local communities. We are however glad to note that the proposals to allow 'approval in principle' does not extend to developments that require environmental impact assessments, and that neighbours will be notified in statute. There will also be a need for design and development briefs.
Royal Burgh of North Berwick Community Council: We do not detect, though we could have misread this aspect, a clearer definition of the distinction between "Outline Planning and Planning decisions" for actual planning applications.
Voluntary Organisations
Colinton Amenity Association: To be even handed, it is important to indicate that there will be sites in a development plan that will not be allocated for development such as green belts, green spaces, playing fields etc
Helensburgh Green Belt Group: The HGBG agrees to the abolition of outline planning permission as long as development plans are, indeed, to be treated as more certain than at present and as long as pre-application consultation is an established process.
Planning Aid Scotland: In our experience the distinction between outline and detailed impact of proposals is not clear-cut. There are examples of good community consultation at the stage of an outline application, when masterplans or development frameworks are being considered. The key issue is that "red-lining" of outline applications be made unacceptable by the specification of minimum information requirements to accompany an application.
Scottish Civic Trust (and civic trust network): Outline planning permission establishes an acceptable land use for any site. It follows that if an adopted development plan suggests a use then the principle for development is accepted. This is not an illogical proposal, although it raises issues in regard to consultation during plan preparation.
Scottish Council for National Parks: This seems sensible provided the development plans are up-to-date. There are examples of sites in approved development plans which are subject to regular flooding for example. It seems inappropriate to require developers to prepare detailed plans at considerable cost if their confidence is based on out of date material.
Scottish Renewables Forum: We would ask you to note that spatial planning confers no benefit to projects located within preferred areas. As you outline on page 30: "The ability to accept the principle of use allocated in the development plan would not extend to developments that require EIA." We recommend strongly that policies for location of projects requiring EIA are confined to criteria for assessment of proposals and avoid spatial guidance. The White Paper also says that: "Planning applications for developments on land not allocated for that use in an up-to-date development plan are unlikely to be approved." We would resist such a position, as the EIA of any renewable energy project is the best way to assess the impact of a renewable energy development. The allocation of broad areas of search for renewable projects can be a useful and informative tool but they should not be used as a material planning consideration.
The Council for Scottish Archaeology: As part of the current development process following recommendations in National Planning Guidance, local authority archaeology services have required, where appropriate, developers to assess the archaeological potential of certain areas prior to granting planning consent. Existing guidance, as provided under NPPG5, is for preservation of these remains in situ for future generations rather than the more finite answer of preservation by record. It is unlikely and an inappropriate treatment of the resource to undertake invasive evaluations prior to actual development proposals and it would also pose a substantial financial burden on local councils to have to undertake this work as part of the development control process.
The Grange Association: Sites where "approval in principle" is proposed must all be included in any draft plan to ensure there is opportunity for comment or objection. We note that this is not to apply to projects requiring Environmental Impact Assessments ( EIA) but are concerned that, after approval in principle has been incorporated, such a requirement may be judged necessary for specific proposals. As we understand it such assessments are called for when there are potential dangers to water, air, contamination etc, but our concern is also for the local built environment - the essence of the Conservation Area legislation. Any revision to the planning system must take this into account, and the involved public should have some opportunity to contribute to decisions at a local level.
« Previous | Contents | Next »