The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Six: Comments on Development Planning and Development Management

Introduction

6.1 The final two sections of the draft guidance summarised the implications of the suggested approach for Development Planning and Development Management. The draft SPP indicated that Local Plans should be updated as soon as possible and indicated the key aspects of the guidance which revised policies should reflect. Where total plan updating may be delayed, authorities should prepare an alteration or supplementary planning guidance, both of which should satisfy SEA requirements. Prior to the adoption of the BAS approach, criteria based development plan policies should be used together with policies set out in the draft SPP itself.

6.2 With respect to Development Management, the guidance emphasised the advantages of pre-application discussions, which in some instances (set out in the new Planning Bill) would require the involvement of the local community. The need for applicants to adequately consider cumulative impact was re-emphasised and a new requirement to undertake a risk assessment (covering health and safety matters) identified. The guidance indicated that the level of assessment needed would be proportional to the size and scale of the development proposal. The need to take account of environmental, social and economic benefits was re-stated as was the approach set out earlier in the guidance in respect of grid connections. Finally, in assessing renewable energy applications, the need to consider alternative lower impact options, fully set out mitigation measures and ensure all facets of decommissioning were covered, were highlighted

Development Planning

General Points

6.3 There were 54 respondents to this section of the SPP, few dissented from the view that there should be a positive role for the Development Plan in planning for renewable energy, but those who had previously expressed concerns regarding the BAS approach and local contributions assessments reaffirmed their opposition (see Table 6.1). In addition there were a number of representations seeking clarification or additions to the criteria in paragraph 47.

Table 6.1: General Views on Development Planning

6.4 The importance of placing the onshore windfarm site identification process within the formal development plan structure, and to put this in place as a matter of some urgency, were widely welcomed by all stakeholders. A few respondents indicated that this section of the SPP should apply to all renewable energy sources. There was also a suggestion that it would have been useful to have had an introductory paragraph indicating that only a fraction of the current proposals would be likely to be implemented and, in that context, it should be made clear that the SPP's purpose was to facilitate the selection of the best of these.

6.5 A number of local authorities and some professional bodies expressed concern that the draft SPP only referred to Local Plans and felt that there was a clear role for Structure Plans in this process as well. In particular, to reflect any NPF2 requirements for large-scale projects, provide a regional context for calculating local contributions and as a means of resolving any constituent LA cross-border issues. There was also a view that the proposed plan-based framework should integrate with other local planning documents such as Local Housing Strategies.

6.6 Many respondents repeated points here that they had made on earlier sections of the draft SPP. In particular, there was strong strand of opinion from energy businesses which again expressed concerns about the broad areas of search approach and argued for a more flexible, criteria based methodology. Equally, further concerns were expressed by local authorities and others, that the requirement to calculate the local contribution of an area to the national target would be technically complex and resource intensive. There was a view that the SPP set out no mechanism to ensure that all the local contributions would sum to the nationally required total.

Specific Points

6.7 Most of the comments on this section of the draft SPP related to the 8 bullet points set out under paragraph 47 and the various suggested amendments to their wording reflected respondents' views on the overall approach. There was an alternative suggestion that the bullet points could usefully be translated into model policies. The main comments received on the individual points themselves were:

• bullet 1: add, "in balance with the protection of important natural and cultural heritage interests, especially in designated areas" (National Voluntary Body)
• bullet 2: there were some views that this should be deleted altogether. Other suggested amendments included the addition of, "established by the national framework" (Local Authority). One business respondent also wanted broadcast transmission impact explicitly added to the list of material considerations
• bullet 3: a concern was expressed by an NDPB about the general presumption in favour of development and the need to make this conditional on meeting all the relevant criteria.
• bullet 4: there were suggestions from the same NDPB that this should explicitly include the potential for significant effects on Natura sites and the identification of further areas to be protected which would encircle those sensitive areas where cumulative impacts were likely. A number of business respondents thought this should be deleted altogether as it would be unnecessary if all proposals were judged on their merits against agreed criteria
• bullet 5: there were a number of comments from different respondent groups to the effect that this bullet was confusing or too open ended and might better be deleted, that, "in all other instances" should be removed, or that "only in very exceptional circumstances" should be added. A number of business respondents thought that it would be difficult or impossible to demonstrate that, "no suitable opportunities" existed within search areas and wanted this part deleted.
• bullet 6: there was a suggestion by an NDPB that this should simply be incorporated within Bullet 3.
• bullet 7: One voluntary body suggested that, "subject to acceptable visual impacts commensurate with the sensitivity of the subject and location" should be added.

6.8 A number of concerns/queries were expressed (mainly by local authorities) about the SPP's intentions regarding updating the development plan in relation to renewable energy issues (paragraph 48). Some respondents questioned whether if there was current partial compliance with the SPP approach, whether an immediate review was necessary and argued for more flexibility. Others wanted clearer guidance about whether a Development Plan update or Supplementary Planning Guidance ( SPG) was the preferred way forward. Several energy companies and a national voluntary body raised concerns that the SPG process (especially in relation to consultations) was not as rigorous as for a Development Plan Alteration and that the Planning Bill was proposing a more streamlined process. One respondent thought that SPGs should therefore have less status and not have the force of policy.

6.9 In relation to paragraph 49, one voluntary body thought it would be impossible for individual local authorities to make an assessment of the full environmental impact of grid infrastructure - the transmission network required would depend on all contributions being known - and this again pointed to the need for a national strategy.

Development Management

General Points

6.10 There was a comment that the finalized SPP should clarify, in paragraph 53, that its requirements will apply not only to planning applications but also to proposals under Section 36 of the Electricity Act.

Pre-Application Considerations

6.11 There was relatively widespread support for the generality of the approach outlined in paragraphs 54 - 60 (see Table 6.2 for details). Comments tended to focus on the need to clarify or develop the advice further, although in relation to the proposed risk assessment requirement, (paragraph 59) there was outright opposition by a group of energy industry interests.

6.12 Some respondents sought further clarification of the information likely to be required by planning departments (paragraph 54). A voluntary body drew attention to the fact that the construction phase of wind farm development, with potentially extensive access and delivery requirements, needed to be part of the appraisal process. A national environmental agency indicated that it could assist in defining what information should be included in a planning application and in this context suggested that, "in consultation with statutory consultees" should be added after "planning authorities" in line 4 of paragraph 54.

Table 6.2: Views on Pre-Application Considerations

6.13 Few took exception to the need for community consultation, but there were concerns from various quarters that such views did not always effectively feed into the decision-making process. There was a local authority view that some applicants felt that the appeal route was their "best chance" and that Reporters needed to give more weight to community and LA views. A few respondents felt that the advice should make clear that a wider constituency of opinion than the immediate local area should sometimes be canvassed, especially where there were tourism interests which might be affected. A UK public body indicated that they had commissioned guidance on community engagement in relation to onshore wind proposals and that this could be usefully incorporated in the finalized SPP. A national environmental agency indicated that it might be more appropriate to substitute, "in consultation with" for "in partnership with" in line 7 of paragraph 56.

6.14 There was a considerable amount of concern from voluntary bodies and individuals about the integrity of the EIA process as applied to wind farm developments. This included the view that many appeared to be, "working back from preconceived conclusions" and hence a desire to separate the financing of the assessment (by the applicant) from the commissioning of the consultants (which they felt should be the local authority). Other representations included the need to: "widen the horizons" of EIA coverage; to specifically mention potential adverse impacts on the local economy and on Natura sites under the Habitat Regulations and have increased community involvement in the process. There was a plea that EIAs should not be required for wind farm developments of under 5 MW. A national voluntary body suggested the creation of a register of non-statutory individuals and bodies with an interest in the assessment of renewable energy proposals who could provide a body of knowledge and expertise which would be available to all stakeholders in the assessment process.

6.15 The need to address cumulative impact was widely accepted and there were a number of comments which suggested that the guidance should make clear that this did not just refer to visual impact, and that all likely cumulative effects should be listed (visual, landscape, noise, ecological). There were several comments to the effect that other renewable technologies than onshore wind farms could have cumulative impacts and that this should be recognised in the guidance. A few respondents indicated that small scale proposals could also have significant cumulative impacts and that all proposals should therefore be assessed in relation to this factor. There were also some concerns that it was applicants who were being asked to assess cumulative impact and suggestions that this was more properly a matter for the local authority.

6.16 Most of the energy business comments related to the requirement to undertake risk assessments (paragraph 59) and expressed concerns about the necessity and wisdom of such an approach, which it was felt would raise safety fears and increase community objections to proposals, and was not required by the Health and Safety Executive. It should therefore be deleted. Alternative views welcomed the provision and suggested a wider scope to cover all countryside users as well as residents. It was suggested by a national environmental agency that further guidance should be provided for local authorities on how to evaluate safe separation distances suggested by developers. An individual suggested that such distances should be "scientifically established" and thereafter imposed by local authorities.

6.17 There was general support for the proportionality principle set out in paragraph 60, whereby the level of assessment should be related to the scale of the proposal. A few respondents indicated that, nonetheless, some small projects may require more intensive assessment due to the sensitivity of their location. Several responses suggested that 5 MW should be the definition of "small scale", below which, only light assessment should be necessary. Some felt that the 2m blade length referred to in paragraph 60 could not be considered "small scale" while others were unsure whether this was meant as an example or a definition.

Environmental, Social and Economic Benefits

6.18 Over half (52%) of the 26 comments on this paragraph were from businesses, although their views were quite polarised. One group of responses felt that the need for proposals to contribute (especially national) economic benefits should be strengthened in the advice and that the degree of benefit should be a material consideration. An alternative view was that the whole section should be deleted as such benefits could not be secured by planning conditions or agreements, as they may not be deliverable by a developer, and therefore, they should not be a material consideration. However, there was a suggestion that there could be some form of protocol agreement to use the procurement process to secure the maximum possible local economic content in any proposal.

6.19 Comments made by other respondent groups included: concerns that national benefits might be rated more highly than local ones; that developers should be required (as a planning condition) to submit local economic content statements; that applicants should be encouraged to contact and work with local groups to secure benefits and that more guidance was required on possible environmental benefits. A number of respondents indicated that adverse impacts should also be taken into account in any assessment, in particular, on the tourism industry and local communities.

Grid Connection

6.20 Grid connection issues had already been raised in comments on paragraphs 33-35 of the SPP and there were few (18) additional comments here, most of which were the same as set out earlier. While there was some clear cut support, the predominant views were of some confusion or uncertainty regarding the approach which the draft SPP was advocating.

6.21 Some local authority respondents and a voluntary body thought that the availability of a connection should be a material consideration otherwise there may be much abortive work on applications which would never come to fruition. They also had concerns that the proposed route of the connection to the grid should be included in the planning application as it could raise environmental issues which would need to be addressed in the appraisal process.

6.22 Most energy business respondents and a public body took a different stance. There were views that available grid capacity should not be a material consideration: as it would disadvantage poorly served areas such as the Highlands where the potential for renewable energy was greatest and that it failed to recognise that Grid Network Operators had to produce evidence of demand (viz. a successful planning application) to justify increases in network capacity, they would therefore be caught in a Catch-22 situation. There was a view that the whole paragraph should be deleted as the risks associated with obtaining a connection should lie wholly with the developer and not be part of the planning consideration.

Considering Applications

6.23 Over half of the responses (53%) were from businesses and the voluntary sector ( see Table 6.3 for a more detailed breakdown). The approach set out in paragraph 63 of the SPP was broadly supported by local authority, voluntary body and individual respondents, while energy businesses, public bodies and professional respondents expressed the most concerns. There were several references to the need to ensure speedy decision-making and a suggestion that SEDD should set consultation and response times.

Table 6.3: Views on Considering Applications

6.24 There were views, from a local authority and voluntary body, that the reference to the consideration of adverse impacts should be strengthened and include more guidance in relation to secondary development (construction and maintenance of access roads, cable routes etc.). It was also suggested, in this context, that the SPP should include a cross reference to NPPG 14 paragraphs 74-85 and that SEDD should commission a document similar to PPS 22 Companion Guide in England.

6.25 There were a number of comments about the need to assess the scale of a proposal's contribution to addressing climate change. Several energy businesses thought that this would be virtually impossible, while a voluntary body suggested that it would be better to be framed in terms of CO2 reductions achieved over the whole life of the project (mining, manufacturing, transportation, construction, operating, decommissioning, etc). A number of local authorities were concerned that this approach would inevitably favour bigger projects notwithstanding the comments to the contrary in the draft SPP. There was a query regarding this requirement in relation to micro-renewables as paragraph 39 indicated their contribution should not be taken into account. It was also suggested that security of supply and other market considerations were as important as impact on climate change.

6.26 The need to consider alternatives to proposals stimulated the most comment from respondents. Most energy businesses were opposed to this idea on the grounds that it would be difficult to prove that all options had been considered, that it would open the door to endless objections and moved away from the principle of considering applications on their merits. Supporters of this approach thought it should be strengthened with a separate paragraph in the final SPP which would make clear alternatives should be addressed in Environmental Statements or other supporting documentation. There was a query regarding how community involvement in the consideration of alternatives would be handled.

6.27 There were relatively few comments on paragraph 64. Local authority and voluntary body respondents thought it should be deleted or the weight to be given to "material arguments" which might outweigh objections further clarified. Energy businesses suggested that the wording should be consistent with the EIA Regulations which they claimed spoke of "minimizing" adverse effects rather than "mitigation".

6.28 Only local authorities, public bodies and voluntary organisations commented on paragraph 65 and all were broadly supportive. There were a number of suggestions on how to strengthen the SPP provisions and these included: the need to make clear that the paragraph applied to all renewable energy developments not just wind farms; the need to reconsider bond values on a regular basis to ensure that they would fully cover the costs of restoration and the need to ensure that restoration conditions were precisely specified as operations could be very disruptive of local habitats. In the light of the latter comment there was a view that it should be possible to extend the life of successful projects rather than create further disruption through decommissioning.

Key Points

6.29 A positive role for the Development Plan in planning for renewable energy was widely supported, but there were some concerns that the draft SPP only referred to Local Plans and views that there was also a clear role for Structure Plans.

6.30 Those who had previously expressed concerns regarding the BAS approach and local contributions assessments reaffirmed their opposition. In addition there were a number of representations seeking clarification or additions to the criteria set out in paragraph 47.

6.31 A number of concerns and queries were expressed about the SPP's intentions regarding updating the development plan in relation to renewable energy issues. Some respondents questioned whether if there was current partial compliance with the SPP approach, whether an immediate review was necessary and argued for more flexibility. Others wanted clearer guidance about whether a Development Plan update or Supplementary Planning Guidance ( SPG) was the preferred way forward.

6.32 There was relatively widespread support for the approach regarding pre-application discussions with comments focusing on the need to clarify or develop the advice further. There were concerns from various quarters that community views did not always effectively feed into the decision-making process and about the integrity of the EIA process. Energy businesses expressed concerns about the necessity and wisdom of undertaking risk assessments, which they felt would raise safety fears and objections to proposals. There was general support for the advice that the level of assessment should be related to the scale of the proposal.

6.33 Views on the assessment of environmental, social and economic benefits were quite polarised. Some felt that the need for proposals to contribute (especially national) economic benefits should be strengthened and that the degree of benefit should be a material consideration; others that the whole section should be deleted, as they believed such benefits could not be secured by planning conditions or agreements.

6.34 Grid connection issues had already been raised in comments on paragraphs 33-35 of the SPP and there were few additional comments at this point. While there was some clear cut support for the approach in the consultation document, the predominant views were of some confusion or uncertainty amongst respondents as to the appropriate way forward.

6.35 The guidance on considering applications was broadly supported by local authority, voluntary body and individual respondents, while energy businesses, public bodies and professional respondents expressed the most concerns. There were views that references to the consideration of adverse impacts should be strengthened and include more guidance in relation to secondary development (construction and maintenance of access roads, cable routes etc.).

6.36 Several energy businesses thought that calculating the impact on climate change would be virtually impossible, while a voluntary body suggested that it would be better to be framed in terms of CO2 reductions achieved over the whole life of a project. Most energy businesses were opposed to the need to consider alternatives to proposals; on the grounds that it would be difficult to prove that all options had been considered. Supporters of the approach, however, thought it should be strengthened.

« Previous | Contents | Next »