The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Appendices, Figures & Tables

Appendix A Scoping Workshops

Workshop Exercise

Wednesday 2 May 2007, 10 - 12 Session (Local Authorities - Strategic)

Transport Integration

Public Transport (Sustainability)

1. Key Messages of SPP17

• Connectivity - linking different modes of travel, road, rail, bus, tram, cycling - all of them.
• Sustainability - linking up transport with land use change to encourage public transport usage.
• Maximum parking standards
• Travel planning as part of development management
• Interpretation of land use and transport
• Land use / transport integration
• Sustainable development
• Strategic / local split
• Takes recognition of transport early in development process
• Ensures provision for transport - all modes
• Integrate land use and transport
• Reduced reliance on the car through parking demand management
• Sustainable / higher density development reducing need for short car journeys
• Location / integration of development around public transport hubs
• Effective integration of land use and transport
• Hierarchy of transport modes
• Ensuring development embraces all transport modes
• Integration and implementation of issues covered
• Approach to integrate planning decisions with LTS etc
• Attempt to increase use of Master Planning wider picture
• Ensure sustainability is built into development planning and process i.e. reducing the need to travel between facilities
• Focus on delivery
• Emphasis on early engagement of transportation within planning process
• Need to reduce need to travel
• That development and transport should be planned together
• That usually its important to prioritise sustainable transport when locating new development
• That as far as possible development should fund necessary transport investment.

2. Key Improvements

• Clearly identifying roles in transport
• Complexed section - clear roles and expectations need to be highlighted
• Greater weight given to transport implications of planning applications
• Greater recognition of the need for on-road parking controls as a consequence (but requirement) of maximum parking standards for development.
• Acceptance that a contribution towards infrastructure provision is a 'norm' expected by all those seeking planning consent for a major development
• Demand management futures
• Greater integration of themes
• Greater linkage to strategic projects review priorities
• Early involvement in development process
• Maybe include objectives of SPP17 in planning applications
• Ensure planning / elected members recognise that SPP cannot be ignored
• Central government commitment to assist delivery too great and not to crack as individuals
• Recognition that one size doesn't fit all city via rural or developing
• Recognition that growth will always put pressure on trunk road / rail infrastructure
• More certainty about the delivery of transport infrastructure
• Further discussion particularly regarding parking issues
• More planning powers to secure e.g.GTPs particularly when developer does not meet targets
• Improved working between PT authority priorities and the priorities of the council.
• Encourage innovative thinking to improve final outcomes i.e. guidance as guidance and not rules to work to.
• Clarity on 'no net detriment' (S73)
• Importance of travel plan monitoring (resources)
• More emphasis on freight movements
• More call ins of applications that are inconsistent
• Training for offices and politicians (though how do you get them to attend and listen?)
• Revising it to make it more explicit / less vague / more of a Dutch A-B-C approach (I know this is out of scope but in my view necessary).

Strengths

• Correct message - sust. Landscape ? transport ? tavel planning.
• Delivery focus
• Tied in with sust. Dev consultation - joined up thinking!
• RTS ? NTS links well set out
• Good on paper
• Min ? Max parking
• Standards (and not app. to resi.)
• Assumption against trunk road access.

Weaknesses

- Not unanimous

- "would be nice if…"

• Trunk roads - def. of strategic trip?
• Major proposals inconsistent
• Other considerations ? than SPP17

- economic
- value of land

• Green belt land may be better from transp. point of view
• Approach too simplistic
• Low profile
• Over-simplistic approach - e.g rail, trunk roads
• Only words at present
• Getting PT schemes on ground v v difficult!
• Assumption against strat road network development.

- argument that trunk road locations are more sustainable? Due to PT on trunk roads.

Opportunities

• RTPs
• Major projects
• Needs heavy investment in PT to implement
• New planning Act
• Strategic Development Plans - approved by Ministers
• Developer levy - getting developers to sign up currently

- difficult, so statutory contribution is positive.

Threats

• Other considerations
• SPP17 way down priority list
• Lack of powers to back up - eg G.T.P. measures
• Difficulty of delivering infrastructure
• SPT priorities v L.P.A priorities
• Mismatch of local, regional, national objectives
• Paralysis by analysis

- difficult to get things on the ground

- Lack of powers for local authorities - eg rail, bus

• Time - rail - v long

- puts dev. Off.

• Transport Scotland

- lack of communication

- no links to national planning framework

- faceless

- in Glasgow whereas planners in Edinburgh

- RTPs trying to do too much to catch up.

To what extent do practitioners possess the knowledge and skills required to put SPP17 into practice?

• Some Councils split transport and planning v inconsistent
• Skills and knowledge is there, but so fragmented organisationally
• Organisational process is not there
• Never clear how to make an impact

- How much does org, structure affect planning process?

- Constant turmoil within LPAs

• RTPs - lack of electoral accountability

- How do different organisations do things?

• Links within Councils and between Councils and RTPs etc.
• All power centralised. LPAs feel can't influence how to get things on the ground.
• Skills good. Process bad.
• Danger of stifling dev through following SPP17.
• Lack of negotiating skills.
• Connections with LPAs - need improving
• 'Soft' skills lacking.
• New design agenda skills lacking
• Often guidance is out of date.

To what extent are modelling and appraisal outcomes used to inform decision making?

• Modelling often done after decision!
• What level / area of modelling to do?
• Regional models into which LPAs can 'buy'?
• Centralised modelling has to be used for decisions - but local modelling may be better - transp. and land use.
• Often Politics overrule mod/app recommendations
• Accessibility planning not being done in Scotland - an opportunity
• STAG appraisal when only option!
• Limitations of models - should be not be the be-all and end all.
• Danger of models driving towards roads solutions - built-in growth
• Must be scenario based
• Staff skills.

In terms of implementing SPP17 through development management ( e.g. through travel plans and transport assessments), who are the key players and what are their responsibilities?

• Travel plans - key player is occupier
• Travel plans mandatory for all employers? - ie not just new developments

? but has it worked elsewhere, California? Netherlands?

? only work where not enough parking.

Do conflicts exist between SPP17 and local objectives and aspirations?

• LPA set up competition between LPAs - developers may go elsewhere - leads to relaxation?
• Can be a bun-fight?
• Do we need an ABC approach? ? but predicated on infra. already in place.
• Must reflect NPF
• Can't live with 'no development on trunk roads' notion

- doc. Needs reviewing

- No net detriment - definition seems to change.

• Ministerial priority - economic, so aspects of SPP17 can hinder this.

What examples of best practice exist in terms of implementing SPP17?

• Adds weight to request for multi-modal T.A
• TAs now look at PT firsts, then roads.
• Edinburgh and Lothians S.P. ties dev to provision of new infrastructure
• SPG specific in getting tram contribution
• SPG on developer contribution to T.P co-ordinator - West Lothian
• Supplementary guidance arguments for generally
• Supplementary guidance on corridors - West Lothian
• Though SPP17 not necessarily the drives
• Max parking standards is only area where SPP17 has itself delivered - : LPAs have teeth in this regard.

What issues exist around the implementation of maximum parking standards?

• On-road controls - no-one considers how difficult to implement

- also affect local residents.

• Only applies to new development - what about out of town centres. Don't have powers.

- conflicts with town centre development focus.

• Needs consistency between authorities to avoid competition.
• Step in right direction - but needs to go further on detail - more guidance
• There are circumstances where max parking standards could apply to resi.
• Rural issues!

What other key issues exist regarding the implementation of SPP17?

• Successful ways of getting dev. Contributions - experience of.
• How have LPA secured cont. to Travel Plan measures?
• How important is NPF. How does it relate to other parts of Executive?
• Where do Ministers/Executive think Planning sits?
• Locating dev. away from major roads doesn't make it sustainable!
• Dev. cont. 'Roof tax' idea - eg Milton Keynes
• Holistic approach to development planning.

Key Improvements in implementation of SPP17

« Previous | Contents | Next »