The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE SCOPING WORKSHOPS

Introduction

3.1 This section of the report summarises the findings from the four scoping workshops held in May 2007. As highlighted above, it was considered important to separate stakeholders into groups, and hold individual sessions with each group. Each workshop was facilitated by two members of the WSP team, and was structured in three parts.

3.2 An initial question-based task was set which attendees were asked to complete individually, in order to obtain a snapshot of baseline knowledge and appreciation of SPP17.

3.3 This was followed by a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis of SPP17.

3.4 Finally, a discussion was held, centred on a number of key questions regarding the implementation of SPP17, which were displayed on flipcharts:

• To what extent do practitioners possess the knowledge and skills required to put SPP17 into practice?
• To what extent are modelling and appraisal outcomes used to inform decision making?
• In terms of implementing SPP17 through development management, who are the key players and what are their responsibilities?
• Do conflicts exist between SPP17 and local objectives and aspirations?
• What examples of best practice exist in terms of implementing SPP17?
• What issues exist around the implementation of maximum parking standards?
• What other key issues exist regarding the implementation of SPP17?

3.5 This chapter considers the results from the initial individual task from all workshops together, and then moves on to four separate sections which document the key issues raised through the SWOT and targeted question discussions. Following these sections, an additional section is provided detailing discussions with further stakeholders at the subsequent meeting of the project Steering Group.

3.6 Appendix A contains a detailed list of the key messages and improvements as perceived by the workshop groups, followed by the flip-chart text covering the SWOT analyses and issues raised in the sessions.

Initial Task

3.7 At the start of each session, all attendees at the workshops were asked to complete individually two separate tasks:

• Summarise the three key messages of SPP17. This was aimed at assessing the overall baseline level of appreciation of SPP17 which existed amongst the stakeholders
• State the three key improvements you would like to see in the implementation of SPP17. This was aimed at assessing stakeholders' baseline attitudes to the implementation of the document.

3.8 These tasks revealed that most attendees understood the underlying key messages of SPP17, particularly the importance of integration between land use planning and transport planning; i.e. that the two must be more interlinked. Other key perceived messages that a number of stakeholders stated included:

• The need for integration at a policy level.
• Sustainable development which had minimum detrimental impact on the environment.
• The adoption of maximum parking standards on the basis that the standards would contribute to a greater proportion of trips being made by sustainable modes.
• Development must be well connected to the existing network and that transport infrastructure for all modes must be considered, with particular emphasis on reducing the need to travel by car.
• Locating development beside existing transport hubs.

In terms of key improvements, a number of issues were raised repeatedly:

• Participants felt that the document should recognise that growth will always put pressure on the transport system.
• The document also needed to address the fact that one size does not necessarily fit all.
• Some participants felt that more clarity was required on topics such as developer contributions.
• Some felt that delivery mechanisms had been neglected in SPP17, for instance, the importance of travel plans and transport assessments was highlighted but there was less emphasis on the delivery or enforcement mechanisms for them.
• Other participants felt that SPP17 needed to strengthen the link from development management back to development planning.

Local Authority Strategic Planners' Workshop

2 May 2007, 10am-12pm, Scottish Executive Offices

3.9 Representatives from the following bodies attended:

• Glasgow City Council
• West Lothian Council
• South Ayrshire Council
• Renfrewshire Council
• Glasgow & Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan Committee
• City of Edinburgh Council
• Argyll & Bute Council
• Fife Council

Key themes of discussions

3.10 In general, the attendees praised the document itself, saying that it conveyed an important message of joined up thinking between land use and transportation planning. Attendees also praised the document's focus on delivery, and the switch from minimum to maximum parking standards. A number of significant opportunities to build on SPP17 were highlighted as well, in particular the Regional Transport Partnerships and the new Planning Act.

3.11 Several examples of good practice of implementation of SPP17 were highlighted. Particularly:

• Transport Assessments now have a more multi-modal focus, rather than simply being concerned with no net detriment to road traffic;
• Edinburgh and Lothians Structure Plan now ties developments to the provision of new infrastructure;
• West Lothian Council have released two Supplementary Planning Guidance documents, one regarding developer contributions to Travel Plan co-ordinator posts, the other concerning development on transport corridors; and
• It was noted, however, that SPP17 had not necessarily been the principal driver behind the above examples. Attendees commented that the only area where SPP17 can definitively be said to be having an impact on the ground is in the adoption of maximum parking standards.

3.12 However, overall, attendees were not positive regarding the implementation of SPP17. A summary of the principal points raised is given below:

• There was a feeling amongst attendees that the document lacked 'teeth' - effective legislative powers - to actually deliver on the ground.
• The assumption against developments on trunk roads was felt to be misguided. Many attendees questioned whether developments on trunk roads were less sustainable than other locations, due to traffic impacts on minor roads, and the higher level of public transport services often associated with trunk roads. There was a view that this part of the document was at odds with the overall aim of providing for development in areas with high levels of public transport accessibility.
• The document was criticised for an over-simplistic approach, particularly in relation to rail and trunk roads, since local authorities lack any powers in relation to these.
• The extreme difficulty of getting public transport schemes on the ground was highlighted. In particular, the lack of powers of local authorities in this regard was perceived as a major barrier to implementation, and to obtaining public transport contributions from planning agreements.
• It was felt that major investment in public transport was required in order to deliver on the principles of SPP17, and (with the exception of a few major projects) that investment was not seen as forthcoming.
• It was opined that some form of developer levy would be useful in terms of securing contributions to transportation schemes, similar to the current 'roof tax' example in Milton Keynes.

3.13 In this example, a pilot tariff scheme has been introduced, which requires a contribution of £18,500 per dwelling to be made by developers to assist in paying for transport, utilities etc improvements which would previously have been met by an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The rationale for this is that it is very difficult to attribute the costs of development to individual planning applications in areas of rapid growth. As outlined below, it is currently very difficult to secure such contributions, so enabling a statutory framework for such contributions would be a positive step forward.

• Mismatching between local, regional and national objectives was seen as a significant barrier to implementation, with local economic agendas often playing a more significant part in localised politics than wider strategic planning, transportation and environmental policy drivers. It was also noted that often ministerial economic agendas are in conflict with SPP17 delivery.
• A 'paralysis by analysis' was identified, meaning that the length of time and level of detail often required in terms of analysis, and appraisal in order to deliver anything on the ground often prevents schemes from being progressed.
• Significant criticism of Transport Scotland was expressed. Many attendees felt that a lack of communication existed between Transport Scotland and the then Scottish Executive planning department, and that consequently there were few links between Transport Scotland and the National Planning Framework.
• The skills and knowledge to implement SPP17 do generally exist at the local level, but many attendees felt that the organisational structure and process is not in place to enable the skills to be used properly. However, a lack of the 'softer' skills required to deliver on the SPP17 agenda was identified, particularly negotiating skills.
• The end user is often overlooked as a key player in the development planning process, in particular in terms of implementing travel plan measures.
• Conflicts often arise between SPP17 objectives and local economic objectives. Local authorities often find themselves competing against each other for developments, and this can lead to compromises on issues such as those covered by SPP17.
• It was noted that ministerial priorities tend to be economic, and therefore frequently in conflict with SPP17.
• Significant issues were noted to exist concerning the implementation of maximum parking standards. In particular:
  • Extreme difficulty of implementing and enforcing on-road parking controls surrounding developments
  • The need for consistency between authorities to avoid competition
  • Lack of guidance on application to rural areas. Are maximum parking standards relevant in such areas?
  • SPP17 states that maximum standards should not apply to residential development, however, attendees noted that there were circumstances where standards perhaps should be applied, e.g. city centre apartment blocks.
• A lack of knowledge of best practice was cited, particularly in terms of examples of local authorities who have successfully negotiated contributions from developers.

Local Authority Development Control Officers' Workshop

2 May 2007, 1pm-3pm, Scottish Executive Offices

3.14 Representatives from the following bodies attended:

• Stirling Council
• Falkirk Council
• Moray Council

Key themes of discussions

3.15 In common with attendees at other sessions, a general consensus was found that the ideas and sentiments behind SPP17 are very sound. SPP17 was recognised as an important tool for local authorities to use to prevent developers 'escaping' from the transport implications of developments. Significant opportunities were seen among the attendees for implementation of SPP17, especially:

• It was felt critical that planning officers, development control officers and transportation officers work together to shape development plans.
• The creation of a Development Control/Management local authority working group in order to share good practice of linking planning and transportation.
• The growing profile of the environmental arguments behind SPP17 was also cited as an important opportunity.
• The Regional Transport Partnerships were identified as a potential opportunity, perhaps to provide training workshops to bring transport and planning professionals together.
• Council officers responsible for agreeing scope for TAs with developers were highlighted as a potential opportunity for getting the principles of SPP17 into the development planning process.

3.16 In general, however, attendees were quite negative about the implementation of SPP17 so far. In particular:

• It was felt to be inaccessible to planning officers. The appearance of the word 'transport' in the title is perceived as a turn-off.
• Lack of legislative teeth - the document (and its daughter documents) is often seen as a guide rather than a 'must do'.
• It was felt that SPP17 does not back its notion of a road user hierarchy clearly enough.
• The application of SPP17 to sites already allocated in Development Plans can prove problematic.
• A lack of awareness of the issues covered in SPP17 exists with local members - potentially a training opportunity?
• The relevant skills and knowledge does exist within local authorities, but it is often compartmentalised with a lack of joined up thinking between transport and planning departments.
• Often local political concerns over-ride model/experience-based decision.
• No national database of transport models exists. It was felt that this would help in making best use of models to inform decision making.
• Some major conflicts with local objectives were highlighted, most particularly concerning the assumption against new junctions on trunk roads and against developments close to trunk roads. Also, examples were cited of transport infrastructure set to be provided by a developer being 'shot down' by local concerns and politics.
• Enforcement was recognised to be a major issue in terms of maximum parking standards, particularly in relation to residential areas surrounding new developments. Decriminalisation of Parking Enforcement was cited as a possible way forward in relation to this.
• A lack of awareness of good practice was highlighted.
• Attendees felt that there was a lack of tangible targets to work towards regarding the implementation of SPP17.

3.17 Some examples of good practice were cited:

• Public Private Partnership projects - examples were cited in both Stirling and Moray.
• Development Advice Notes ( DAN) in Stirling.
• Stirling Council feed their monitoring information into the TRICS database

Developers' Workshop

30 April 2007, 10am-12pm, Scottish Executive Offices

3.18 It is noted that attendance at the developers' workshop was disappointing. This was due to a number of planned attendees being unable to attend on the day. However, despite the limited numbers, the contributions provided by those who did attend were very valuable to the research.

3.19 Representatives from the following bodies attended:

• Homes for Scotland
• Persimmon

Key themes of discussions

3.20 In general, the attendees praised the SPP17 document itself for its succinct nature, saying that it addressed key issues which have been ignored for too long. It represents a good tool, and an easy to use checklist of the issues which should be considered in terms of linking transportation and development planning. Furthermore, the view was expressed that of all the SPPs, SPP17 has the greatest potential for impact as it deals with such fundamental issues of integration.

3.21 However, in terms of implementation of the document, there was a generally feeling that its considerable potential is not being realised. The main problems highlighted were:

• Local authority strategic planners tend to be led to a great extent by their highway engineer colleagues. This means that good policy intentions can get lost in localised concerns which are most often highway capacity driven.
• There was a consensus that the adoption of maximum parking standards was naïve, in the case of residential developments. However, since SPP17 specifically excludes residential developments from parking standards ( SPP17 paragraph 58), it is noted that there appears to be a certain amount of confusion surrounding this issue.
• The locally devolved planning system leads to a 'postcode lottery' effect, with some local authorities far more pro-active than others on environmental issues.
• There is a feeling that local authority planners are too focussed on the micro scale to fully consider wider strategic implications of decisions.
• Transport modelling and appraisal felt to have very limited role in informing development plans.
• A consensus existed that conflicts often exist between SPP17 and local objectives. In particular it was considered that local economic objectives often take top priority. It was thought that a more strategic framework was needed for local decision making to work within. In this respect it was noted that the Regional Transport Partnerships could have a positive role to play.
• Two key missing links were identified in local authority thinking:
  • Between the strategic and the detailed implementation ( i.e. between Planning Policy officers and Development Control ( DC) officers). For example DC officers are often involved in such levels of detail (individual extensions, windows etc) that they have little involvement in wider strategic policy.
  • Between land use and transportation policy ( i.e. between Planning Policy officers and Transport Planning officers). For example it was commented that not a single development plan considered that the transport network leads and drives land release and site allocation.

Other Stakeholders' Workshop

30 April 2007, 1pm-3pm, Scottish Executive Offices

3.22 Representatives from the following bodies attended:

• NHS Lothian
• Communities Scotland
• SUSTRANS
• Stagecoach
• Scottish Enterprise
• SCDI

Key themes of discussions

3.23 There was general praise for the SPP17 document itself and its supporting suite of documents. In general it was considered to read very well and cover all relevant matters in a concise manner. In particular, the adoption of a hierarchy of road users was commended as good practice. The potential for the Regional Transport Partnerships to change implementation in practice was highlighted as an opportunity.

3.24 In addition, a number of examples of good practice implementation were quoted (though it remains to be seen to what extent these have been implemented post SPP17 publication):

• Musselburgh - Queen Margaret University
• Scottish National Heritage Headquarters, Inverness
• Winchburgh
• Muirton, Perth
• Fife Council (in terms of joined up planning and transportation thinking)
• Perth and Kinross Council (in terms of joined up planning and transportation thinking)

3.25 However, similarly to the first session, there was a significant amount of criticism of the implementation of SPP17 so far. A summary of the key issues is provided below:

• There was a consensus that there is a missing link between design and reality. In the cases where policy is having the desired effect on designs, this is very often not feeding through to the final, realised scheme.
• An overall lack of 'joined up thinking', particularly within local authorities between transportation and planning officers, was observed.
• Political concerns getting in the way of implementing decisions based on policy.
• A lack of monitoring of the implementation of planning decisions/agreements is a problem, for example through travel plans.
• Again, the conflict between local economic objectives and wider policy objectives was highlighted. In particular the need to get away from the 'economic development means roads' mentality.
• A big problem was highlighted in terms of integration of skills at local authorities - particularly between land use planners and transport planners.
• A lack of dedicated officers and skills at local authorities for walking and cycling schemes was identified. Is there an opportunity to identify Government funding for such posts (similarly to Green Travel Plan co-ordinators, for example)?
• A missed opportunity was identified in terms of linking SPP17 objectives to the wider climate change/environmental agenda and healthy living agenda.

Steering Group meeting: 4 May 2007

Friday 4 May 2007, 10 - 12 Session 2 (Steering Group)

3.26 Representatives from the following bodies attended:

• Scottish Government
• Transport Scotland
• Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh & Lothian

3.27 In addition to the steering group discussions on project matters there was discussion on aspects of implementation of SPP17, its usability and other merits.

3.28 It was noted that many attendees felt there was a changing attitude over time and that there was a realisation of the importance of SPP17 in promoting development.

3.29 Attendees felt that recent decisions in infrastructure and investment demonstrated the importance of the policy, and Transport Scotland's early involvement in the development process was very beneficial.

3.30 Other concerns were:

• A Potential conflict with SPP15.
• Focus on the end of the process rather than the beginning
• Lack of understanding of appraisal
• Technical capability of key authorities.
• The development planning process can be too process-driven.

3.31 There was also concern that threats to the success of the policy application might include an over simplistic approach by either transport or land use planners.

3.32 Attendees were asked to what extent they felt practitioners possessed the knowledge and skills required to put SPP17 into practice, for which the general response was that larger authorities tend to have skills to do this, but less so in smaller authorities. It was generally felt that more attention to this matter was required. A need for CPD between different disciplines was highlighted, to improve skills and understanding and attendees considered that there is a perception of different approaches / goals between 'engineering' and 'planning' disciplines.

3.33 It was felt that there were gaps in communication between disciplines and roles, and differences in the structure of authorities. Concern was also raised that a greater understanding of development economics was required in order for SPP17 to be successfully implemented.

3.34 Attendees believed there was more scope for modelling and appraisal than is currently being demonstrated, but in some cases there are examples of good practice. Attendees were not convinced that the correct tools were always being applied for modelling and appraisal work; some de-mystification of appraisals is also required. It was felt that potentially greater use could be made of TMfS and/or TelMos

3.35 Local authorities were felt to be the key players in terms of the implementation and monitoring of SPP17, yet currently there appears to be a lack of clarity of roles. There is also a need to emphasise the importance of travel plans and particularly the monitoring of them. There is a role for the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland in the delivery of policy, goals and guidance or good practice.

3.36 It was noted that local authorities may have resourcing issues.

3.37 Some attendees felt there were conflicts between SPP17, local objectives and aspirations, such as:

• Maximum parking standards;
• Residential commercial standards;
• Competing national, regional and local objectives; and
• Policy versus design conflict, particularly safety implications.

Potential examples of best practice in terms of implementing SPP17 were:

• Heartlands STAG on the M8 - a comprehensive approach;
• Junction 26 on M8 - commitment to appraisal approach / joint working;
• South East Wedge - Issue, mitigation, cost;
• Junction 19 on M8 - part way through process;
• Edinburgh Tram;
• Waverley Rail Link;
• Stirling Development Advice Note;
• Delivery of hospital travel plans;
• GCVJ Structure Plan; and
• Stirling Structure Plan.

3.38 The implementation of maximum parking standards were felt to have the following implications:

• Local standards would still be required
• Regional Transport Strategies: must promote consistent regional standards
• TRO: parking standards; there is a difficulty in enforcement
• There is a mind-set that parking provision is required to make development attractive both in terms of implementation and in securing an end-user.

3.39 Other issues emerging from the discussions were that the local authorities' view on what can be delivered is required, and there is need for thought on innovative funding / delivery mechanisms. It was suggested that there is a lack of consistency of approach or interpretation between authorities.

Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporter's Unit

3.40 The opportunity was taken to hold some informal consultation with the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters' Unit ( SEIRU) in relation to this research commission. SEIRU subsequently held an internal discussion to review their experience of the implementation of SPP17 'Planning for Transport' to provide some informal input to the initial stages of the research. The following points emerged from that discussion. It should be noted that these comments are the views of individual reporters arising from their experience to date and do not necessarily reflect the corporate position of the SEIRU.

3.41 The Reporters noted that much of the policy advice contained within SPP17 is not entirely new and that the documents bring together a number of elements that were presented in previous policy documents.

3.42 The Reporters went on to note that SPP17 (or at least its general thrust) appears to have been embraced by most local authorities and developers. Most, but not all, transport professionals have the knowledge and skills to put it into practice, however, some practitioners still appear 'wedded to the car'; and residents' input to the planning process can still focus on cars - with respect to both mobility and safety. The Reporters also suggest that some assertions made by practitioners in relation to SPP17 can appear naïve, for example in relation to the difficulties or practicalities of extending or improving bus provision in practice.

3.43 The principles of SPP17 are clearly, in the view of the Reporters, making an impact, in particular in relation to the integration of land use and transport, the encouragement of sustainable transport modes and the identification of development sites in development plans. That said the Reporters' view is that conflicts can arise between the policies in SPP17 and local objectives and aspirations.

3.44 The Reporters have dealt with only a few cases where maximum parking standards have been a major issue. It is considered by the Reporters that these can be seen as a double-edge sword, particularly in the absence of effective means of persuading residents, workers and visitors not to use their cars. In that regard, Green Travel Plans can be required. Such travel plans are often discussed at inquiries, and then covered by conditions (or section 75 agreements); but the Reporters have little information on how successful they are in practice.

3.45 One particular complication for planning identified by the Reporters is that public transport operators' behaviour cannot be predicted with confidence. The Reporters suggested that the key issue around the successful implementation of SPP17 is seen by some as the absence or confidence in delivery of complementary public transport.

Conclusions

3.46 The workshops (and additional consultation with SEIRU) provided valuable insight into the different stakeholder groups' opinions and experiences of SPP17, identifying the strengths and weaknesses, scope for improvement, implementability and theme-specific concerns. This has also provided excellent information to feed into the design and development of the questionnaire.

3.47 The workshops also highlighted some commonalities and differences between the different stakeholder groups as to their perceptions of SPP17. In particular it is noted that:

• Overall most attendees were positive about the document itself. It is generally perceived to tackle some vital issues in an appropriate manner.
• The general consensus was less positive regarding implementation. Key barriers to joined-up working within local authorities are seen to prevent joined up working with local authorities: both by those that work in the local authorities and by other stakeholders. This is particularly the case with a lack of links between the strategic and the detail, and a lack of links between land use planning and transportation planning staff.
• Weaknesses in both national and local authority joined up working were as keenly felt by local authority representatives as representatives of other organisations. However, whilst the local authority officers tended to focus on a lack of joined up working, criticism from the developers centred on the strategic planners being led by, rather than providing strategic guidance to, their highway engineer colleagues.
• Both sets of local authority officers felt that the assumptions against development on trunk roads was misguided, with many questioning whether these locations were less sustainable.
• Frustrations regarding funding, delivery and (where relevant) enforcement of schemes were a recurring theme within the local authority groups, particularly the Strategic Planners Group.
• With regard to modelling and appraisal, the developers said that there was very little evidence that this guided development plans, whilst the local authority strategic planners group suggested that there was so much work undertaken that it was causing 'paralysis by analysis' in relation to implementation.

« Previous | Contents | Next »