« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Q2. Can standing supplementary planning guidance become statutory guidance once the Local Development Plan has been adopted?
A2. Supplementary guidance ( SG) must be adopted in connection with an approved SDP or adopted LDP. Our view is that pre-existing guidance could be readopted as supplementary guidance following the adoption of a LDP, subject to scrutiny by Scottish Ministers. In these circumstances Ministers are likely to require that the guidance has been subject to reasonably recent and satisfactory consultation, and that a clear 'hook' for it exists within the LDP.
Q3. Does the Scottish Government envisage delay in production of supplementary guidance in connection with LDPs and SDPs?
A3. Not necessarily. It could be good practice to prepare SG in parallel with the SDP or LDP to provide context for the plan as it is consulted on and undergoes examination. Such SG could be adopted at the same time as the plan. Action programmes should set out the planning authority's timescales for preparing SG.
Q4. Can a Local Development Plan be prepared in compliance with an up-to-date structure plan, rather than a SDP?
A4. We will clarify this in the final version of the transitional arrangements.
Q5. What is the Scottish Government's interpretation of planning "policy" with the regulations for SDPs? In recent years, we had moved to, and become accustomed to, a targets-based approach.
A5. We believe policies will still be required at the strategic level, e.g. the retail sequential test, though the emphasis of the document may be more skewed towards the vision and proposals elements.
Q6. Is a five year review cycle for development plans unrealistic? Current practice suggests that it takes some 2-3 years to get to the stage of adopting a finalised local plan?
A6. For a plan-led system to work effectively and build and maintain trust, it is essential that the plan-making process can respond quickly to changes in circumstances and that plans are kept up-to-date. We do not accept that five-yearly reviews are unrealistic. The process of rolling forward an existing plan which is itself relatively up-to-date should be simpler than preparing a plan "from scratch". The 2006 Act sets the five year review period as a maximum: planning authorities may choose to aim for shorter review periods.
Q7. Could representations be limited to only those parts of the plan that were changing?
A7. No. The whole plan is available for comment. But we would not expect examinations to devote significant amounts of time to issues that had been thoroughly debated at previous examinations unless there was a change of circumstances.
Q8. There appears to be no requirement to notify neighbours of SDP proposals even though these may now be site-specific, and may, by inference, proceed to the application stage before going through the LDP process?
A8. We expect any site-specific SDP proposals to be large and where there are no realistic alternatives. In the absence of a legal requirement to neighbour notify, it would be appropriate for the SDPA to make special efforts to ensure that local people are aware of such proposals.
Q9. Will the regulations remove the right to be heard from objectors to Local Development Plans?
A9. The 2006 Act removes this right. Under the new system, the reporter will determine what further evidence he requires and in what form this should be presented to the examination.
Q10. For the purposes of these draft regulations - what is meant by the term "publish"? How is the relevant period in the requirement to "publish within 3 years" calculated?
A10. The publication date will be the date the planning authority carries out the actions signalled in section 18(1) of the Act (consulting key agencies etc). The publication date will be the start of the 6 week period for making representations. It is not the date a Planning Committee agrees the content of the plan.
Q11. In relation to neighbour notification on Local Development Plans, how does an authority justify its view as to whether or not there will be "significant effect"?
A11. In the final analysis, an authority's actions will always be open to legal challenge. However, the Scottish Government is considering framing the final regulations and accompanying circular and guidance as to the types of proposal that will require to be neighbour notified more explicitly.
Q12. Neighbours will be notified of LDP proposals, but not of alternative sites put forward in representations? An imbalance?
A12. We are aware of this issue. To some extent alternative sites will have been canvassed at the Main Issues Report stage. We may also encourage as good practice that the promoters of alternative sites should submit evidence of community support to examinations. Meanwhile it may not be helpful to raise community concerns about sites that could have very little real prospect of being supported.
Q13. Is Neighbour Notification required for a proposal within a designated area e.g. a conservation area (as opposed to a site specific proposal)?
A13. This is not the intention. We will consider how to clarify this in the final regulations.
Q14. Which elements of Supplementary Planning Guidance will be statutory? What will be left to the local authority?
A14. Authorities will always have the option of adopting guidance in a non-statutory form without the involvement of Scottish Ministers. The key tests for statutory supplementary guidance will be a proper connection to the SDP or LDP and an adequate level of consultation and public involvement in its preparation.
Q15. Do the additional requirements to consult with "Scottish Ministers" run counter to the overall stated policy objective of local planning decisions being made locally?
A.15 No. Consultation with "Scottish Ministers" should improve the quality and consistency of development planning across Scotland. Some Government directorates have a similar role to key agencies in that they are key infrastructure providers such as Transport Scotland or environmental advisors such as Historic Scotland. The Government is also well-placed to ensure that planning policies are being developed in line with national planning policy, and to monitor and disseminate best practice.
Q16. Is consultation with Scottish Ministers on supplementary guidance contrary to the ethos that Scottish Government wants Local Government to deliver in partnership?
A16. It is important for Scottish Ministers to be assured that supplementary guidance is not being used to introduce major policy changes outside the framework of the LDP or SDP, or without effective community involvement. In addition, this scrutiny should give the guidance enhanced status once adopted.
Q17. The expectation that proposed LDPs can be published within one year of the submission of SDPs is ambitious. What if late changes are made to the SDP?
A17. In the new system there should be fewer 'surprises' late in the process. But the modifications stage does allow for changes to be made to LDPs in these circumstances. We would not expect LDPs to pass the modifications stage before the SDP was approved.
Q18. The 3 year timescale for publishing the first proposed LDPs may be difficult to achieve, especially where old-style local plans are currently proceeding.
A18. There is scope for flexibility in exceptional circumstances, but it is unhelpful to have old-style local plans continuing for too many years after the commencement of the new system. Where local plans are up-to-date we would expect the process of rolling strategy forward into a LDP to be more straightforward than where the local plan is clearly out-of-date.
« Previous | Contents | Next »