The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4 DEFINITION, PLANNING & PLACE-MAKING BARRIERS

4.1 This chapter presents the evidence on real and perceived barriers to delivering mixed use development focussing on definition, planning and place-making barriers. The evidence comes from the first stakeholders workshops in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, interviews, (See Appendix 2: Acknowledgements) and the survey of local planning authorities. (See Appendix 4: Local Planning Authority Survey Responses). In particular, this chapter considers the following issues:

• Variation in definition;
• Local plan commitment; and
• Planning and place-making issues.

Variation in Definition

4.2 Similar to the issues raised in the previous chapter, the first set of stakeholder workshops and interviews highlighted the wide variation in the definition of mixed-use development. This raised some doubts about using the term to describe a type of development. The finding confirms the research undertaken for Department for Communities and Local Government/ ODPM in 2002 ¹¹ which concluded that the variation in definition is not a problem in itself, even though it raises doubts about the practical value of using the term 'mixed use development' to define a category or type of development when it evidently encompasses such a wide range of development.

4.3 The Aberdeen workshop highlighted that the variation in definition, however, does become a problem when the term is used too loosely. In some cases it has been used simply as a 'badge' which is attached to a scheme as a selling point or marketing theme, rather than being an essential part of its conceptual development. Attendees at the workshops highlighted examples where an important policy ambition is debased by a project that provides no real contribution to the character or vitality of a town or city centre.

4.4 The survey of Scottish local planning authorities confirmed this lack of definition. Of 44 policy extracts derived from local plans developed over the past 5 years and submitted and analysed as part of the survey of local planning authorities, over a third had no definition of mixed use (though some of these referred to other documents that were not submitted). Roughly another third of the submissions had a scant definition of mixed use e.g.

"providing sites for a variety of mixed use developments"

"non-residential developments which are compatible with residential use and do not conflict with other policies in the local plan will be supported within these areas."

4.5 Just under a third did provide a greater degree of definition e.g.

"mixed-use with residential and office uses at upper levels."

"an area within which the scale and character of individual uses is such that no single land use predominates. Retailing, business, recreation, open space, residential and industrial uses may all be represented."

"mixed use areas may simply comprise the local service uses alongside residential and other uses which could include business, industry and open space."

4.6 Just fewer than 10% of these policies could be said to provide a detailed description of mixed use and were generally describing the uses that would be required within a new suburb/neighbourhood centre and significantly, all came from the same local planning authority. These definitions ran to a page and a half of text.

4.7 The lack of an accepted definition also means that accurate statistics on the number, type and location of mixed use developments in Scotland is not recorded and collated even as part of the Planning Performance Statistics. This also makes the analysis of the Architecture + Design Scotland ( A+DS) data base of design reviews more difficult.

4.8 As a response, and for the purposes of this research, the following working definition of mixed use development, based on 'major development' as defined in Scottish Government Planning Performance Statistics ¹² has been used:

• Major development in single ownership or being undertaken by a single developer with a focus on individual buildings, streets & neighbourhoods, areas developed by single developers where the aim is to promote a mixed community;
• Includes two or more revenue producing uses / activities including housing;
• Includes significant physical and functional integration including real physical connections between uses within a five minute walk; and
• The overall place-making result is a higher density, multi functional environment with vitality and attractiveness.

Local Plan Commitment

4.9 It seems there is a need to enable planners to be more specific and apply policies with more sophistication. Mixed use development is only appropriate in certain locations and these should be identified from capacity and market studies. One Edinburgh workshop attendee commented that:

"there is a fixation with mixed use but some sites/locations don't have the footfall to insist on active mixed use frontages."

4.10 Looking at the actual words used in the policy extracts submitted in response to the questionnaire, it can be seen that "encouragement" was more commonly used than "requirement". If the planning authority uses the word "encourage" in relation to a site, then, the planning authority would be in a weaker position in terms of negotiating for mixed use when planning applications are submitted. On the other hand, a planning authority that requires mixed use may find that it is holding back the development of a site if it has not robustly assessed the market for the potential range of uses that might be suitable.

4.11 The use of statements and polices in a local plan to implement proposals on mixed use was most common but the identification of specific mixed use areas was almost as common. Masterplans and development frameworks were also very common tools used to achieve mixed use proposals. There must however be a question on what force the masterplan will have as secondary guidance, particularly where the masterplan may contravene some local plan provisions.

4.12 The survey showed that a median of 7.5% of major developments and 5% of new neighbourhood zones had been developed for mixed use. This figure can be used to derive an indicative estimate of the total number of mixed use developments nationally by multiplying the median by the nationally available figure of major developments (from planning authority returns). With approximately 2,000 major planning applications across Scotland per annum between 2004 and 2007 ¹³, this suggests that there will have been some 125 mixed use developments per annum.

Planning & Place-making

4.13 Planning authorities responding to the online survey were also asked to identify the barriers to mixed use. The results were scored and are detailed in Appendix 4: Local Planning Authority Survey Responses. Two planning related barriers were in the top ten and identified as most significant. These were the need to involve a large number of disciplines which can be a real barrier and the overall length of the planning application process. The issue of community concerns as a barrier was also raised and linked with the issue of council members paying great heed to community objections. Planning authorities will have been working with minority objections to planning applications for many years and this is not a new issue. Aberdeen workshop attendees discussed this and felt that more advocacy about the advantages of mixed use and the concept of "vibrant" communities was also required to 'engage the community'. The Scottish Government's planning modernisation agenda proposals for more effective consultation could help to reduce the level of community concern about mixed use.

4.14 Examples of mixed use development provided by respondents to the online survey were also analysed. The majority of problems encountered were those that related to generic development and site issues and only a third of the problems encountered could be said to be specific to mixed use development. This generally accords with the literature review. The issues which did fall into this category included issues of providing parking for the secondary uses, noise issues where business and residential uses were adjacent; achieving the developer contribution to provide the secondary use and persuading the developer to release land for generally non-residential secondary use.

4.15 Clearly mixed use development is not appropriate in some locations and attendees at both workshops agreed that new development plans need to provide more specific guidance on where mixed use development is appropriate based on robust spatial planning and capacity studies undertaken by the local planning authority. Based on evidence from the workshops, it seems that local planning authorities do not often undertake extensive research in the form of market and capacity studies before identifying mixed use locations. Mixed use development however is not just about shops and services but should also include workshops, employment creation and integrated community uses. It was clear from both workshops that in most instances, mixed use is promoted as part of the local plan policy, or as part of vision and masterplan promoted by the local planning authority that is then to be delivered by the private sector.

4.16 A typical Scottish example of how a real barrier emerges would be an initial proposal for a new neighbourhood in the form of an urban extension. This planned mixed use project is then promoted as driven by sustainable place principles. According to some workshop attendees and A+DS, a combination of 'historic analysis by property surveyors and conservative developers' however can often present evidence to argue against this kind of mixed use neighbourhood and so this 'evidence' can become a significant barrier. As a result, the urban neighbourhood proposal is sometimes simplified and diluted into homogeneous areas of single use, linking to other areas of single but differing uses. In this example, a low to medium density residential scheme, with a fine grain mixed use neighbourhood centre with patchwork of different activities and horizontal and vertical mixing is often replaced by a scaled up local/neighbourhood supermarket serving a large catchment, set in an extensive car park. This is often then difficult to integrate into an overall neighbourhood scheme. A recent example in a city context and sourced from the A+DS Design Review Reports Database ¹⁴ is the emerging proposals for Bothwell Plaza in Glasgow where a full planning application for a mixed use office and hotel development for a city block, where fiscal and investment boundaries has in A+DS's view ' led to the separation of elements rather than addressing the city block as a separate entity'. These issues are explored in more detail in Chapter 7.

4.17 In some instances local planning authorities use the term 'mixed use' in a local plan or development brief to link homogeneous areas of single use residential with single use employment areas. The aim is to ensure that the developer will deliver serviced employment land that is available for development as part of a commitment to mixed use development.

4.18 In the online survey; comments were also made about delays in commercial units being occupied as a result of the lack of market interest and proposals not based on a robust market justification and convincing development economics. There was also a view at both workshops that development planning culture and attitudes need to change to 'recognise the value of place'. It seems that a significant barrier is that the skills required to promote and deliver mixed use are still lacking in the public, private and third sectors ¹⁵. Delivering mixed use requires a lot more than land use planning skills and therefore skills development and training specific to mixed use development as a 'subset' of place making is required. Basic skills in, and some understanding of, the principles of deal structuring, joint ventures and development economics are increasingly essential for planners and urban designers.

4.19 From the promoter's or developer's point of view there is still a perception that mixed use development is likely to involve more complexity. This is because of combining the different uses and components and, as a result the overall decision-making process is likely to be more complicated, time consuming and risky. Those responding to the online survey of local planning authorities agreed that this was an issue. Respondents were asked to rate the difficulty of progressing mixed use developments from the initial concept stage to a start on site. A five point scale was offered with 1 being difficult and 5 being a very smooth and relatively quick process. Of the examples given, 40% scored 4 or 5 on this five point scale. There is no specific benchmark against which to make a comparison but as local planning authority respondents scored "Overall length of planning application process" as the 9th highest out of 30 barriers for local authorities and 8th highest for developers, the complexity of the planning application process does appear to be a significant issue for mixed use development.

4.20 Therefore, in order to assist in delivering mixed use development new development management approaches based on well researched masterplans and possibly more flexible outline planning permissions (being replaced by Planning Permission in Principle in August 2009) will need to be explored. Taking a longer term view, the built fabric and design solutions need to enable temporal flexibility so as to be robust and adaptable to accommodate changes in use over time and so overcome a potential barrier to sustaining a mix of uses in the longer term and extending the life of a development project. There is also likely to be a need to provide for more live/work units. The critical factors here are; structure, services strategy, floor plan depth and section heights.

4.21 Other options to be explored could include: promoting planning permission in principle with parameters and area planning or street block briefs; and even more flexible detailed consents that for example do not necessarily specify particular uses for individual units when they are part of a mixed use proposal. The aim here is to provide a 'smoother and more certain path' through planning for mixed use developments that are well conceived and have a coherent and well researched masterplan. In this context, the Scottish Government's planning modernisation agenda could offer an opportunity to identify where different approaches are most appropriate to overcoming what has been identified as a real barrier to delivering mixed use development.

Conclusions & Summary of Issues

4.22 A clear conclusion is that mixed use development is not just about shops, residential and services uses but also includes employment creation and integrated community uses. Secondly, mixed use development is only appropriate in certain locations that need to be identified from robust capacity and market studies. There is also a wide variation in the definition of mixed-use development that is used in Scotland. Therefore, a significant barrier is the identified need to enable planners and local planning authorities to be more specific on what is meant by mixed use, to specify appropriate locations for mixed use projects and apply mixed use development policies with more sophistication.

4.23 The key issues emerging from this chapter are as follows:

Issue 4.1: Definition of Mixed use

4.24 The evidence from the workshops and the survey of local planning authorities shows that the term 'mixed use' is loosely defined and therefore has different implications relative to different scales of place-making (individual building, street block, neighbourhood) and different land use relationships. The evidence from the survey of local planning authorities shows that Local Plans have often allocated parcels of land use in a loose and too simplistic way and without sufficient robust justification including market and capacity studies. There is in some cases a low risk and safety culture that results in bland land use allocations or lowest common denominator requirements like 'active retail frontage' that is then often not delivered because of lack of market interest or lack of enforceable planning guidance.

Issue 4.2: Planning & Place Making To Promote Mixed Use

4.25 'Modernising The Planning System' offers more opportunities, to promote good practice and appropriate skills and enable development planning to deliver mixed use development more effectively. Under the new system, development plans will need to be accompanied by action programmes setting out how planned development and the supporting infrastructure will be delivered and this should also assist in promoting mixed use development. There is also a need to look at the spread of uses across town/city/urban area, to promote clusters of higher density mixed use that are within a five minute walk and explore opportunities to provide for more live/work units ¹⁶. Attendees at the first workshops also highlighted the need for public sector partners and agencies e.g. Environmental Health, Historic Scotland, SEPA, SNH, Scottish Water to understand and support the priority being given to mixed use.

Issue 4.3: Delivering Mixed Use: Skills Development

4.26 The skills required to promote and deliver mixed use are still lacking and need to be set within the place making agenda as well as providing an understanding of the principles of brokering mixed use deals and development economics. The response from the survey of local planning authorities on training shows that local authorities themselves clearly acknowledge a significant need for appropriate training. More than half of the local planning authorities who responded to the survey required more than four staff each to be trained in master planning, place making and development funding principles with slightly lower numbers of staff requiring training in partnership structuring and development management agreements.

« Previous | Contents | Next »