This document requested has been designated as out-of-date and is available for reference purposes only. Please note that images and links within the document may be missing or inaccurate.

Planning is one of the key elements in my portfolio. Today’s conference gives me an early opportunity to emphasise the importance I attach to planning and to set out how I want the system to evolve in response to the many and varied challenges it faces.

There are 3 parts to this address. First of all I should like to summarise the considerable progress that we have made in delivering the commitments Sarah Boyack made at last year’s conference. Then I shall refer briefly to a number of external factors we have had to contend with. And finally, I want to set out our future priorities.

What Sarah announced last year was not a revolutionary approach – the responses to our consultation exercise Land Use Planning Under a Scottish Parliament did not justify that. The programme of work was instead designed to be evolutionary. But it was also I believe an ambitious programme.

The preparation of structure and local plans needs speeding up. The main responsibility for this lies with planning authorities. Sarah announced in February that statutory timetables would not be introduced - at least not at this stage. I strongly urge planning authorities to expedite plan making procedures so that we have more up to date structure and local plans which address current and emerging issues. We have a plan led system. I find it difficult to see how local plans adopted 10 years ago or more can provide this lead.

We acknowledged that the Executive could contribute to speeding up plan preparation and approval. We have reduced our target time for taking decisions on structure plans from 52 to 40 weeks.

This year we have focussed the resources of the Planning Audit Unit on development planning. Three pilot audits were conducted and we are grateful to Dundee, Angus and Dumfries and Galloway Councils for their co-operation. The findings from these audits will be summarised in the Unit’s next annual report which will be published in January.

Next year the Planning Audit Unit will undertake 3 further audits; at Falkirk, North Ayrshire and Perth and Kinross Councils. These audits will examine both the development control and the development planning functions of the councils concerned. Can I make it absolutely clear that, like my predecessors, I attach a high priority to the efficient handling of planning applications.

We have worked closely with CoSLA on 2  initiatives - Councillor Training Framework and Advice for Councillors on Conduct in relation to planning issues. The training framework, which was produced in co-operation with the RTPI, was launched at the Councillors' Summer School in St Andrews in September. I understand that CoSLA is nearing completion of their advice on conduct and they propose to issue this soon.

But I should stress that it's not just planners, councillors and developers who can benefit from a clear understanding of the planning system. As my friend Donald Dewar said at last year’s Herald Property Conference

"Planning – for the layman a submerged highly technical world surfacing occasionally in lengthy often incomprehensible hearings seen as a triumph not for clarity but the legal profession."

On taking office as Planning Minister I was delighted to learn that in May we had issued a Guide to the Planning System in Scotland. The fact that the Plain English Campaign has given it its Crystal Mark reflects the document's user friendliness. I hope that this is being made freely available at council offices across Scotland so that everyone can participate in and understand the system.

We undertook last year to revise NPPG 1 - the cornerstone of our national planning policy guidance. To make the process more open and inclusive a Task Group was established. Some of you here today were involved in this Group, and more of you will have responded to the public consultation exercise. I am very grateful to all who contributed and am pleased to announce today the publication of the guidance.

There is a strong demand for more transparency in the process of producing NPPGs and, in particular, the stages from the consultative draft to the final document. Those who responded to the consultation on NPPG 1 will want to know what influence they have had on the final text. That is a reasonable request.

We have therefore produced a summary of the comments on the draft guidance. This identifies the main issues raised by consultees together with our response. While this does not explain each and every difference between the consultative draft and the published document, I believe it indicates how we approached the final text. Copies of this summary are available today along with the NPPG.

In addition, we are posting a comprehensive digest of the 120  responses on our website.

No matter how clear any organisation is about its priorities, and no matter how thoroughly it plans to use resources, external factors, over which it has little or no control, can and invariably do conspire to frustrate progress. There are 2 issues I should like to mention which impacted greatly on our work this year.

Firstly, telecommunications. The Scottish Parliament, through the report of the Transport and the Environment Committee, has brought this issue very much to the top of the planning agenda. Almost everyone here will, I suspect, have pretty firm views on whether mobile phone masts should be subject to more or less planning control.

There are diametrically opposing views on this and related issues, and it is not a subject where we have found it easy to square the circle. It has therefore taken us rather longer than we would have liked to move this matter forward, but I am pleased to be able to advise you that the consultation papers issued today.

The essential element of our proposals is that all new ground based masts should be subject to full planning control. Operators will therefore be required to apply for planning permission for all new ground based installations. This will trigger the neighbour notification procedures and give the public an opportunity to make representations to the planning authority on these developments.

As for installations on buildings, I agree that something needs to be done to curb the worst excesses. Some rooftops are festooned with unsightly equipment, and planning authorities need to be able to control this. Our proposals also envisage stronger controls in conservation areas and other sensitive locations. But the operators need to keep pace with demand. The economic and social benefits to Scotland of a modern telecommunications infrastructure are greatly to be desired. Our proposals seek to strike a balance between the genuine concerns that individuals have, and the social and economic benefits that mobile telecommunications can bring.

Full details are in the consultation package and we look forward to hearing views by 16 February 2001.

ECHR

We are all very familiar with challenges to individual planning decisions. We are now also experiencing challenges to the planning system itself on the grounds that the processes it involves may not comply with all the requirements in the European Convention on Human Rights which is now incorporated into UK law. Indeed this topic is having considerable influence across all Government portfolios.

In considering the implications of the Convention for the planning system, we examined case law which appeared to us to be relevant. This did not lead us to believe that any change to the planning system was needed. You will be aware of the judgement in the County Properties case and that we have lodged an appeal. You will therefore understand why it would not be right to comment further until the outcome of the appeal is known.

I would, however, like to make one or two general comments. It is about 50 years since we first ratified the Convention, in the aftermath of the Second World War. Its aim was to ensure that Europe should never again see the abuses of fundamental rights and freedoms which had fuelled that conflict. The world has changed a great deal since then and the interpretation of the Convention has evolved considerably. It is sometimes hard to see the connection between the original purpose of the Convention and the way it is applied today. But we should remember that the fundamental purpose of the ECHR is to ensure that public policy making takes proper account of the rights of the individual - and it is difficult to argue with that.

Nevertheless, the planning system aims to make decisions in the wider public interest. Inevitably some people are going to be disappointed by certain decisions. This leads to appeals and challenges. I suspect this is part of a wider trend in society where some people seem to be increasingly unwilling to accept that sometimes they cannot have everything they want. They must learn that their own rights must be balanced against the rights of others and that rights come with responsibilities. Indeed the need to strike a proper balance between the rights of individuals and those of the wider community is a message that lies at the heart of the Convention.

Last year Sarah said she was content to leave the basic components of the planning system as they were. But she also said that she was willing to listen to credible worked-up proposals for change. I am aware that a fair bit has been written in the professional journals and elsewhere about larger scale planning frameworks. I also know that the Institute has produced its own paper on a National Planning Framework. Interesting though these papers are, I think they fall short of what I believe Sarah had in mind.

At the strategic level in Scotland we have National Planning Policy Guidelines and Structure Plans. I am firmly committed to retaining the NPPG series. Indeed as well as issuing NPPG 1, our revised guidance on renewable energy will be published shortly.

Next year I want to make significant progress with 3 NPPGs. The first is Telecommunications which I have just mentioned. The others are the revision of NPPG2 Business and Industry and NPPG3 Land for Housing.

Much planning theory and practice have their origins in the segregation of land uses. But the nature of employment has changed out of all recognition. In the future jobs will come from the financial, business, professional and leisure sectors. Small DOT.COM companies do not need to be located in suburban business parks at some distance from residential areas and with limited opportunities for access by public transport, walking and cycling. There are, I think, major opportunities to make better use of vacant space above shops, co-locating housing with service uses as well as designing houses in ways which allow people to work more flexibly. This can lead to the creation of vibrant mixed use areas which can genuinely be described as sustainable.

The guidance will also need to recognise the changes underway in rural areas and make provision for development which will assist local economies but without damaging the quality of these areas.

I expect the NPPG to consider these matters as well as reviewing our guidance on key issues such as sites for inward investment.

Land for Housing

There is a continuing requirement for new housing both to meet the forecast growth in households and to replace existing housing which because of its condition or location no longer provides the quality of accommodation that society expects. Recent housing completions in the owner occupied sector are at an all-time high and a substantial proportion of the development has taken place on brownfield sites. That is something for which the planning system can take great credit.

There is, however, evidence of dissatisfaction from the house builders on the supply of land for housing and about the speed with which decisions are taken. Others, of course, argue that too much greenfield land is being released, that much of it is in locations which are not well served by public transport and the quality of new housing leaves much to be desired. There are also specific concerns about the supply of land for affordable housing, particularly but not exclusively in rural areas. We have research projects underway which are addressing a number of these concerns and these will inform the review of NPPG 3 Land for Housing which will get underway at the beginning of next year.

We are committed to making the preparation of NPPGs more transparent and inclusive and we will be setting up similar arrangements for revising NPPGs 2 and 3 to those we used for NPPG1.

So what about Structure Plans? We have, at present, 17 Structure Plan areas in Scotland. I do not believe these reflect current geographic realities of Scotland in the 21^st century and I intend to publish our own proposals on future arrangements for strategic planning. There are, I think, 3 options: - the status quo is not one.

• Revised current Structure Plan areas - based for example on city regions.
• Larger scale planning areas - based for example on the Central Belt or the area of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
• National Planning Framework.

Sarah said that she was looking for worked up proposals. That is what I expect as well. Our proposals have to address the so-called wicked issues such as: -

• Which areas?
• Who should prepare and approve the plan?
• Should the plan be statutory or non-statutory?
• What should its content be?

Let me make it clear that I am not proposing a review of the value of strategic planning. But I am firmly committed to ensuring that we have in place robust arrangements which will guide the location of investment in new development and infrastructure, identify priority areas for physical renewal and regeneration and provide confidence that Scotland’s unique natural and cultural heritage resources will not be undermined by ill considered or inappropriate development. Indeed I regard effective strategic planning as a key means of delivering sustainable development

I am not, however, looking to see further layers of planning created or additional plans produced. I am looking for a system that provides clarity of strategic direction and brings with it a commitment to act. I am not looking for these plans to gather dust on a shelf or languish on a web site. I want them to be a basis for action. The process by which they are drawn up must therefore be inclusive and realistic assumptions must be made on resources.

To take this subject forward I have asked my officials to arrange discussions/seminars/workshops with those who have an interest in future strategic planning arrangements. We will also be placing a feed back form on our website. Further details will be in the Planning Bulletin which we will issue next month. We will publish the outcome of this review and our conclusions on the way forward hopefully next summer.

But I urge those of you who are involved in preparing structure and local plans to continue with this work. Any proposals for change might well require primary legislation to implement and I can give no guarantee when that will be.

But the true measure of the effectiveness of the planning system is what it actually delivers on the ground. Scotland has many fine towns, villages and neighbourhoods and these are protected through national and, in some cases, international designations. But I am far from convinced that the areas which have recently been developed will justify special measures for their conservation and enhancement? In my travels throughout Scotland, I do not see the conservation areas of tomorrow.

As you know, the Executive has made a commitment to develop a policy on architecture for Scotland. A consultation document setting out our aspirations for architecture and a framework for policy development was launched at the end of last year. We will shortly be publishing a report on the results of the consultation. The comments showed, however, some dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of planning control. There was a clear view that in too many cases inappropriate development had been permitted. I share this concern.

I see one of the great challenges for the planning system to deliver not just individual buildings but to deliver places where people will want to be. And this is not just a challenge for planners. It is a challenge for all who are involved in the development process – officials, councillors, developers, the enterprise network, housebuilders, architects, local communities must all take responsibility.

Improved urban design is not just an end in itself. It also supports other key objectives and policies of the Executive – economic competitiveness, sustainable development and social justice where everyone has a right to a good quality environment.

There is no single or quick way to tackle these issues. But I want to raise the profile of the subject. The publication of NPPG 1 demonstrates our policy commitment to achieving higher quality development and I think we have to reinforce the specific advice we have given on specific issues such as Town Centre Improvement and Small Towns with more general design advice.

But there are other issues that need to be addressed. For example I do not think we have been clear enough in our vision about the ways in which we want our towns and cities and rural areas to evolve. All too often it has been through one-off decisions with insufficient thought given to the wider context or the longer term consequences. In addition we must address concerns over matters such as the design skills in council planning departments, the extent to which there is sufficient emphasis on design in our planning schools and appreciation of design issues by elected members. If we are to aspire to higher design standards we must ensure that the skills exist to deliver them.

I see no easy answers on design but raising standards of development in urban and rural Scotland is something in which I have a strong interest and to which I bring a strong personal commitment.

I also want to see more effective public involvement in planning.

The views of individuals and communities need to be heard. We need to be sure that people can contribute constructively to the plans and decisions that affect their future. I believe that technology now offers us many new opportunities for more inclusive citizen involvement and understanding without the downside of delay. I have asked my officials to discuss the issues widely in the next few months with a view to publishing a consultation paper next year. Among the issues I want the paper to deal with is the way in which planning proposals are notified to neighbours and to the wider community, and how to ensure effective public dialogue in the development plan process. It will also look at how we can improve the arrangements for access to planning information and how we can try to make the planning service more responsive to people’s needs.

We can build on the findings of recent research on Advertising Planning Proposals, Access to Planning Information and One Stop-Shops. I also expect the paper to reflect key issues in the Executive’s wider policy agenda such as Social Justice, Equality, Modernising Government and Best Value.

Let me now draw to a close.

The theme of your conference is BIG PLANNING. The priorities I have set are BIG – PLANS, PLACES and PEOPLE. I expect the profession to rise to these challenges and I can assure you that the Executive will play its full part. Planning is an activity which impacts widely and it is important that the process by which we move the agenda forward embraces a wide community of interest. I am sure that with goodwill and commitment we can take the planning system forward. I look forward to joining you next year to review progress.

Thank you.