Land Use Planning under a Scottish Parliament: Overview of Responses to Consultation

Overview of responses to consultation

1. The consultation paper Land Use Planning under a Scottish Parliament was issued in January 1999. The wide range of responses received included affirmations of the usefulness of the system, some serious concerns about particular aspects, suggestions for change and calls for better management at all levels and a much more positive and proactive approach.

2. The consultation period ran until 31 March 1999 and 128 responses were received, some after the deadline. They can be broken down as follows:

• Four respondents asked for their comments to remain confidential. All the other responses can be viewed at the Scottish Executive Library, Saughton House, Edinburgh. A digest of the responses has been prepared and is available through the Scottish Executive website's planning pages at www.scotland.gov.uk/planning. This note gives an overview.

3. There was a broad welcome for the consultation, and though a small number of respondents felt some issues had not been explored radically enough, most thought the paper had been fairly presented. Several highlighted how the context of land use planning had changed because of-

• sustained pressure on land from new household formation, increasing car ownership and new forms of development
• growing recognition of global and local environmental issues
• increased public awareness of planning and emphasis on protecting individual rights
• changing role of local authorities from service providers to enablers -and a growing separation of plan making and implementation
• local government reorganisation -no more regional councils to champion structure plans
• growing impact of European legislation.

4. The consultation paper was based on 4 broad assumptions about the way in which the planning system might evolve under a Scottish Parliament.

• there should be no substantial shift in responsibility between the national and local levels, so allowing planning to remain fundamentally a local authority activity
• there should, through partnership, be better co-ordination of the work of the public and private sectors
• the area of planning in which the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament is likely to have the greatest interest is the strategic policy level
• any changes should be consistent with ensuring a fair, open and participative planning process which offers the highest standards of integrity, probity, quality of service and Best Value for users of the system and local taxpayers.

These assumptions were not widely challenged.

Q1. Is the planning system, as it currently operates, fit for the purpose? Is the status quo a viable option? Is there a need for overhaul of its main components to improve effectiveness and value for money?

5. Most respondents felt that, despite pressures and some specific failings, the system itself did remain generally fit for purpose. But there were pointed criticisms of: -

• delays, particularly in local plan preparation (continuing inefficiencies in development control were also mentioned)
• failure to keep local plans up-to-date
• mediocrity of development
• failure of the system to be positive and proactive and make adequate provision for development
• too much detail in plans, especially local plans
• lack of effective strategic planning.

6. Sir George Mathewson considered that "planning should be seen less as gatekeeping and more as facilitation". Some respondents highlighted problems arising from under-resourcing and the statutory procedures for plan-making and review. A number from the private sector expressed the view that the problem was not with the system but a lack of local authority commitment to operating it. Boots, supporting the system as a background of certainty for investment, considered that short-term economic objectives had sometimes been allowed to override long term sensible land use planning. One member of the public (DWR Whittet) wrote, "It is in the application of the system that serious shortcomings emerge." There were fairly widespread calls for statutory processes to be subject to set timetables although it was queried whether effective sanctions could be devised.

7. COSLA suggested that while the system was generally fit for purpose, there is scope and need for improvement and simplification. "There may be scope for land use planning consultative processes focussing more on key issues and for public participation to be correspondingly more focussed - sharper and thereby shorter. The extent to which these are process management issues and the extent to which current legislation constrains land use plan development processes needs further examination." There were some calls – very much a minority – for a complete overhaul of the planning system. But the main message coming across – from both the public and the private sectors – was that it was the approach rather than the system that required radical change, and that the immediate emphasis should be in commitment and management at every level to make it work more effectively.

Q2 Should planning legislation make explicit reference to sustainable development?

8. A large number of respondents, among them Scottish Natural Heritage, wanted to see the term "sustainable development" enshrined in legislation. But this was by no means a universal view. The Scottish Council Development and Industry and many others, including some local authorities, pointed out that the concept was very difficult to define and that inclusion in legislation would lead to complications and delays. Some consultees commented that sustainable development had become a cliché. Broughty Ferry Community Council, concerned about out-of-town developments, thought it currently only received "lip service". There were calls for clearer practical advice on the subject, including the suggestion of SNH for a series of Planning Advice Notes dealing with issues such as land recycling, reuse of buildings, energy efficient development, promotion of public transport, walking and cycling.

9. Some argued that planning’s influence on sustainable development was limited by its focus on land use. However the Secretary of State’s Advisory Group on Sustainable Development pointed out: - "Sustainable development is concerned to secure resources used efficiently and social justice….. In this, town and country planning has a major role to play. It influences the location, form and extent of development, which generates demand for and responds to transport infrastructure. These in turn are the major influence on energy use and emissions of greenhouse gases and other waste products. Planning plays a major role in the protection of natural resources, habitats and biodiversity. Yet appropriate development is essential for job opportunities and ensuring social renewal of communities. Ensuring that planning policies are aligned to achieve these objectives is critical to the quality of life and the quality of our common environment." Several respondents drew attention to the planning system's time horizon and the established requirements for public involvement as important tools in securing sustainable development.

Q3 Is the current scope of the planning system in Scotland, with its focus on the use and development of land, broadly adequate?

10. With some exceptions (eg Falkirk Council, Scottish Association for Public Transport, Scottish Power), respondents felt that the planning system should retain its present focus on the use and development of land. But many felt it needed to strengthen its links to:-

• economic, social and environmental changes
• other initiatives and plans, in particular Community Planning
• plans and activities of other agencies and, perhaps above all,
• transport.

The present scope of planning was strongly supported by several business respondents. Marks & Spencer commented that "it is essential that planning remains focused on the use and development of land. Planning should not be used as a means of progressing non-land use objectives and should not be ‘side-tracked’ into pursuing political agendas." Morrison Construction said that "planning should focus entirely on the use and development of land but plan for changes in the economic and social framework for society rather than respond to those changes as it does at present." The Scottish Environment Protection Agency felt that to "widen the scope may encroach on the statutory duties of other bodies". The Scottish Housing and Planning Council thought the scope of planning was "generally quite well understood by the public", while Aberdeenshire Council argued that "to broaden the scope of the planning system would result in giving greater complexity to an already complex process". Renfrewshire Council said that it was "important not to over-estimate the scope and capabilities of land use planning and to recognise the dangers of producing ever more extensive and wide ranging policy documents".

11. But some responses argued for a very different approach. Professor Keith Hayton questioned "the utility and relevance of statutory land use plans in an era where the emphasis is on making linkages and delivering sustainability." He proposed that statutory land use plans should no longer be produced, and that there should be National and Sustainability Plans "which are all-inclusive, incorporating the existing myriad of plans and strategies and the activities and resources of all publicly funded agencies", with mechanisms for involving the public and communities in production and implementation.

Q4 Should NPPGs continue to be prepared on a topic basis?

Q5 Should they be grouped or, perhaps, be consolidated into a single document?

Q6 Should they be given a stronger locational component?

Q8 Should NPPGs be referred to in legislation?

12. Responses to these 4 questions are considered together. As the recent review of NPPGs has shown there is widespread support for the series, although a number of criticisms ran through the responses. The most frequent concern was over the way they were produced rather than their content. The Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Committee wrote:-

"The problem with NPPGs was not what they did or said as much as how they were derived. Conceived with limited discussion, no transparency of production, modified at will without recourse to legislation they do not fit readily with current participatory strengths of the planning process ... nevertheless ... they have proved to be a considerable asset in the translation of national policy to a more localised level ... and can provide valuable assistance in ensuring a consistency of approach across Scotland."

13. There were other criticisms over the growing length, level of detail and amount of prescription in NPPGs and the demands they placed on local authorities but the current topic based approach was widely supported. There was a lack of general enthusiasm for consolidation of the series. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) in Scotland commented that "a consolidated document such as that used currently in Wales is cumbersome, confusing and difficult to update". East Lothian Council argued that an important advantage of preparing NPPGs by topic is that it can "accommodate different rates of change experienced by different parts of the system". But there was some support for a single (NPPG) document on the basis that it could "avoid confusion, might enable clearer priorities to be established and could also allow some over-arching policy guidance which could be cross linked to various topic areas under the general objective of sustainability". The majority view, however, was against consolidation.

14. Views on giving the NPPGs a locational component were mixed. Aberdeen City Council felt that NPPGs may already be too locational in addressing specific Central Belt problems, and that they should stick to principles, recognising that a wide range of local circumstances would have to be accommodated. Consultant Robert Drysdale remarked that NPPGs "should not translate national policy into local policies -that is a role for the planning authority. There must be a distinction between national policy handed down by the Executive and local policy decided by local people". Many similar responses argued that a locational element was unnecessary or would be too prescriptive. Perth and Kinross Council considered that a stronger locational component would only really be needed if there were to be less emphasis on structure plans. On the other hand, a few respondents felt that a few NPPGs had a locational component already and some degree of central direction could be justified if a clear national interest were involved. Dundee, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, Stirling and West Dunbartonshire Councils appeared to favour a stronger locational element, and West Lothian saw a strong case for a national overview of the Central Belt.

15. There was widespread opposition to incorporating NPPGs in legislation. But quite a strong body of opinion argued that it should be made clear that NPPGs were a material consideration in planning decisions. Some argued that, in the case of retailing, despite the primacy of development plans, it was NPPG8 that would determine how an application or appeal would be decided. While there is a clear demand for the role of NPPGs to be clarified, there are differing views on how much weight they should be given. Some (Morrison Construction/West Lothian Council) argue that the term "guideline" should be dropped and they should be statements of policy while others felt that guidance should be no more than that. As part of wider concerns about the management of planning there were several calls for the practical implementation of NPPGs to be more actively monitored.

16. Some respondents (eg Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, student Anita Stone) suggest a higher profile for NPPGs to make their contents understood more widely.

Q7 How could plans and programmes of other Government agencies be better reflected in planning guidance?

17. Perceptions of a failure of Government agencies to observe Government guidance in their actions and decisions are part of a wider concern over the separation of plan making by planning authorities from implementation by executive agencies and the private sector. There is a clear desire among authorities to achieve better integration between development plans and the actions of the various agencies. Agencies who did respond to the consultation paper (Scottish Homes, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the 3 Water Authorities, Highlands & Islands Enterprise and Dumfries & Galloway Enterprise) clearly felt that the planning system was important in helping them achieve their objectives.

18. West of Scotland Water commented that the planning system needed to give a clearer steer on the release of land for development in the long term and that responding to speculative planning applications was putting a strain on their resources. The RTPI in Scotland felt that "agencies may be deterred from working with the planning system in view of its alleged reputation for bureaucracy".

Q9 In the context of Best Value, is there a continuing need for structure plans and, if so, should the current areas and arrangements be changed, for example, to improve co-ordination of transport and planning policies once the present round of plans has been completed?

Q10 As an alternative, should sub-national planning guidance be prepared; and if so, what form should it take; and should it be prepared centrally in partnership with local authorities and others, or locally for enforcement by the Scottish Executive?

19. The responses to these 2 questions are considered together. While there is widespread recognition of and support for a layer of planning above that of individual Council areas there is a range of views on what form it should take and how it should be prepared. On the whole, most consultees support the continuation of structure planning, but many argue that the current mosaic of areas is inappropriate and structure plans may not be required for every area.

20. Some respondents pressed for a national planning vision or framework document. The Civil Engineering Contractors Association (Scotland) argued that "Although Scotland is a sufficiently compact country in which to develop a comprehensive high level vision for infrastructure development and land use, they currently lack any such long-term masterplan ….. the Scottish Parliament should take a far-sighted initiative on establishing a Scottish Strategic Plan as the future basis for an economy working at world class levels in efficiency ... as well as residential requirements the development of such a plan should include consideration of future infrastructural and industrial requirements. The plan should address integrated transport solutions ..." (These views are also recorded in "Pathfinders to the Parliament: A Business Agenda for the Scottish Parliament" published by The Scottish Office in March 1999.) The Scottish Society of Directors of Planning argue for a Scottish Framework which would have both a sectoral and spatial dimension. It would look to the long-term but there would be an annual statement of policies and priorities. Friends of the Earth and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland also press for a more holistic and visionary approach at the national level.

21. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is concerned that subsidiarity principles apply, and considers that the Executive/Parliament should only introduce national and subnational planning requirements essential for the achievement of national objectives. "In the first instance it is essential that national policies are clearly articulated. In turn the Executive/Parliament will wish to satisfy itself that, to the extent that achieving national objectives requires local authorities to come together on an area basis to agree sub-national guidance/plans, that local authorities put mechanisms in place to achieve this joint activity. Explicit in this is a continuing scrutiny and endorsement role for the Executive."

22. A recurring theme in this debate is the need to devise a system and approach which recognises the diversity of Scotland. Many were fearful of central direction arguing that it runs contrary to the principle of subsidiarity and would not be responsive to local needs. Some respondents saw merit in structure plans being replaced with sub-national guidance for the Central Belt, although the need for full local authority involvement in the process was emphasised. The City of Edinburgh Council, for example, while supporting the introduction of new arrangements for strategic planning at a sub-national level were of the view that "the preparation of strategic or sub-national guidance should, in the first instance, be the responsibility of local government. Others argued that the Executive should take the lead while Highlands & Islands Enterprise said that "sub-national guidance should neither be prepared centrally nor locally but in a partnership of local and central interests."

23. A number of consultees regarded structure plans as a success story in Scotland but there was a widespread view that local government reorganisation in 1996 dealt them a severe blow. Fife Council wrote that "the reorganisation of local government … has been far from helpful in establishing a strong, robust and credible strategic planning system" while planner Brian Parnell argued that "the continuity of structure plans is not secured by the ad hoc system of joint working".

24. Some respondents saw no future for structure plans. Glasgow City Council, for example, envisaged a simplified structure that would "remove the need for structure plans (and NPPGs)". Morrison Construction wrote that "In a country with a population of less than 6 million there should be no need for structure plans if Parliament forms clear policies in relation to strategic matters such as transport, housing requirements, etc." Peter Allan, planning consultant, saw "at present a considerable degree of over planning" while Halcrows argued that "structure plans need to be replaced by more effective, slimmer, strategic framework documents" with a "preference … for less rather than more planning at the upper tier".