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

Q11 Are more radical changes required in the arrangements for development planning in Scotland?

25. There were few radical suggestions, many consultees seeking stability and a commitment to better management. A number of private sector respondents expressed doubts about the local authorities’ commitment to prepare statutory plans. There were calls for the introduction of timetables, often coupled with concerns over the lack of sanctions if Councils fail to adhere to their programme.

26. Some concerns were expressed, mainly by the private sector, that local plans had become too detailed. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors felt that "much of what is contained in local plans is too detailed, irrelevant and concerned with matters of development control". The Institution along with private developers also argued that local plans were negative and reactive. Consultant John Walls argued that "local plans should be broad brush, have a long-term vision and be prepared within a limited time frame. He went on to argue that a corollary of this approach was the "need to prepare more detailed non-statutory action plans for areas where change is required/anticipated".

27. The scope for introducing Unitary Development Plans (UDPs) was a theme taken up by some, although cautionary words on UDPs were sounded based on experience in England. The RTPI in Scotland thought that UDPs "might be appropriate in rural areas". Alan Prior of Heriot Watt School of Planning and Housing remarked that UDPs would only further fragment strategic planning.

28. Public Local Inquiry procedures were also a source of some concern with the Highland Council arguing that the local plan PLI should "concentrate on main issues at a round table without lawyers and requiring other site specific objections to be dealt with by written representations. RICS and several consultants called for Reporters recommendations on local Plan inquiries to be binding.

Q12 Should the work of the Planning Audit Unit be extended to cover the management of development planning?

29. With some exceptions there was a good deal of support for extending the work of the Planning Audit Unit to include development planning and many responses also stressed quality of development as a topic for audit. COSLA took the view that while the Audit Unit had contributed to improvements in development control performance, it was clear that the Scottish Office did not have resources to undertake a comprehensive audit of all authorities in a reasonable timescale. It suggested that the Unit's development control focus should now be on dissemination of best practice based on knowledge already built up, and that in development planning it should work with COSLA to identify aspects of management best practice and develop these with authorities.

.

Q13 Is there a case for planning powers to be either reduced by extending permitted development rights, or extended to cover additional aspects, eg agriculture, forestry, land management and the marine environment more generally beyond low water mark? And if so, what would be the costs and benefits of doing so?

30. There was little support for extending permitted development. A common theme was that changes to the scope of permitted development were less important than greater clarity in the legislation and improved presentation. A number of respondents were concerned about neighbour notification. Prior notification also came in for strong criticism. There were calls for closer alignment of planning and building control procedures while planner Brian Parnell suggested that "householder planning applications for development in back areas not affecting the public interest might be reduced to the submission of a certificate to the planning authority that no notifiable neighbour had any objection to the proposal."

31. Wide-ranging views were expressed on whether planning control should be extended to agriculture, forestry, etc. Some local authorities, particularly in rural areas, as well as Highlands & Islands Enterprise and conservation groups saw the need to extend controls but there was strong opposition from the Scottish Landowners’ Federation and the agent of the Earl of Seafield’s Estate. East Lothian Council felt that "Planning authorities should be careful about taking on responsibility for wider environmental concerns unless they are able to recruit or pay for access to the specialist skills needed."

32. In addition to criticising the bureaucratic restraints imposed by the planning and other regulatory systems on the Scottish economy and the slowness of decisions affecting the development process, the Civil Engineering Contractors Association (Scotland) recommended a fundamental review of planning (and building) regulations and processes. They propose a one stop shop approach, introduction of league tables, deemed approval for development proposals in accord with the development plan where decisions are not made within the statutory period and streamlining of the appeals procedure.

33. Solicitor Neil Collar drew attention to "the lack of certainty regarding the time limits for challenging a grant of planning permission". Several respondents argued that limited third party rights of appeal would make the planning system more equitable. The need for more effective public involvement in planning was a recurring theme in several responses. The Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland noted that the public tend to get involved only in reaction to controversial development proposals; and that greater participation by the wider community in development plan preparation should be encouraged.

34. Among several respondents raising particular and specialised issues were Historic Scotland on archaeology, City Architecture Office on knowledge based workspace, the Quarry Products Association on minerals, Scottish Grocers Federation on small business, and East of Scotland Water on waste water treatment works.