< Previous | Contents | Next >

The Development of a Policy on Architecture for Scotland: Report on the Public Consultation

9.0 THE PLANNING SYSTEM

9.1 There was general acceptance by respondents of the necessity for a statutory planning system as a means of regulating the development and use of land in the public interest. In responding to the framework document, however, respondents focused on the role of the planning system in safeguarding the quality of existing built environments and the natural heritage and in promoting good urban and building design. There was considerable and wide-ranging criticism by respondents of this aspect of the planning system. There was a consensus that there was too great a gap between the objectives and intentions of the system with regard to design quality and their implementation in practice. Many respondents suggested that the role of the planning system in fostering design quality should be the subject of formal review by the Executive.

9.2 Comments from respondents provided both criticisms of the present system and positive proposals for its improvement. Critics of the system tended to suggest that it was inflexible and bureaucratic, negative in implementation, with low aspirations for design and subject to politicisation. Professional respondents noted that the planning system should provide a continuum which embraced not only a concern for strategic questions of land use and location but also for issues of detailed design. However, respondents felt that the system was failing to establish an appropriate context for good design. Respondents suggested that the design standards set by planning authorities, if declared at all, were unacceptably low and tended to favour what was considered safe, conventional or pastiche design. A number of respondents felt that the system was weighted in favour of developers and against the interests of local communities or objectors. Respondents from amenity or civic groups in particular felt that they were often regarded as irritants by authorities rather than as a potential source of expertise and positive comment. Traffic engineering standards were singled out for particular criticism. Respondents felt that in recent years inappropriate standards had prevailed over other criteria for good design to the detriment of the built environment in both urban and rural areas.

9.3 A number of respondents felt that the resources and skills currently available to local planning authorities were inadequate. Respondents commented on the decline in numbers in recent years of professionals with cross-disciplinary skills such as architect-planners and urban designers. Respondents noted that, as a consequence, officials charged with administering the planning system were unlikely to have formal qualifications in relevant design areas such as architecture, urban design, building conservation or landscape architecture. Respondents also noted that it was unlikely that elected members would have been trained or possess skill in these areas and that appropriate and informed advice on design matters was not always available to them.

9.4 A number of responses were received from officials in planning authorities which provided a counter-view to the critics of the system. These respondents suggested that the majority of applications they receive have no professional design input and, even where they do, they are often of poor or mediocre design quality. Officials also noted that in recent years the emphasis in central government audits of planning authorities has been on measurement of process performance rather than the qualitative outcomes of the system. Officials suggested that this emphasis on the timing of application processing militated against consideration and negotiation on design matters.

9.5 Responses were also received from developers who offered an applicant’s perspective on the planning system. It was noted that the system had a significant influence on markets in that it affected land availability and hence land costs. Respondents suggested that the system added to the financial risks of investors as a result of the timescales necessary to obtain approval and the need to negotiate and re-work proposals. It was suggested that these financial factors encouraged developers to take a low risk attitude to design matters.

9.6 Respondents put forward a number of positive proposals as to how the planning system could be improved with respect to design. A great many respondents suggested that the planning system should be design-led and that design quality should be a material consideration in the determination of applications. Respondents also suggested that planning should be integrated with other mandatory standards which impact on design and the built environment such as building control, roads engineering and environmental standards. A number of respondents suggested that planning authorities should be encouraged to be more pro-active in promoting and setting a framework for design standards. It was suggested, for example, that authorities should publish more design guidance and aspirational site briefs and should be encouraged to sponsor competitions for locally significant developments. Other respondents suggested that the planning system should be loosened from local political decision making and examples where this is the case for other regulatory bodies were cited.

9.7 Respondents made a number of suggestions as to how the perceived deficit in resources and skills in planning authorities could be overcome. For example, it was suggested that:

• Executive funding should be made available for a professional post in each planning authority for an official with training and experience of architecture and urban design and related issues such as landscape design and sustainable development;

• training in design matters should be made available to elected members on planning committees;

• an urban design unit should be re-established in the Executive;

• the scope and remit of bodies such as the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland and Historic Scotland should be broadened to allow active involvement in local decision making; and

• locally-based expert committees or design panels should be established to advise authorities on applications and appeals; current practice in the Netherlands was cited as an example of this.

9.8 Respondents made a number of suggestions as to how current controls in the planning system might be extended or tightened and also where controls might be relaxed. For example, it was suggested that:

• all applications for planning permission should have sponsorship from a suitable accredited professional such as a qualified architect;

• applications should be accessible on the Internet in appropriate visual form and should be supported by detailed design information including a statement of design objectives, greater contextual information and information on sustainability;

• the system should be made more open by formalising public consultation, consultation with amenity and civic groups and community participation in local plans;

• the scope of permitted development should be reduced on the grounds that, whereas the impact of any one such development may be minor, the aggregation of un-restricted development often had a detrimental effect on the quality of local built environments;

• conservation areas should be subject to stricter controls and higher standards should be imposed on out-of-town developments and developments in rural landscapes; and

• more flexible road engineering standards should be permitted, particularly for small developments in rural areas.

< Previous | Contents | Next >