scottish news |
WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD FOR THE SCOTTISH PLANNING SYSTEM?
Ryden Planning Partner Marc Giles discusses the issue
anticipating the Scottish Government’s final proposals for further planning reform to come forward later this year. However, last Thursday (29 June) we were provided with an idea of what to expect in the form of a Position Statement. The statement
M Marc Giles
discusses the proposed reforms following the consultation on Places, People and Planning earlier this year and is also subject to a consultation
process until 11th August. Comments can be sent to
Planningreview@scot.gov. So what will be the consensus of
opinion, a jump for joy at the prospect of what’s to come or a sigh of exasperation and a slump of the shoulders!? In my view there are a number of
commitments which stand out as very firm and clear agendas, they are: a push for strengthening the plan led system; empowering communities; the importance of housing and infrastructure delivery; and stronger leadership with more effective resourcing. The Scottish Government sends a clear
message that the planning system will be very much plan-led. Within this objective there are a number of actions proposed such as the removal of Strategic Development Plans in favour of ‘partnership working’ and greater roles for national policy in the form of National Planning Framework (NPF) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). These proposals have the potential to streamline the plan-led system, but, there is a risk of over- centralisation and the prospect of local circumstances and development issues being missed. The flexibility around the working partnerships could allow for more ambitious thinking and creativity but requires drive and enthusiasm to really become an effective means of moving forward. Extending the Local Development Plan
(LDP) plan period to 10 years potentially provides greater certainty over how places will evolve, particularly for communities. Nevertheless, there remains concern that it will result in plans becoming stagnant and outdated. To counter this the Government proposes provisions to enable the review of
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MONTHLY 2017
ost of those involved with the Scottish planning system have been
LDPs within the 10 year periods. My concern however is that this initiative just creates more delays subject to the final decision on the circumstances and process for amending a plan within that 10 year period. Delivery of development is highlighted
and this is a positive feature. We must move away from seeing legacy allocations maintain through LDPs with no realistic prospects for delivery. There is certainly sound logic in
promoting a ‘Gatecheck’ process before a draft LDP is published. This should remove the debate around such issues as housing requirements and supply from the current Examination process. That said, those issues would have to be comprehensively resolved prior to proposing allocations in a plan, otherwise, the Examination remains an arena for debating such principles and the plan review process will not be any more efficient than it is now.
There is a concerted drive
for community empowerment and engagement within a reformed planning system.
There is a concerted drive for
community empowerment and engagement within a reformed planning system. In theory this is a positive and sound aspiration. More people should be involved in how their communities evolve. However, this remains a contentious issue and one with the potential for causing extensive delays to development delivery. The introduction of Place Plans and
more extensive community engagement has the potential to run counter to the key objective of planning reform, which is to make the system more efficient. To be effective for all, there must be a process of education amongst those representing communities in the planning process. All too often there is a starting point of ‘no development please’ at a local level and a real disrespect for, and distrust of, the development industry. It is important that community representatives understand the developer and development industry generally otherwise these proposals will simply strengthen the hand of those who wish to prevent development at any cost. It is not uncommon for community organisations to have their own agendas
which are not aligned with the wider views of those they represent. The ‘silent majority’ are not always heard in the development process, which reinforces that education is essential if community empowerment is to have a positive outcome. Unsurprisingly, housing and
infrastructure delivery are key priorities of the Scottish Government and are given significant weight in the Position Statement. There is often far too much debate around housing requirements and supply and as such, proposals to provide greater clarity and certainty are welcomed. The intention appears to be that these matters will be addressed at a national level within NPF and SPP and the proposed removal of SPPs, which have up to now set the housing requirements for city regions, thus increasing the importance of getting it right from the top down. It is good to see the prospect of a
zoned approach to development. Ryden (in association with Brodies) was commissioned to undertake research for the Scottish Government in to the use of Simplified Planning Zones (SPZs) and equivalent mechanisms outwith Scotland. The aim being to assess the potential for a more flexible and more widely applicable land use zoning mechanism than SPZs provide at present. This research is ongoing but will inform the Government’s final proposals. The principle of ‘infrastructure first’
remains at the forefront of the Scottish Government’s reforms but it is clear that a lot more work is required before firm proposals for change can be identified. The prospect of a national delivery group remains at this stage an aspiration. Moreover, the prospect of an infrastructure levy remains live, although there is no longer an intention to remove the right to modify planning obligations. Finally, the Scottish Government
remains committed to investing in a better and more efficient planning system through measures such as improving leadership and skills, increased charges for services and generally seeking to improve performance. Thus far, we have seen significant increases to planning fees brought forward and this will be followed by other revised charging structures. Whilst we would expect there to be support in principle from the development industry, this will only be on the basis that these increased charges bring forward a more efficient and better resourced planning system.
29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
