REMOVING THE SPECIAL PROTECTION OF PRIME QUALITY AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM DEVELOPMENT: DIGEST OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION
This document is also available in pdf format (108k)
Introduction
The consultation paper Removing the Special Protection of Prime Quality Agricultural Land from Development was issued in September 2001. The consultation period closed on 17 December 2001 with a total of 91 responses received.
This digest gives a flavour of comments on the paper and groups the material to allow cross-reference between the views of different consultees. In drawing the material together, we have done our best to avoid errors of transcription, meaning, attribution, omission, or otherwise, and we apologise for any that have occurred. Respondents who wished their comments to be treated as confidential and not made public have not been included.
Local Authorities - Planning
Aberdeen City
This seems to be an immensely short sighted proposal. Failing to maintain the best agricultural land for food production would seem unwise. The current surplus of agricultural crops is largely a function of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is widely regarded as being in need of a fundamental review. There is no guarantee that the UK will never again need to maximise agricultural output. Prospect of climate change over the next 50-100 years could lead to pressures on food supply.
The best agricultural land is likely to be favoured for development. It is frequently found near to existing settlements where the pressures for development are the greatest. Demands for the release of this land for uses such as industry or housing, which would be irreversible, would be difficult to resist consistently in the absence of a national policy. There must be an argument for encouraging farmers who occupy prime land to continue agricultural production.
An essential principle of sustainable development is that the ability of future generations to meet their needs should not be prejudiced by actions taken by the current generation. The proposal would seem to run entirely counter to this principle.
Aberdeenshire
Agree with proposals in principle. Prime quality agricultural land should not be taken for development for mineral extraction, waste sites and wind farms unless there is a national interest at stake. The provisions of the Development Plan should result in this national protection being waived. The removal of national protection may actually result in careful local consideration being given to the land release for development. Sustainable development might be better secured through that land release being identified through the Development Plan. This would promote sustainable development by allowing towns and villages to grow in a careful phased manner drawing on existing facilities.
Angus
Prime quality agricultural land should continue to be afforded national protection under the planning system. Removal of protection would be contrary to the wider objectives of sustainable development. Prime land remains the most flexible and productive resource and would play a significant part in meeting any strategic need for local food production, particularly in the event of any international trade disruption. The continued protection of prime quality agricultural land does not prejudice efforts to support employment in the countryside through the diversification of farming and forestry, sensitive tourism projects and informal recreation. These continue to be vital elements in maintaining viable rural communities.
The national level of protection gives significant weight to its use, particularly where development plan policy is supported by the guidance contained in the range of NPPGs. The removal of "national protection" would diminish its relevance as a material consideration in assessing relevant planning proposals.
To be credible as sustainable development, the approach to the irreversible use of prime quality land must be based on the precautionary principle. This requires conclusive evidence that the loss of such land would have little adverse affect. Without a proper sustainability appraisal it would be premature to conclude that the wholesale removal of national protection is merited or sustainable.
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
Agree that blanket national protection of prime quality agricultural land should be removed where it is imposed purely on agricultural grounds. However, planning authorities should be allowed discretion to identify areas of quality agricultural land, which they deem require protection on planning grounds. This is particularly important in Western Isles where the majority of agricultural land is in crofting tenure and, as such, should be treated as a special case.
The principle of sustainability lies at the heart of national planning guidance. Consequently, there should be no obstacle to meeting the objectives through other planning policies, for instance the application of the sequential test backed by policies safeguarding features of importance, such as the landscape and archaeology of an area.
Local discretion would allow planning authorities to safeguard agricultural and croft land where there is scope for schemes such as horticultural development that would secure an economic benefit to the area.
Dumfries & Galloway
Wish to express concern at the apparent lack of a strategic overview by the Scottish Executive of the future of prime agricultural land. Recommend that the Scottish Executive retain the national protection it gives under that planning system to prime agricultural land. The removal of this protection would seriously conflict with the objective of sustainable development. Sustainable development is about the use of natural resources and it's difficult to see how Government can depart from their existing policy.
Agricultural land will continue to be required for alternative rural land uses, and in certain cases, to meet other development needs. There has been a relaxation in the policy in recent years, reflecting the need to accommodate development needs. However, it does not follow that a complete abandonment of policy is justified.
It is recognised that the removal of national protection would provide flexibility for local authorities to determine whether such land should be used for new development. There is, however, a very real threat that a local policy of protection would mean very little without Government recognition of the importance of retaining some level of productive land. Government should be taking a long term view and consider the risks posed by irreversible further loss of the most productive agricultural land weighed against e.g climate change. The need to reflect the changing nature of agriculture in planning policy is accepted, but this must be addressed in a comprehensive manner by Government, not by changing one aspect of the process in isolation.
Dundee City
Where there are surpluses in many agricultural products and diversification of the rural economy is being encouraged, it may no longer be necessary to retain blanket protection for prime quality agricultural land.
While prime quality agricultural land is an important resource, it is only one of a number of factors that require to be considered in the pursuit of a sustainable development strategy. Dundee City Council remains committed to the principles of sustainability. However, it supports the principle that decisions on development should be made locally without the requirement for reference to the Scottish Executive unless there are broader strategic issues involved.
East Ayrshire
It is not considered that the national protection given to prime quality agricultural land should be removed. The issue should be considered only in the context of formulation of a Soil Protection Strategy for Scotland as recommended by SEPA and the Scottish Executive's Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture.
It is considered that the removal of the national protection of prime quality agricultural land would indeed be contrary to the principles of sustainability. Prime quality agricultural land enables the widest range of agricultural and industrial crops to be grown and this is a key factor in maintaining and promoting an efficient and sustainable agricultural economy in East Ayrshire.
East Dunbartonshire
This proposal raises a number of concerns in relation to the potential loss of the most versatile land at a time of changes to the climate and agricultural economy. The protection of this land has also been an important contributor to supporting the green belt strategy. The Scottish Executive is therefore recommended not to proceed with this proposal.
East Renfrewshire
The Council would be concerned if national protection for this resource was to be removed. This is a scarce commodity nationally and it would be imprudent to do anything to threaten a further reduction. The Consultation Paper does not present a convincing justification for releasing protection given to 'prime' agricultural land. The premise that agricultural over-production is a reason for releasing protection is short sighted and takes no account of future requirements that could result from changing circumstances, such as climatic change.
The Council recognises that there is a need for diversification of the rural economy but does not accept that this should be at the expense of 'prime' agricultural land. Safeguarding this land enhances the scope for new agricultural crops.
The removal of protection for this scarce yet important national resource is contrary to the principles of sustainable development. The status quo does permit the development of 'prime' agricultural land where economic or social benefits outweigh environmental conservation but national protection ensures that this is exercised consistently.
City of Edinburgh
The paper fails to specifically highlight the planning benefits of implementing this change. Prime quality land near urban areas is liable to come under significant pressure for development and the ability of planning authorities to resist would be diminished.
The principle of sustainability is based on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations from meeting their own needs. Such land may be surplus to agricultural requirements at present, but there is no guarantee it will be in the future. Once this land is developed it is extremely unlikely that it will return to agricultural use in the future. Therefore this change does not contribute towards the objective of sustainable development.
A further concern is there would no longer be a requirement for Councils to consult the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department for an expert view on applications affecting prime agricultural land. This change seems out of step with the recently updated English guidance which is set out in PPG7. Although under the English system it is up to Councils to decide whether prime land should be developed, the guidance states that Councils should seek advice from MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) and other relevant bodies.
If the Executive goes ahead with this change there are a number of options that could be considered. Firstly, national protection could be retained for prime land near to the main areas of urban growth which are subject to the highest levels of development pressure, but the policy could be relaxed in rural areas where the need for rural diversification is greatest. Secondly, the practicality of the removal and re-use of topsoil should be investigated.
Falkirk
There have been no changes in circumstances that justify the abandonment of national protection proposed by the Executive. The current approach allows sufficient flexibility to make sure the correct weight is attached to the protection of prime quality agricultural land compared to other material considerations.
The consultation paper stated that the notification procedure has not been used in the last 5 years and this is given as evidence to justify the removal of protection. Just because there have been no notifications does not imply the protection is unnecessary and does not take into account those proposals modified or altered knowing that such protection exists. Removing the protection would send an unhelpful message to developers who may interpret the change as meaning that there is no longer any concern over development in the countryside.
It is considered that the Executive should not remove the national protection and that current policies and procedures should remain in place. As prime quality agricultural land is a limited national resource, proposals that may result in a reduction of the total amount of prime quality land cannot be reconciled with the Executive's stated objective of sustainable development.
Fife
Prime quality agricultural land is a finite resource and it may be unwise to signal in every case that this is only a matter of local significance. The Scottish Executive should be taking a more holistic view of sustainability issues. Some national review of prime quality agricultural land classifications should be considered before completely abandoning the current policy stance. Protecting PQAL from unnecessary and unplanned permanent development has been a major Government and planning objective for almost 25 years and it has served the nation well. Although dated, this approach was the precursor to modern sustainability policies and in some ways it was, and is, quite enlightened and forward looking.
It could be argued that a prosperous and successful farming industry will need to protect and conserve its PQAL more effectively to be able to sustain unknown fluctuations and uncertainties in the future. The need for future care and protection is critical to any realistic long-term and sustainable approach. Reducing the degree of national protection to provide local flexibility dilutes the policy to an unacceptable and unnecessary level which will lead to confusion, local variations between authorities, and provide developers with a further opportunity to challenge land allocation.
However, the modest reduction in local government bureaucracy by omitting notifications and consultations is to be welcomed. This will also enable speedier decisions to be reached.
Glasgow City
The possible removal of 'national' protection of prime agricultural land could encourage developers to seek greenfield sites outwith the Greater Glasgow area to the detriment of Councils, such as Glasgow, with large amounts of vacant land.
It would appear to be unwise to remove protection from prime agricultural land in Scotland when it is not yet clear how climate change will directly affect the food growing areas of the world.
Prime agricultural land is a national resource that can be used to grow a wide range of crops. Government campaigns stress the importance of healthy eating. The ability to meet, in part, the needs of the Scottish people through locally grown food is one that should not be lost.
The loss of prime land could result in farmers intensifying farming - ie attempting to grow more on less suitable land or on smaller amounts of prime land. Such an approach could result in the increase of fertilisers/chemicals on the land and the subsequent pollution of streams and rivers.
The UK Government's report "Biodiversity: the UK Action Plan" recognises that opportunities exist to enhance biodiversity through, for example, improving crop management to reduce the need for fertilisers and pesticides and introducing greater diversity on the farm by use of traditional skills, breeds, crops, crop rotation, etc. The loss of prime agricultural land would limit the likelihood of such opportunities being taken, to the detriment of biodiversity. This would also limit local authorities abilities to prepare and implement meaningful Local Biodiversity Action Plans as required by the Government.
The loss of prime agricultural land could have a number of adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and as such would be contrary to the Scottish Executive's objectives in respect of sustainable development. Whilst local authorities could still chose to protect such land, this does not recognise the fact that prime land is a national resource and as such should be subject to national policy and monitoring.
Highland
The national protection given under the planning system for prime agricultural land should not be removed. The argument that removing national protection would provide flexibility for local authorities to determine what is best for their area is acknowledged, but there is a very real threat that a local policy of protection would mean very little without Government recognition of the importance of physically productive land.
The UK can reduce agricultural production by adopting less intensive and more environmentally friendly agricultural practices. There is a strategic case for maintaining agricultural capacity, particularly in light of recent events highlighting the possible risks to UK food security. Government needs to take a long-term view and consider the risks posed by the potential loss of our most productive agricultural land and the implications of climate change.
Prime land is invariably located close to centres of population, which offer marketing opportunities not only for agricultural produce but also for recreational activities. The real need for diversification is in our remoter rural communities, which are highly dependent on agriculture and where opportunities for alternative employment are limited. It is clear that the removal of notification of proposed planning application approvals on prime quality agricultural land is only an administrative change, but the Council believes that it would send out a wider message that the Scottish Executive is disinterested in the management of one of our major assets.
The removal of national protection would seriously affect the Executive's objective of sustainable development. Sustainable development is very much about the wise use of natural resources and it is difficult to see how Government can depart from their existing policy on this matter. There is an obligation to feed future generations in a sustainable, perhaps less intensive way, and we should be safeguarding this asset wherever possible.
Midlothian
Have noted paper - no comments.
Moray
No consideration is given to variations of this radical proposal e.g. to remove grade 3.1 land from the "prime" category, or relax other policies which apply to development in the countryside. Although no developments in excess of 10 hectares were notified to the Executive, this should not be taken to imply that agricultural land is under no pressure for development. A more pertinent question might be "should 10 ha be replaced by 4 or 5 ha?" Retaining a "presumption against development" would still allow flexibility in appropriate cases, as justifiable departures from the development plan.
The removal of the protectionist policy would seem to be contrary to the philosophy of sustainability in terms of sustaining the resource itself and in sustaining rural economies. The Executive's view seems short term and expedient. The document does not differentiate areas of Scotland.
North Ayrshire
There is serious concern that the proposed withdrawal of protection at the national policy level is inconsistent with the objectives of Sustainable Development. The proposal would leave Councils to formulate relevant planning policies for the development of prime farmland without there being a national perspective and appropriate justification.
Climate change and coastal erosion is also relevant. Most of Scotland's prime quality land is located close to the coast and it would seem prudent to give consideration to this important issue.
The present proposal is considered to be ill-founded in advance of a national perspective being made available and it is recommended that a more inclusive, corporate approach should be adopted to the protection of our prime quality agricultural land. To critically inform this process it is suggested that a comprehensive soil protection strategy should be prepared as recommended by SEPA in their "State of the Environment: Soil Quality Report" April 2001.
Ian Sleith, Head of Planning and Development Services - Perth & Kinross Council
The Executive should not remove the national protection it gives under the planning system to prime quality agricultural land. The existence of such protection is a long established, understood and accepted tenet of planning policy in Scotland. The importance of retaining the protection is clearly laid out in the Government's most recent statement of policy in rural development (in NPPG 15).
The removal of the national protection for prime quality agricultural land would prejudice the Executive's objective of sustainable development. The retention of the best quality land is inherent to the sustainability of an island economy. The retention of this protection, contrary to the suggestion given in the consultation plan, is not at odds with the desire to support agricultural diversification in an attempt to maintain a sustainable rural economy.
While individual planning authorities should hold the discretion about the of prime quality agricultural land for reversible or irreversible development in the context of local circumstances, such discretion should be based upon a continued commitment on the part of the Scottish Executive to the retention of national protection of prime quality agricultural land.
Renfrewshire
It is suggested that before such a major policy change is made, a long term assessment of demand and supply is undertaken, taking into account the national and European context as well as potential impact on rural employment and the rural environment. The consultation paper is very brief and contains only a very cursory explanation as to why this move is being contemplated.
In Renfrewshire all the prime land lies in the Green Belt and receives the protection against development which the Green Belt policy in the Local Plan provides. It seems clear that any decision against a planning application based on this aspect of policy would be much more difficult to defend in an appeal situation without the backing of Government policy or guidance on this issue.
There is a degree of flexibility currently in place in terms of the need to notify the Executive of only those development proposals involving more than 10 hectares of prime land, where the development would be contrary to the Local Plan and an officer of the Scottish Executive has advised against granting permission.
There are some indications of a trend towards limited localised food production, for example, the recent growth of "Farmers' Markets". Such activities might be hindered by the removal of protection from those small areas of the most fertile, most productive land.
Scottish Borders
There are other relevant planning policies that would still have to be taken into account when the development of prime quality agricultural land is being considered. However, the abandonment of the principal protection through the Development Plan would remove one of the major weapons of the local authority.
We agree that ways need to be found to speed up the planning process but are sure that this could be addressed in other ways, for example by changing the consultation arrangements. It may also be feasible to increase the flexibility that may be exercised when considering potential development on prime agricultural land.
The protection given in the planning system to prime quality agricultural land should remain, in principle. The caveat would remain that development may be permitted in specified circumstances, provided there is full and adequate justification.
South Ayrshire
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency's State of the Environment, Soil Quality Report 2001 highlights a number of pressures on soil quality including industry and agriculture. Once of the recommendations of this report is that a Soil Protection Strategy to protect soils from future unsustainable land use practices and pollution should be developed and implemented for Scotland. It is felt that this, in conjunction with other works, should be carried out prior to any decision being made on removing the protection of prime quality agricultural land.
Soil is a non-renewable resource, therefore such action could potentially affect the Executive's overall sustainability objectives. If it is generally accepted that sustainable development is a long-term goal then, whilst agricultural production at a European level currently show a surplus, this may not always be the case and to reduce the capacity of this country to accommodate future food production demands could be regarded as unwise.
South Lanarkshire
While removal of national protection would give Councils more flexibility at local level with regard to the future use of such land, this potential benefit needs to be weighed against other, broader, considerations.
There is an increasing demand for organic food. With the perceived health benefits associated with organic food, it seems likely that demand will continue to grow as will the amount of land required to support such growth. While it is difficult to predict world events, it would be short-sighted to assume that the surplus of many agricultural products will continue indefinitely or that there will not be a future need for the UK to become more self-sufficient in terms of food production.
These two factors suggest the need for a cautious approach to be taken. Prime quality agricultural land is an irreplaceable resource. If one of the Executive's main objectives is sustainable development, then complete removal of the national protection for prime quality agricultural land would seem to run counter to this.
Stirling
A blanket removal of this national protection would not be desirable. It is understandable in the current agricultural climate that questions have been raised about the need to protect this land, however it is a national resource and circumstances may change. In the future we could be forced to return to a more self-sufficient approach to food production.
This policy stance should not compromise smaller scale farm diversification projects or development of a scale and nature consistent with rural development objectives. More temporary forms of development that will not result in the irreversible loss of the resource may also be appropriate. There may be cases where exceptions may be justified in light of other national and strategic objectives. In terms of larger scale proposals such as urban expansions and new settlements which can impact significantly on prime land, the power of the Scottish Executive to ensure that an important part of the national resource is not irretrievably lost or damaged should be retained. Where a Council wishes to depart from the national policy they should provide a statement to justify their approach on Planning grounds as well as an explanation that the development is required and why this is the only suitable area where the development can be accommodated.
Development resulting in the loss of a finite agricultural resource would seem to offer an inherent contradiction to the principle of sustainable development. There could however be a case for re-classification of prime quality land identifying those areas where agricultural productivity is optimised and the longer term viability of units is likely to maintained. Some areas, including smaller pockets of fertile land could then logically fall out of the policy approach.
West Dunbartonshire
The balance of issues is in favour of the removal of protection. It is generally accepted that decision making should be at the local level wherever possible. The main concern might be to ensure that the removal of the national protection does not signal a green light to inappropriate development. NPPGs, the development plan and other material considerations will still apply and any development proposals will have to be considered and, where appropriate, justified in that context.
The objective of sustainable development should not be adversely affected provided that the decision making process is properly based on the development plan and other appropriate guidance/policy.
West Lothian
Agrees in principle to the removal of the blanket protection of the best quality agricultural land and supports the proposals to remove the requirement to consult the Scottish Executive.
Considers that the need remains for ongoing guidance for the protection of such land in the context of sustainable development. Recommends that use of such land for development purposes to be in the context of a development plan base.
Urges the Scottish Executive to develop a national soil strategy in the context of sustainable development and the development of associate policies and advice to conserve Scotland's soils as a non-sustainable natural resource.
Private Companies/Businesses
Baxter, Clark & Paul
Support proposals. A requirement might be added for local authorities to report their decisions on individual applications made for development in this context in order that the Executive might record effectiveness of the policy's implementation at local level.
Mactaggart & Mickel Ltd
A lot of prime land is on the outskirts or urban development and as a consequence is very often subject to trespass etc and, in some areas, no longer capable of agricultural use. Prime agricultural land tends to be more level and on lower ground and very often around the perimeter or certainly within easy reach of existing developments. From pure costs of construction it is better suited to development than other steeper, wetter, poorly drained etc areas of land.
Scotland relies heavily on its tourist industry and tourists generally wish to view the more dramatic landscapes or enjoy sporting facilities such golf, which is an ideal facility to use prime agricultural land in and around conurbations as it provides large areas of green open space for the good of the community. I am of the opinion that the Scottish Executive's proposal should be supported.
W I Munro Chartered Architects
We are strongly in favour of the Executive removing the national protection it gives under the planning system to prime quality agricultural land. We have had various instances where development on the periphery of settlements makes entire sense but the overriding blanket policy did not permit this.
We do not think removing the national protection would seriously affect the objective of sustainable development. In fact we think it would improve it greatly. True sustainability means access to sunlight and wind among other things and planners objectives of trying to have such development located in urban or brownfield sites quite simply does not work.
Weatherall Green & Smith
Prime quality agricultural land is a finite resource and is of importance because of its potential for growing a wide range of crops. It is agreed that local authorities should be afforded the responsibility for determining planning applications affecting prime quality land without notifying the Scottish Ministers. The benefits are principally shorter determination periods for applications and less paperwork for both local councils and the SEDD.
It remains important that sufficient land remains available to ensure long term sustainability but also to sustain human life through food production. The planning system can continue to do this through the development plan process. The Scottish Ministers can ensure that its policy effects decision-making by modifying, where necessary, structure plan content. In order to ensure that the importance of prime quality land continues to be a material consideration in the drafting of structure and local plans, as well as in the determination of planning applications, it is recommended that the SEDD undertake one or more of the proposed actions: produce a PAN, publish a NPPG, amend NPPG 15 'Rural Development', amend NPPGs 2, 3 & 9.
Scottish Coal
Scottish Coal wishes to support the Executive's proposed removal of national protection given to prime quality agricultural land. The proposed removal should not seriously affect the Executive's objective of sustainable development.
BT Scotland
Firmly supports the proposal without further comment.
Lattice Property Holdings Ltd
We broadly support the aims and objectives of the draft paper. It is agreed that the Executive should remove the national protection it gives under the planning system to prime quality agricultural land. Local Planning Authorities should be given flexibility to determine whether such land in their own areas should be used for new development. This flexibility would however, still be constrained as it would only be in the context of the Executive's overall objectives for Scotland, which include sustainable development. Another constraint on a local planning authority's flexibility in considering using best quality agricultural land for development would be the requirement to accord with relevant development plan policies.
The removal of the national protection of prime quality agricultural land should not seriously affect the objective of sustainable development. As development pressure is successfully and increasingly being diverted to urban areas and brownfield sites, there is little likelihood that a local planning authority would release prime quality agricultural land without full consideration of the possible alternatives and consequences. This is particularly the case as more often than not, environmental assessment would be required of any significant development application and by July 2004, of any emerging development plan proposing best quality agricultural land release.
Ryden
We agree that continued protection would serve no purpose and that whilst land quality should continue to be considered as part of the planning process, it should be merely one factor considered along with all others. For too long now agriculture and agricultural land has been afforded a status that far outweighs its importance to the economy. Blanket protection of agricultural land has reduced the land available for development and has led to the development of land on the periphery of Scotland's cities that overall is less sustainable in transport and other terms. Any major releases or prime quality land would only take place following careful scrutiny as part of the Local Plan process in respect of which the Executive would have a continuing role along with all other interest groups.
We do not consider that the proposed change would have any affect on the Executive's sustainable development objective. If anything, a more level playing field would improve the sustainability of decisions, as land that would otherwise score highly in any appraisal or analysis would not immediately be discounted on land quality grounds alone.
Marks & Spencer PLC
It is Marks & Spencer's view that the Executive should remove the national protection it gives under the planning system to prime quality agricultural land. An appropriate degree of protection at local level is proposed, with local planning authorities being given flexibility to determine whether such land should be used for new development. This flexibility would, however, still have to be seen and used in the context of the Executive's main objectives for Scotland, which include sustainable development. A further constraint on a local planning authority's flexibility in considering using best quality agricultural land for development would be that relevant planning policies would still have to be taken into account.
There is no reason to believe that the removal of the national protection for prime quality agricultural land would seriously affect the Executive's sustainable development objective. In view of the scope of national policy guidance, development plan policies, transport and related planning issues in the countryside, the planning application determination process, including environmental assessment, and the scope for judicial review or call in of any application or proposed decision, there is no reason to believe that local authorities would encourage or condone unsustainable development causing harmful impacts. The aim of each local planning authority instead would be to achieve rural diversification, of a type and scale appropriate to the local area, providing the integration of agriculture with other uses, generating employment, providing housing and encouraging or catering for other activities to maintain and enhance the rural economy and environment.
As development pressure is successfully and increasingly being diverted to urban areas and brownfield sites, the likelihood that any local authority would release prime quality agricultural land without proper consideration of possible consequences diminishes particularly as environmental assessment would be required of any significant development application and by July, 2004, of any emerging development plan proposing best quality agricultural land release.
William Lippe Architects
We believe that the removal of national protection given to prime quality agricultural land will provide economic benefits, particularly to the rural economies.
The removal of the national protection given to prime quality agricultural land would improve sustainability since the land can be put to different uses other than food production. We do not require that land for food production to satisfy our own needs, and more economic benefits could be made from the land by businesses, manufacturers etc. In many cases businesses cannot afford to increase productivity, since they cannot afford to acquire land and build buildings. Releasing more land would therefore allow these companies to build new factories etc, therefore creating a sustainable rural environment.
Planning Consultants
RPS Consultants
RPS Consultants believe the removal of blanket national protection will assist the development of greenfield sites at the urban edge of settlements, enhance and sustain rural communities and avoid unnecessary delay.
The removal of the blanket national protection for the best quality agricultural land will release greenfield sites for development. These sites will in turn contribute to the overall housing land requirements in a structure plan area, provide a wider choice of land for housing and improve the supply and quality of housing. The removal of the protection would enable new development and employment opportunities, which would respect local, social and environmental circumstances. Rural communities would then have greater opportunities to progress and improve their quality of life and develop their local economies.
The removal of the national protection will achieve sustainable development through new forms of investment in the countryside. This will strengthen the social and economic aspects of the Executive's objectives for sustainable development. An important issue for economic development will be to ensure that development on ground will respect the landscape quality and socially benefit the rural communities. In summary, the removal of special protection of prime quality agricultural land will enable the better planning of settlements and the countryside.
Ironside Farrar Ltd
Prime quality agricultural land is a non-renewable resource and as such requires effective conservation for future generations. National protection is the most appropriate mechanism for safeguarding this resource. Current requirements for agricultural land are presumably based on the continuation of the present intensive farming techniques. These cannot be considered sustainable as they involve soil compaction, pesticide use, artificial fertilisers, reduction of biodiversity, etc. Calculation of agricultural land requirements based on a less-intensive system is likely to indicate greater land requirements.
A move away from intensive farming would help meet sustainability objectives. This is a national issue and requires action at national strategic level. National protection of the agricultural land resource is an important element to enable effective action. Local authority control would inevitably reduce protection as the strategic, national overview in consideration of the issue would be lost.
Peter Scott Planning Services
Blanket approach to the national protection of prime agricultural land is not appropriate. National planning guidance and local planning authorities' policies/practices should recognise and protect prime agricultural land where this is in limited supply, or where development threatens the viability of productive, low input agricultural or horticultural units.
The removal of all protection for prime quality agricultural land would seriously affect the Executive and wider society's objectives for sustainable development. A targeted approach to the protection for prime quality agricultural land is recommended, which would be determined by local planning authorities against national planning guidance and in consultations with key stakeholders. Prime quality land is of continuing importance in moves towards more sustainable, less intensive and more natural forms of agricultural and horticultural production and crop management (e.g organic farming and horticulture).
Professional Bodies
The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland
The Executive should not remove the national protection it gives under the planning system to prime quality agricultural land. The current pressures for housing development and the difficulties of changing rural economies should not be used as reasons for a relaxation of policy on this issue.
We do not believe that a relaxation of this policy is within the long-term definition of sustainability. The development of prime agricultural land should remain under full statutory protection and only developed as a last resort. It should not be subject to local decision making where the pressures for development by commercial interests, particularly from major housebuilders, can be extreme.
The Incorporation fully understands the necessity to look carefully at local plan policy in relation, particularly, to land in the urban fringes, but we are still of the view that adequate processes are in place and that a change of policy is unnecessary. Any relaxation of the rules which may further encourage such development runs counter to the Executive's sustainability objectives.
Civil Engineering Contractors (Scotland)
CECA does not have any comments at this stage.
Faculty of Advocates
No comments.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland
We have concerns that the national protection for prime agricultural land from development has, in the past, led to poorly thought out development on inappropriate sites. Land designated as prime agricultural land is often the most versatile and well located, and its development may make a valuable contribution to the living and working environment of nearby communities. Nonetheless, the Institution is conscious that care must be taken in the removal of the protection.
Many practitioners consider the continuing protection for prime agricultural land to be out-dated and a barrier to much needed development in rural areas. If a development proposal is acceptable on all other grounds, then classification as prime agricultural land should not be a barrier. The Institution believes that agricultural land should be considered on an equitable basis with other land. However, land has been classified as prime quality because of its versatility, and such land is generally level and at lower altitude; without any protection it may quickly be used for development in preference to poorer quality or brownfield sites. RICS Scotland believes the Executive should encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites where possible, for example by the introduction of tax incentives for decontamination work.
Although there are current crop surpluses, it would be unwise to place 5.8% of Scotland's land surface beyond all possibility of future food production. It is not possible to say with certainty what future demands may be, in the face of climate change, and other environmental, political and social factors. Awarding priority to appropriate diversification schemes, which meet economic criteria and protect the natural heritage, may be one way of ensuring the continued availability of land for agricultural purposes. The development of Land Management Contracts, proposed in the Forward Strategy for Agriculture, may be another route to achieving this end.
We do not see the removal of national protection as counter to the objective of sustainable development. In fact, more freedom in planning is an important factor in achieving the development necessary to revitalise rural communities. Guidance should be made available to local authorities.
Homes for Scotland
Bearing in mind that the emergence of surpluses has undermined the strategic case for protecting prime quality agricultural land, Homes for Scotland agrees that the national protection given to such land through the planning system should be withdrawn. It should be left to local authorities in the first instance to determine whether the interests of development or of agricultural production should prevail in particular circumstances.
Where the land in question happened to be close to a major settlement, some degree of development could help to reduce the need for commuting over relatively long distances. It could also help to improve the appearance of unsightly areas of Green Belt without prejudicing the overall implementation of Green Belt policy. Moreover, the development of relatively small areas of prime quality land close to smaller and more fragile settlements could contribute to the maintenance of services and facilities, such as shops, post offices and schools, the continuing survival of which might otherwise be in jeopardy.
Given that other relevant planning policies and the Executive objectives would continue to be taken into account, Homes for Scotland takes the view that the removal of national protection would not seriously affect the objective of sustainable development, and indeed, that it would have the potential to contribute in some degree to the achievement of that objective.
British Society of Soil Science
Prime quality land represents a most valuable national resource, principally in agricultural terms, such that any loss, however insignificant, would affect current and future production for the more demanding crop types. Rather than withdraw blanket national protection, it would be advisable to examine where Class 1 and Class 2 land occurs, in other words, such land on the immediate outskirts of a major town would be at greater risk than that in a true rural environment.
Soil itself is effectively a non-renewable resource and any loss is therefore irreversible if development is of a permanent nature. The Scottish Executive might consider extending the definition of prime quality land to include the better soils (even Class 4 and 5.1) in the less favoured areas of Scotland where such land may be critical in sustaining any agriculture in the area.
In its recent document 'State of the Environment - Soil Quality Report', the Scottish Environment Protection Agency state "The importance of soil as a non-renewable resource essential to a sustainable environment must be recognised" also "SEPA recommends that a soil protection strategy to protect soils from future unsustainable land use practices and pollution should be developed and implemented for Scotland." Whilst accepting there can be various definitions of 'sustainable development', there is a general implication in SEPA's quotes that valuable soil resources should be protected. The Government's overall sustainable development strategy 'A better quality of life', published in May 1999 sets out four parallel objectives, one of which is 'prudent use of natural resources.' Presumably any loss of a scarce natural resource is contrary to that objective.
In summary, prime quality land is relatively scarce in Scotland and, besides being of good agricultural value, some designated soils have high cultural and natural heritage value. Consequently such land merits more rather than less protection. It is inappropriate to remove blanket national protection based purely on current agricultural surplus when prime quality land is so valuable and versatile in current and, perhaps, future cropping programmes. Given current Scottish Executive and UK Government policy on soil protection and sustainable development, the current proposal is untenable.
Scottish Organic Producers Association (SOPA)
SOPA objects to the planned removal of special protection and supports the continued protection of prime agricultural land. Class 1, 2 and 3.1 land are the only areas for crop production, supplying food for both human consumption and for animal protein and concentrated feeding. The increased loss of this land from these areas would further restrict agricultural potential, with further reliance on imports. SOPA supports NPPG 15 and the continued protection of this land from development.
Agricultural surpluses are based on high input agricultural systems and low commodity prices maintained by imports and public subsidy. SOPA promotes organic farming systems based on lower inputs and reduced intensity of farming; this produces higher quality food, requires less energy and carbon emissions, and is in high consumer demand. Organic farming requires more farming land, particularly higher quality land. SOPA objects to land use change that may make sustainable farming more difficult to achieve.
Given the high average age of farmers in Scotland, the high level of debt burden and the difficulty of bringing new entrants into farming, any increase in farm land speculation and land values brought about by relaxing protection from development, should be resisted. The consultation paper provides no reasoned argument or evidence that removing the development controls over prime agricultural land will bring any benefits to farming.
Timber Growers Association
TGA supports good land use whether for forestry or agriculture. They recognise the importance of safeguarding the small proportion of prime quality land for farming. There are other types of land on which forestry can be an alternative use.
This land should continue under the present arrangements in order to safeguard its use for agriculture. The proposals would fail to safeguard special quality land for food production, which in the long run will be required for sustainability.
The Law Society of Scotland
The Committees are convinced of the intrinsic value of prime quality agricultural land and believe that existing protection should not be removed.
The Committees discussed the proposal to allow local authorities to consider applications for planning permission on prime quality agricultural land without consultation with the Scottish Executive, and believe that the involvement of an external authority to oversee local authorities' decisions is a useful tool in the decision-making process. The involvement of an extraneous third party provides a worthwhile and workable safeguard to the process.
The Committees are aware that the development of greenfield land is normally substantially cheaper than the redevelopment of brownfield sites. The Executive's past stated intention is to direct redevelopment to brownfield sites, rather than use greenfield sites and the Committees support such a policy. Development should therefore continue to be directed toward brownfield sites. The Committees feel that there should be a strengthening of the presumption against development on greenfield sites if alternatives are available.
The consultation paper states that "many agricultural products are in surplus." The Committees are concerned that no account has been taken of the possibility that such surpluses may be substantially reduced or come to an end. There is no reason to suppose that Scotland, and the UK in general, is not capable of self-sufficiency. If, however, the best tracts of land and therefore the most productive are taken out of the possibility of production, then this reduces self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency is a sensible element of a sustainable development policy and therefore development which will irredeemably take land out of agricultural production, should not take place.
Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland
The Institute is keen to comment on this paper as it has given rise to some concern. There have already been misunderstandings between planning authorities and members of the public over the intention. An issue such as this should be dealt with in the context of a wider strategic review within the planning system and should not be raised on an ad hoc basis as the result of some other agenda.
The Executive has not been notified of any case of a proposed change of use of 10 hectares or more of agricultural land for at least five years. This may suggest that the notification requirement may be redundant but it also suggests that there is no need for a change which might be misinterpreted as a substantive change in policy. It is not the proposal itself so much as the manner in which it has been presented which sends entirely the wrong message.
The fact that many agricultural products are in surplus at this present time has no bearing on criteria relating to the wise use of non-renewable resources. The importance of good quality land must be seen in the context of resource management for sustainable development and protection of the assets available to future generations. The soil quality of prime agricultural land cannot be replicated. If this is recognised in a national soil strategy it should also be recognised in planning strategies.
If "removing the natural protection" means no more than removing the notification procedure, the Institute would not object. To ensure the continued application of the principles of sustainable development, however, prime quality agricultural land should continue to be emphasised as a significant resource requiring protection through appropriate development plan policies and national planning policy guidance should be strengthened accordingly.
Scottish Society of Directors in Planning
Removal of national protection is not acceptable. This could be at odds with longer term future needs for agricultural outputs. Should it be the intention to seek the application of protection in pursuance of the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. at local authority level, then far more justification and the outline of any due process needs to be provided first.
It may be that in relation to urban areas, notably the 4 larger cities, that in achieving a form of sustainable development to reduce travel brings a conflict with the use of the best quality agricultural land given the correlation between the location of urban areas and the best quality agricultural land in Scotland. There is no one objective for sustainable development. Each and every decision requires an Authority to balance the various aspects which sustainable development comprises.
Given the lack of justification in the paper for this change, for other than "administrative purposes"; the need to take a long term national perspective; and the application of the "precautionary principle" in terms of a finite resource, the view is that this proposal cannot be supported as aligning with sustainable development objectives of the Scottish Executive.