Scottish Government

SCOTTISH PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CONFERENCE, DUNKELD, 21 MARCH 2003
SPEECH BY JIM MACKINNON, CHIEF PLANNER, SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
MODERNISATION OF THE PLANNING SYSTEM

This document is also available in pdf format (28k)

• Thank you for the invitation to address what I regard as one of the key Conferences in the Scottish planning calendar. I am afraid that other pressures mean that I cannot stay for the duration but it seems to me that you have an interesting and varied programme. A number of my colleagues are among the delegates and I look forward to receiving feedback on proceedings.
• My purpose today is to describe what the Executive is doing to modernise and reform the planning system. I want to concentrate on 3 aspects:
  - Review of Strategic Planning
  - Design
  - Public Involvement.
• I will also, however, touch on Modernising Public Local Inquiries, Developer Contributions and Planning Agreements, and E-Planning.

Review of Strategic Planning

• Following extensive consultation with stakeholders we issued a consultation paper, in June 2001, on the Review of Strategic Planning. In the past we had posed broad questions but they tended to prompt equally broad responses. Everyone wanted a planning system that was strategic, inclusive, integrated and capable of delivering sustainable development. But this does not take us very far and we therefore made a conscious decision to involve and include stakeholders in developing thinking and then bring forward specific proposals.
• The intention of the proposals was to build on the well established strengths of the system:
  - Statutory basis of the system;
  - Separation of strategic from local issues;
  - Ministerial approval of structure plans;
  - Opportunities for public involvement;
• But the system is far from perfect and there are a number of key issues to be addressed including:
  - Delays both in preparing plans and ensuring they are up-to-date;
  - Procedures which are perceived to be cumbersome;
  - Inadequate provision for development;
  - Lack of clarity and certainty;
  - Plans often seen as an end rather than a means to an end.
• In June 2002 we announced our conclusions. These included:
  - NPPG series to become SPPs - slimmer documents with clear focus on the actual policy;
  - Removing the requirement for structure plans for all parts of Scotland - instead there should be strategic development plans for the largest city regions;
  - Action plans, updated every 2 years, should be prepared to indicate how the plan will be implemented;
  - Commence work on a National Planning Framework;
  - Take forward joint work on local planning with 2 local authorities, Highland and South Lanarkshire.
• So what have we done?
  - We have published the first 3 in our SPP series and the draft of SPP7: Flooding will be published on 25 March. We're still working on how to keep these documents from being too unwieldy.
  - Let me tell you, though, what we are doing on local planning and the National Planning Framework.

Local Plans

• It has become increasingly obvious that the main barriers in the modernisation of local planning do not lie with the statutory procedures. There needs to be a clear understanding of the role and purpose of the development plan. I think this has become confused and there are examples where plans have strayed into territory where they are adding little, or no, added value. One senior Director of Planning commented that too many plans were little more than compendiums of pious hopes. I have always thought it better to set out to achieve aims which are demanding, but realistic, rather than goals which are wholly aspirational and have little or no prospect of being implemented. That creates a major credibility problem for planning, leads to disillusionment and also I believe generates low morale amongst those who are preparing the plan.
• The issue of morale is also connected to the need for better project management. I do not pretend that development planning is easy. There are difficult trade-offs to be made but I often feel that the initial flush of enthusiasm wanes when people realise they are not in for a 100 metre dash but a decathlon followed by a half-marathon. I don't believe that local planning can ever be a 100 metre dash but it can be managed in a way that maintains the engagement of stakeholders and sustains the enthusiasm of those involved in drafting the plan.
• We are intending to hold a seminar on 9 April on local planning. This will engage in a number of key issues including:
  - Management of the process - having a project plan with clear targets and milestones;
  - Approaches to consultation - what is effective, recognising the need for different approaches for different stakeholders/ensuring ownership and commitment;
  - Form and content of plans - thinking rigorously about what policies and proposals need to be in the plan/is the plan in a form that is readily understood;
  - Delivery - what will change as a result of the plan, what needs to be taken forward and how.

Running through a number of these issues is the potential of new technology.

National Planning Framework

• Let me now turn to the National Planning Framework. We have been very active on this since June 2002. We have had stakeholder seminars in 5 locations throughout Scotland. We have had extensive discussions both within the Executive and bilaterally with key external agencies as well as private sector interests, including CBI and Homes for Scotland. An Ad Hoc Ministerial Group has been established and has now met twice. In March 2003 Des McNulty, the Deputy Minister for Social Justice and I gave a presentation on the National Planning Framework to the Scottish Parliament's Transport & Environment Committee. A second round of stakeholder seminars is planned for late May/early June 2003.
• It has been very clear from the engagement we have had with stakeholders that they are looking for something which is aspirational but goes beyond general exhortation. They are expecting the Framework to focus on a number of key issues such as the spatial aspects of economic development, strategic transport infrastructure, energy, water and telecommunications. There is also an argument that the National Planning Framework should address other matters such as affordable housing and waste. While the final content will be settled by Ministers after the election I would emphasise, though, this is not intended to be a comprehensive all-embracing plan for Scotland. It is intended to pick out a number of issues where the Framework can genuinely add value and provide a degree of strategic direction and commitment to Scotland's long term future.
• I think that the West Edinburgh Planning Framework, which we published on Friday 14 March, is an early sign of this approach. It genuinely does focus on the key planning and transport issues in the area. It addresses the issues head on. It was drawn up in close partnership with key interests, namely Edinburgh City Council and Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothians. There was also extensive stakeholder involvement and it was produced within 12 months. I regard this as a significant achievement. It is also clear that it is the starting point of an ambitious agenda to deliver sustainable change in the area.
• Let me turn now to design. In November 2001, we published Designing Places. This was the first policy statement on design but we always regarded it as the opening salvo rather than the final word. We followed through first of all through the publication of SPP1. This made it absolutely clear that design was a material planning consideration and that planning applications could be rejected on design grounds. We also recognised that there are big issues surrounding the education and training of planners and I am pleased to say that we introduced a student award on design at our Planning Awards Ceremony this year. Some of the entries, particularly the overall winner, were very impressive. We continue to discuss with SSDP what can be done in relation to continuing professional development and, of course, we have our Planning Advice Note series.
• Two PANs are worth mentioning in this connection. The first is PAN 65: Planning and Open Space because promoting quality is not just about building, it is about identifying areas which contribute to the distinctive character of places. And more recently we published PAN 67: Housing Quality which has a key aim of trying to raise the standard of new or particularly suburban housing in Scotland.
• One of the examples we used was from Regensburg in East Bavaria. Our German colleagues seem very pleased that we have recognised the quality of this development but they are, I think, slightly bemused as I am not sure that they regard it as wholly exceptional. Very good - yes, but there are many other areas in Bavaria where similar quality is being achieved. For planners in Scotland I suspect that we would regard a development of this nature as exceptional and we would regard it as, to use Sam Galbraith's words "a conservation area of tomorrow."
• I am, therefore, pleased that we will be doing joint work with our Bavarian colleagues to understand why this quality can be achieved as a matter of course in Bavaria. We need to get beyond just understanding their planning processes and need to look at issues such as the development process, housing policy, skills and so forth.
• We will be continuing our PAN series, for example by revisiting PAN 36: Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside. We are also intending to do some work on village design.
• Let me turn now to public involvement in planning. This is becoming an increasingly important area and there is no doubt that individual proposals ranging from a telecommunications mast to a super quarry can arouse passionate feelings. In November 2001 we published proposals in a consultation document, Getting Involved in Planning, on ensuring more effective public involvement in planning. We did not, however, simply issue a consultation document and wait for the responses. We used an Easy Read guide and a short questionnaire as well as commissioning research - to find out what people who did not engage in this type of consultation exercise actually thought about public involvement in planning.
• Although we did not propose the introduction of a third party right of appeal in planning the subject featured in a number of the consultation responses. To some, a third party appeal would introduce more fairness and balance and is therefore seen as an essential feature in a modernised planning system. To others, it would be a wholly retrograde step changing the emphasis in planning from promoting and enabling, to regulating and controlling. As the First Minister said recently in answer to an oral parliamentary question, we must tread a fine line between giving people and communities more of a say in planning issues, while avoiding clogging up the planning system. Whatever the views on the merits or demerits of third party appeals in planning, I think there is almost general agreement that third party appeals must not be seen in isolation from the wider modernisation of the planning system.

We are finalising our proposals to secure greater public involvement in planning. And a White Paper which will set out a route map for strengthening arrangements should be published shortly. [Note - the White Paper was subsequently published on 28 March. One of our proposals is to issue a consultation paper during 2003 on third party appeals, in the context of the other measures in the White Paper designed to enhance public engagement in the planning system. To assist in this task we also intend to establish a stakeholder group to oversee the consultation process. We intend to issue further details on the consultation process in the next few months, although given the proximity of the Scottish elections this matter will fall to a future administration.]

• We are also hoping to publish proposals on modernising public local inquiries which would make the system less adversarial but no less robust. Again we are clear about the sort of improvements that could be made to the process of handling appeals and there is also, of course, a clear lead across to local plan inquiries which have become increasingly protracted. It is important to remember, though, that not all major developments go through the planning process. For example major transport infrastructure proposals are generally handled through private bill procedures and large energy projects go through separate procedures.
• On the theme of appeals, the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit recently overhauled its web pages to enable the progress of appeals to be tracked online. In addition appeal decision letters can now be downloaded without charge.
• This brings me nicely on to ICT and Planning. A Scottish Executive E-Planning Group involving local authorities has been established for some time. It is clear that councils are at different stages in their use and application of ICT but I am pleased to see that Peter Collins from East Lothian Council will be leading a workshop later today on E-Planning. One of the issues in which there is great interest is a planning portal for Scotland and we have begun some joint work with councils on how this should be approached. The intention is to agree the way forward at our next "Heads of Planning" meeting in June 2003.
• One of the issues which is seen as a major barrier to the electronic delivery of the planning service relates to the use of electronic signatures and we have now commissioned Professor Mark Poustie from the University of Strathclyde to see how obstacles - perceived or real - might be overcome.
• One of the issues which continues to vex developers and increasingly local authorities is the use of planning agreements. You will, I am sure, be aware that colleagues in England and Wales launched a major consultation last year on the possible introduction of development tariffs. For a number of reasons we stood aside from that consultation and it would appear that this approach is on the back burner in England and Wales. Certainly I am not aware of anything in the Westminster Planning Bill on this.
• There is no doubt, though, that there are major concerns in Scotland. At the end of January we, along with the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Town Planning Institute held a conference to explore the issues. I was given the tasks of identifying the issue, which is much easier than identifying the way forward.
• There are concerns from the development industry that some local authorities are using agreements for a purpose for which they were never intended and I suspect there may well be some truth in this. But I don't think that the main problems lie around individual agreements - the real issues are much more about wider infrastructure deficits, including education and affordable housing. I made it clear at the conference that I thought there was a major role here for development plans. In setting out the long term strategy for development and redevelopment, development plans must address honestly and openly difficulties around infrastructure deficits. It is clear that the private sector is generally prepared to contribute to overcoming deficits but it needs to know what these are, where they are, their nature and extent so that this can be factored in to the price that is paid for land. My impression was that many at the conference shared this view.
• Some of the modernisation agenda we are pursuing can only be dealt with through legislation and that is why we have commissioned Professor Jeremy Rowan-Robinson to undertake some research for us on the possible content of a planning bill, which is of course subject to the priorities of the new administration. It is very important that we have a shared understanding of what can be achieved through primary legislation and what is more appropriate for secondary legislation, guidance or advice. Professor Rowan Robinson is arranging to meet some key stakeholders and we will also be arranging a seminar with planning lawyers on the draft report. In addition we would hope to hold a seminar with a wider range of stakeholders after Professor Rowan Robinson has reported.
• So what can I offer by way of a summary?
• First of all, the approach we have taken to the modernisation and reform of the planning system has genuinely been open and inclusive. We have moved away from the blue sky debate that characterised earlier consultations and, instead, have brought forward specific proposals. Some of these are widely supported but others are more controversial and generate very different views. I am afraid that is just the nature of planning.
• So we need to be clear about the specific changes that are required and clarify whether they can be implemented through legislation/policy/advice.
• One key point I would make is that planning needs to become more assertive and more confident. Being assertive does not mean being brash or arrogant but understanding the very specific contribution that the land use planning system can provide and engaging with other agendas as equal partners. I do detect that planners are often quite defensive, possibly fearful, about the impact of other plans and strategies and their implications for planning policy and decision making. Instead we need to demonstrate how land use planning can inform these other plans and strategies and recognise that it is also crucial in delivering some elements of these other plans and strategies.
• But let me finish by saying something on delivery. All the grand talk about modernisation will count for little if we cannot deliver a modernised and reformed planning system. And for delivery, I regard the following elements as critical: -
  - legislative change;
  - updated policy, guidance and advice;
  - effective leadership and management;
  - people with the right skill sets; and,
  - people who demonstrate the right behaviours.