Scottish Government

APPENDIX 4: SPP 11 CONSULTATION FURTHER ANALYSIS

PLANNING FOR OPEN SPACE WITHIN NEW DEVELOPMENT: MINIMUM STANDARDS

Introduction

The then Scottish Executive asked for additional detailed analysis of the responses to paragraphs 42 - 44 of draft SPP 11 dealing with national minimum standards for open space within new developments and consultation questions (v) and (vi).

A detailed analysis has been carried out of responses that included substantive comment on this section of the consultation paper and the two questions.

This analysis supplements Section 9 of the full analysis of responses to SPP 11. It is based on responses from 27 local authorities and two local authority departments, five other organisations and six private sector respondents.

The following analysis is structured as follows:

1. General comments on the principle of national minimum standards for open space within new developments

2. Specific comments on the proposed standards (Table 1)

2a) Non-residential

2b) Residential

3. Typology of open space

4. Additional classes

5. Standards for rural areas

6. Off-site provision

7. Quality and accessibility.

1. General comments on the principle of national minimum standards for open space within new developments

A large majority of local authorities generally welcomed the proposal for national minimum standards for open space within new developments.

However around a half of local authorities specifically suggested that the national standards should only be guidance and that local authorities should have the flexibility to set higher standards or standards that take account of local circumstances as part of the local open space audit/ strategy.

For example:

" Minimum standards should be advisory. Standards should be set at a local level to help reflect different circumstances, often within the same council area." (Argyll and Bute)

"The minimum standards will be a useful guidance for future provision of open space." (Moray)

"Whilst it is a positive move to have national standards, it is considered that planning authorities should not be tied to them and that local circumstances require to be taken into account of with local standards forming part of the local open space strategy." (Clackmannanshire)

"There should be more flexibility in the application of the standards in relation to residential sites. Many factors, including type of housing, site, type of location (brown or green field), regeneration and demographics are all significant and flexibility for this needs to be recognised." (North Ayrshire)

"The guidance should be revised to reflect the fact that the (open space) strategy should be the determining factor in agreeing appropriate standards." (Midlothian)

" It is critical to take account of site specific circumstances: e.g. proximity to and quantity of existing local space." (Highland)

Other local authorities that supported the concept of the national standards being adopted flexibly were: City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Fife, East Ayrshire, Falkirk and South Lanarkshire.

The National Trust for Scotland welcomed the proposed standards but stated that it is not clear when local authorities would have the leeway to adopt higher standards.

Greenspace Scotland welcomed the setting of minimum national standards and higher local standards but suggested that the SPP should include reference to the expectation that local standards will be higher then the national minimum.

The Royal Town Planning Institute also supported flexibility in the way the standards are applied to take account of local circumstances.

Private sector organisations were less supportive of the principle of national minimum standards but agreed that local authorities should set local standards.

Stewart Milne Homes - " minimum standards are not appropriate. Provision should vary according to local circumstances. … any open space should have a specific purpose."

In the view of the British Property Federation, the threshold system is inappropriate and inflexible and standards should be set locally.

" The requirement for local planning authorities to accept the proposed open space thresholds (or higher) is misconceived as the thresholds do not take into consideration the large discrepancies in urban and rural environments in Scotland. We recommend a system of more flexible national guidelines within which local authorities would be able to set their own standards, dependent on region. The SPP 11 should introduce a set of 'best practice' thresholds to act as a guidance mechanism to developments such as those in NPPG 11."

Homes for Scotland supported the provisions in paragraph 43 covering the role of the development plan in setting standards for open space but it seriously questioned the proposed minimum standards detailed in Table 1.

Forth Ports plc and National Grid Property Ltd questioned the reasoning behind the setting of minimum standards.

"The decision to adopt 'minimum standards' as a blanket provision has not been justified. Are they necessary? Appropriate?" (Forth Ports plc)

"There is a danger that local authorities with a deficiency of open space may place onerous obligations upon developers, that in some cases may affect the viability of development proposals." (National Grid Property Ltd)

2. Specific comments on the proposed standards (Table 1)

2a) Non-residential

Few local authority responses commented specifically on the proposed standards and thresholds for non-residential developments.

Renfrewshire Council suggested that the purpose of the standards for non-residential developments has not been made clear. "Is open space in industrial / warehouse developments amenity space for the public or recreational areas for employees?" It also suggested that the proposed standards for Classes 1, 4, 5, 6 and 11 are overly prescriptive and that planning authorities should have flexibility to vary them.

Perth & Kinross Council pointed that very often development of sites will incorporate different class uses ( e.g. 4, 5 and 6) and that the minimum standards do not cover such situations.

Aberdeen City Council also pointed out that local plans might zone areas for a mix of class uses and these areas might be developed incrementally and it would not be known how much floor space will be developed and how much open spaced would be provided. Therefore it suggested, " Rather than provide small pockets of open space incrementally through a development it may be more appropriate to masterplan a single larger and more meaningful area of open space."

Aberdeen City Council along with Angus Council also queried why smaller scale developments below the threshold would be exempt from the requirements to contribute to open space requirements. The former suggested that "There will be instances where it is appropriate to provide open space within smaller developments."

Angus Council pointed out that:

"Whilst the proposed thresholds may appear reasonable for large towns, cities and conurbations, smaller development proposals have the potential to have significant effects on smaller towns, villages and rural areas. … As such it is suggested that the SPP should lower the thresholds for the scale of development for which open space will be required."

Dumfries and Galloway Council suggested that the standards for non-residential developments should specify the split between formal/ informal, onsite/ offsite provision of open space.

West Lothian Council was the only local authority to comment specifically on the actual thresholds proposed for non-residential developments. It suggested that it should be reduced from 5ha to 4ha.

The National Trust for Scotland and Greenspace Scotland commented on the minimum standards for non-residential developments being presented as a range ( e.g. 12 - 18 sq m of open space per 100 sq m gfa) and that a minimum should be a single figure.

Kit Campbell Associates, the only private sector respondent to comment specifically on the proposals for non-residential developments, was very critical of them. "The proposed minimum standards for Class 1, 4, 5, 6 and 11 developments are daft. A development with a gross floor space of 10,000 sq m will require between 600 and 1,800 sq m of open space. These areas are equivalent to slightly less than a single tennis court enclosure and slightly more than a standard bowling green respectively. They are pure tokenism."

This response also questioned the logic of seeking open space to be provided as part of some developments in these class uses. "For example, visitors to retail parks are there for one purpose only - shopping - and the vast majority of visits to leisure parks are made at night and the last thing users of them need or want is open space."

2b) Residential

Several local authorities (Stirling, East Renfrewshire, Fife and East Lothian) reported that they have already adopted, or are consulting on, standards based on the proposed national minimum standards for residential developments.

Two local authorities (Perth & Kinross and Midlothian) suggested that the proposed minimum standards are higher than the standards they currently use.

"60 sq m per household would be substantially higher than Perth and Kinross's current standard of 400 sq m per 50 houses for local equipped play space even with any structural landscaping included." (Perth and Kinross)

Midlothian Council reported that the proposed minimum standards are a " minor increase" on its current standards.

However, West Lothian Council pointed out that its Open Space and Sports Facilities Strategies include standards that exceed the proposed national minimum standards.

Angus Council reported that its Local Plan Review applies the NPFA 6 acre standard "which is broadly equivalent (2.43 ha of open space peer 1,000 population) to the proposed national minimum standard for residential development."

Highland Council suggested that the proposed standard for residential developments is lower than the current NPFA 6 acre standard, whilst Renfrewshire Council suggested that it "appears more demanding than the NPFA standard."

Several local authorities commented specifically on the proposed threshold that would trigger the minimum standards for residential developments.

Four local authorities (East Lothian, Argyll and Bute, Highlands and Renfrewshire) suggested that the proposed threshold of 10 dwellings is too low. For example, whilst East Lothian Council's Local Plan uses the proposed standard of 60 sq m per dwelling the threshold is 20 dwellings, not 10. "This trigger number of houses is calculated to ensure areas of open space procured in new developments provide sufficient space for more than one type - e.g. an equipped play area of a suitable size together with informal open space."

Argyll and Bute Council also suggested that 20 dwellings would be a more appropriate threshold.

Renfrewshire commented that the proposal to have 20 sq m for children's play area per 10 dwellings "is such a small area that it would seem to be of little usefulness and maintenance could be a problem." It pointed out that although its Local Plan guidelines include a threshold of 10/ 12 units "this was found to be inappropriate in many development proposals. The threshold for provision of a play area (equipped) has, in practice, been 50 units."

However, two local authorities suggested that the 10 dwellings threshold is too high. Scottish Borders Council expressed concern that the threshold would be too high for smaller settlements and villages where many developments will be smaller than 10 units and therefore " A policy should be derived for settlements under 1,000 population where the target could be four houses of more" with a view to providing funding for improvement to existing open space.

Falkirk Council suggested that it would be "unwise to put a threshold on the size of residential development that should make a contribution to open space" since small developments have a cumulative impact which would be missed. Therefore, the threshold should apply only to on-site provision and for developments under 10 dwellings a contribution towards upgrading of off-site open space could be made.

Several local authorities (Aberdeen, Shetland, South Lanarkshire, North Ayrshire and Falkirk) pointed out that the proposed minimum standards for residential developments do not take account of the type of housing development being provided. Family housing may require more open space ( e.g. children's play areas) than retirement or one bedroom flats.

Aberdeen City Council's current open space requirements for new developments are based on the number of people/ bedspaces within developments rather than the number of dwellings since " this is more sensitive to the number of people likely to be accommodated."

Falkirk Council made the case for some differentiation being made to "recognise the differing open space needs generated by different house sizes" since the proposed 60 sq m of open space per dwelling would provide the same amount of open space per 10 unit development of one bedroom flats as will be required for a 10 unit development of 5 bedroom villas.

The Council's response included an alternative model based on an assumption that an average new dwelling will have three bedrooms and scaling the open space requirement proportionally for smaller and larger properties. (See Table below) These standards have not yet been adopted by the Council but are currently being considered for inclusion within a forthcoming Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Falkirk Council: proposed standards for open space in new residential developments

Private sector organisations were critical of the proposed national minimum standards.

National Grid Property Ltd suggested that the 60 sq m minimum " appears to be above the general open space standards currently adopted by many local authorities in Scotland." Whilst Stewart Milne Homes suggested that the 60 sq m per dwelling should be the maximum rather than the minimum required and that 40 sq m would be a " more realistic" minimum.

The British Property Federation suggested that the 10 units threshold for residential developments should be increased to 15.

Forth Ports plc questioned whether the proposed minimum standards have been the subject of any 'sense test' on real developments. It used an actual development in Leith Docks as an example of how the proposed minimum standards might be inoperable. The 111ha site has a masterplan which includes provision of 43ha of open space (39% of the total land area). However, applying the proposed minimum standard on the site which will provide 15,700 homes and 100,000 sq m of commercial property would require 95.1 ha of open space - 86% of the total area.

Homes for Scotland expressed "serious concerns about incorporating these (Minimum) standards into the SPP" for three reasons. Firstly, whilst the standards have been based on the research carried out for the report on Minimum Standards in Open Spaces, "there has been no formal consultation on it or any action taken to finalise the standards for incorporation into policy. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to formalise the standards as The Scottish Government policy through this SPP without further consultation."

Secondly, the provisions for residential developments refer to a range of type of uses of space but " it is not clear whether this includes provisions specifically required by planning conditions such as structural landscaping, SUDS features and associated safeguarding zones and so on. If it does not, then the amount of space suggested in the Table becomes excessive."

Thirdly, the development industry has " major concerns about the cumulative impact on developments of other policy requirements for develop contributions, many of which use potentially developable area ( e.g. transport provision, car parking) and others which impact on the viability of development ( e.g. affordable housing) which reduces the net returns to landowners and developers."

Kit Campbell Associates were just as critical of the proposals for residential developments as they were for non-residential. "the proposed minimum standards would be a disaster, especially as the likelihood is that many councils will simply adopt them without a thought for the possible consequences or bothering to establish whether they are appropriate for their areas."

This response was very critical of proposed national minimum standard of 60 sq m per household which is based in the 'discredited'NPFA standard. "Given the NPFA standard has never had any empirical basis it is daft to base the proposed minimum standards on it."

3. Typology of open space

A small number of respondents commented on the typology of open space covered by the national minimum standards proposed in Table 1 of the SPP.

Falkirk Council suggested that there is a need for clarification of the types of open space (and how they are grouped) used in the minimum standards for residential developments and that the SPP should also include an indication of the types of open space suitable for the other classes listed in Table 1. It pointed out " it is unlikely that these uses would all generate a need for children's play areas" and they would more likely generate a need for passive open space.

Falkirk Council also suggested that it would be "helpful if there was a more explicit link between the open space typologies set out in PAN 65 and the open space set out in Table 1 of SPP 11."

Scottish Borders Council suggested that the minimum standards set out in the SPP should define the hierarchy of equipped play areas and the types of sports and other uses of open space more explicitly.

Perth and Kinross Council made the more general point in relation to the open space uses to be generated through the minimum standards that "There is a tendency for piecemeal development to provide several local play areas but no collective open space areas of neighbourhood or settlement significance."

Greenspace Scotland suggested local authority supplementary guidance on the mix of types of open space required on any one site would be useful. It pointed out that it is currently involved in a study of greenspace design in residential areas and that this might usefully feed into the guidance.

4. Additional classes

Suggestions for other types of development / class that should be covered by the national minimum standards included:

• Nursing and residential homes, hospitals, medical centres
• Hotels and tourist developments
• Schools and further education establishments
• Class 1 does not include non-retail park shopping centres that could also be covered by the standards.

5. Standards for rural areas

There was a small majority of respondents in favour of a different set of standards for rural areas. However, some of these supported higher standards whilst others suggested that rural areas could have lower standards.

Those supporting the setting of different standards for rural areas included:

• Clackmannanshire
• Angus - thresholds should be lower in rural areas
• Highlands
• South Lanarkshire - thresholds should be lower in rural areas
• Scottish Borders
• North Lanarkshire (Education Department)
• Argyll and Bute
• Shetland - rural standards should be higher

"The proposed standards are not considered to be appropriate to rural areas, which have different needs, and requirements to urban areas and by their nature are generally passive in nature. This is an issue which will have a great deal of variance dependent on the nature of the rural area and its accessibility to urban facilities." (Clackmannanshire Council)

"Rural areas have different range of open space provisions that need to be reflected within more flexible standards." (Highlands)

The National Trust for Scotland supported (higher) minimum standards for rural areas.

Stewart Milne Homes and Homes for Scotland also suggested that rural areas should be free to set their own standards. Homes for Scotland alluded to lower standards for rural areas "given that rural areas will typically have greater access to open space and certain types of recreational opportunity."

Those local authorities that did not support different standards being set for rural areas included

• North Ayrshire
• East Ayrshire
• Fife
• Renfrewshire
• Midlothian
• Stirling Children's Services
• West Lothian
• Moray

Some of these responses suggested that since local authorities should have flexibility to set their own standards they would be in a position to adopt different standards for different areas taking into account local circumstances including rurality, proximity to towns, cities and transport links without the need for different national minimum standards being set out for rural areas.

West Lothian Council made the point that different standards for rural areas would be ' divisive'.

Moray Council questioned whether the SPP provided the justification for setting and operating different standards for rural areas.

6. Off-site provision

The proposals in paragraph 44 relating to off-site provision as an alternative to on-site provision of open space "where this is physically impossible or inappropriate" were generally supported.

However, several responses sought further clarification or details on how the sequential approach or the provision of commuted sums in lieu of open space provision would operate in practice.

Stirling Council Children's Services suggested that "There is perhaps a need for the new policy to give clear guidance on the level of financial contributions to be sought from developers to prevent extreme variations between local authorities."

Glasgow City Council welcomed the sequential approach proposed in paragraph 44 but suggested that the assumption should be that open space will be provided on-site by every new development. Rather than the open space strategy indicating a surplus in the quantity of open space, "a stronger remit should be placed on the developer to provide reasoned justification for unwillingness to provide open space on site."

Renfrewshire Council suggested that the sequential approach to financial contributions is essentially a levy on developers and that there needs to be justification for it being imposed on developments of 10 residential units but not on smaller developments.

Falkirk Council raised the issue of Communities Scotland not funding the cost of any open space planning gain contribution which might be required in relation to affordable housing developments. This has led to problems in funding off site open space contributions in affordable housing schemes

National Trust for Scotland supported the sequential approach but made the point that: "it is not clear what the criteria would be for deciding if it is 'physically impossible or inappropriate' to provide open space on site. It is not clear how far away off-site provision may be, or how easily accessed it would be by members of communities affected by the development."

The Royal Town Planning Institute suggested that paragraph 44 could be expanded into a PAN covering the sequential approach to open space delivery and issues such as long term management and maintenance of multi-sector public space.

Greenspace Scotland also suggested that further guidance on the sequential approach might be useful.

Forth Ports plc pointed out that it is "hard to imagine a circumstance where a site can be developed, but that the provision of open space is 'physically impossible."

Homes for Scotland suggested that the SPP should make clear that "financial contributions are only appropriate when a new development does actually generate a need for new provision, in line with circular 12/1996." It questioned whether development of small areas of land would be viable if on-site provision of open space has to be accommodated along with other requirements. Therefore it suggested "it may be that a site size/ capacity threshold could be introduced in development plans, below which commuted sums would generally be preferred."

Kit Campbell Associates suggested that the options in the sequential approach are in the wrong order. "The first priority should be to enhance substandard provision in the area and the second to fund additional off-site provision. There is no point in requiring more provision in an area if existing provision is of inadequate quality."

7. Quality and accessibility

greenspace Scotland suggested that this section of the SPP " should be
re-drafted to stress that quality and accessibility are essential."

Several local authorities other organisations made specific suggestions for how quality and accessibility could be taken into account in the planning of open space provided through new developments.

West Dunbartonshire Council suggested that the proposed standards are not meaningful without reference to the quality and use of the space. High quality design could compensate for less space provision devoted to informal play space. In non-residential development poorly designed large open spaces would be detrimental.

This response also suggested that The Scottish Government should provide guidance or recommended accessibility distances to be used in association with the national standards.

Argyll and Bute Council also suggested that that the concept of quality should be introduced into the calculation of open space. "A high density urban development should be able to provide less open space if the design quality of the space provided was significantly raised."

City of Edinburgh Council suggested that the quantity standards should be supported by accessibility criteria. Whilst quality is a difficult and variable concept to put into national standards accessibility criteria can be fixed. "Proximity is the crucial factor in considering how effectively communities are served by green spaces. The NFPA has a useful model … this would also be of value in helping to determine special relationships of developments and off-site open space provision."

Renfrewshire suggested that "Planning authorities should have flexibility in dealing with different types of development proposals where the design, layout and location of open space are more important considerations than quantity."

Perth and Kinross Council also suggested that open space provided through minimum standards needs to be well designed and that the SPP should make some reference to the applicability of relevant guidance on open space design.

In relation to accessibility, the Royal Town Planning Institute response notes that Natural England has a policy objective of providing accessible natural space within 300 metres of every home in England. But is accepts that standards need to be defined within local contexts and therefore agrees that the definition and agreement of such standards should be within the development plan process.

The SPARcoll/Openspace response refers to "research evidence that points to the importance of proximity to people's homes as the key criterion for the adequacy of open space" and suggests that this should be taken into account on setting standards. GIS mapping can be used to help open space audits demonstrate the distance between open space and homes. The ideal is a maximum of five minutes walk (550m - 280m).

The Scottish Wildlife Trust suggested that the active support and promotion of natural greenspace (in relation to quality and biodiversity) cannot be achieved simply by a minimum standard for quantity of open space. It also supported the concept of accessibility standards based on the standard adopted by Natural England.

Stewart Milne Homes suggested that the focus of the standards should be on quality of open space not quantity and that any open space provided through new developments should have a specific purpose.

The response from Kit Campbell Associates was highly critical of the SPP's 'failure' to set national quality standards instead of leaving it to local authorities to establish their own local quality and accessibility standards. Whilst it makes the case for quality standards to be set and claims the research carried out for the Minimum Standards for Open Space report "ducked the issue of quality" it does not suggest any existing national quality standards that could be used/ adapted in Scotland.

However, it does suggest some accessibility criteria based on walking distances between homes and open space or play areas and makes the case for the target adopted in the draft Welsh TAN 16 - no-one should live more than 5 minutes walk from a natural greenspace - to be used in Scotland. Although it also points out that accessibility targets ignore quality.

8. Summary

1. National minimum standards should be used as guidance for local authorities in determining the local standards to be adopted in local opens space audits/ strategies.

2. The SPP should provide a clearer indication of the possible uses of open space in non-residential developments and of the typology of open space identified for residential developments.

3. The national minimum standards for residential developments need to take account of the different open space requirements of different types of dwelling ( i.e. they need to take account of number of bedspaces/ rooms and age of occupant and not just floor space).

4. Consideration should be given to whether other class uses - nursing and residential homes, medical buildings and hotel and tourist developments - should be included within the national minimum standards.

5. If standards are to be set by local authorities in their open space audits/ strategies there is no real need for separate national minimum standards for rural areas.

6. The sequential approach for off-site provision where on-site provision of open space is not possible should be given more prominence in the SPP and consideration given to whether further guidance is required on issues such as the level of financial contribution and thresholds for scale of development to be covered by these provisions.

7. National minimum standards need to provide guidance on quality ( e.g. quality of design of open space) and accessibility. An accessibility target of non-one living more than 5 minutes walk from a natural greenspace is being adopted in England and Wales.

RESPONSES ANALYSED FOR APPENDIX 4

Local Authorities
Aberdeen City
Angus
Argyll and Bute
City of Edinburgh
Clackmannanshire
Dumfries and Galloway
Dundee City
East Ayrshire
East Lothian
East Renfrewshire
Falkirk
Fife
Glasgow City
Highland
Inverclyde
Midlothian
Moray
North Ayrshire
North Lanarkshire
North Lanarkshire Department of Education
Perth and Kinross
Renfrewshire
Scottish Borders
Shetland Islands
South Lanarkshire
Stirling
Stirling Children's Services
West Dunbartonshire
West Lothian

Other organisations
Greenspace Scotland
OPENspace/ SPARColl
RTPI
Scottish Wildlife Trust
The National Trust for Scotland

Private Sector
British Property Federation
Forth Ports Plc
Homes for Scotland
Kit Campbell Associates
National Grid Property Ltd
Stewart Milne Homes