Scottish Government

February 2010

How are you changing your behaviour to implement culture change?

I have been working in a local planning authority context for around 18 months, after spending some four years working in planning in the private sector.

In my opinion, delivery of culture change is really what underpins the whole planning reform regime. Unless attitudes change, the full benefits of planning reform will not be felt.

After arriving in my current post, I was surprised by the willingness of colleagues to embrace a new approach- my private sector experience had given me some unfair perceptions of local authority planning. Some examples of behaviour change that I have witnessed so far, in the context of a few planning reform headings, include:

Faster plan production- We set out our detailed timetable in our first Development Plan Scheme in March 2009. We remain exactly on target, and published our Main Issues Report when we said we would. There is a real commitment to moving away from the old system, where plans were constantly delayed at almost every stage. This has meant we have had to take some difficult decisions. For example, one of our technical reports was not quite completed in time for our publication deadline. Rather than delay, we confirmed that the key recommendations would not be subject to change, and could therefore press ahead with printing the Main Issues Report.

More inclusion- There is a step change in the quantity and quality of our consultation efforts. We have been more proactive in our public engagement, actively seeking meetings with a wide range of stakeholders. We are currently running our formal consultation period on the MIR and have a range of events programmed to get as much involvement as possible. We are also trying to tailor our message to different audiences, rather than providing the same material to everyone, regardless of their level of involvement or understanding of the process.

Greater certainty and transparency- In writing our MIR, we have tried to be clear in setting out our broad proposals for where development should and should not occur. An integrated and fully transparent SEA approach has meant that we have stated clearly not only what our proposals are, but why we have drawn the conclusions we have. This is important as it increases our accountability, and also makes the plan process more robust.

April 2010

What is the most positive change you are experiencing?

The Planning Reform agenda has introduced a number of positive changes to the planning system. One of the most valuable of these is increased accountability.

Accountability, to my mind, encompasses responsibility, transparency, and communication.

We have a responsibility to give due consideration to all the factual data in our plan making, such as environmental designations, heritage designations and infrastructure constraints. We must also consider community and developer interests- which can often be at variance. From all of this, we must try and establish a development strategy which reflects a sustainable economic growth pattern.

This renewed emphasis on responsibility has meant that we have taken greater steps to ensure that there are stages in our plan making process where we cross check our work to date against original plan objectives, feedback from public engagement and also the representations for development which we have received. This is helping to ensure that the direction of the plan is better aligned with stakeholder priorities.

Transparency is essential as responsibility and communication are impeded without information being shared in a format that is comprehensive and easy to understand. The technical papers which inform our decision making have often been made publicly available in the past. However, we are now also sharing more detail on our decision making methodology- not just the tools which inform it. The positive benefits of this approach are proving to be twofold. It seems to encourage better quality representations, as promoters wish to ensure their development has the best possible chances of allocation and therefore seek to respond to the priorities set out. This approach also means stakeholders can now not only follow the evidence, but also how the evidence has been assessed. These benefits help foster greater trust and promote a culture of ownership of the plan amongst stakeholders.

Communication takes a variety of forms in plan making. One example is that we have sought to go out in the community in the spirit of responsibility and transparency- not just ticking the "public engagement" box. We conducted five "Planning Forums" across North Ayrshire to engage with stakeholders on our recently published Main Issues Report. The quality of the debate was high and attendees generally relished the opportunity to ask questions directly, and provide constructive comment. At times this was uncomfortable, as we were "under the microscope". I believe this has value, however, as closer scrutiny encourages us to ensure quality and raises accountability.

August 2010

Preparation of our new Local Development Plan is now well underway, with the Proposed Plan programmed for publication in December 2010 making this a good point to stop and reflect on the experience so far.

The new system is designed to speed up plan making and offer less prescription than previous legislation, allowing more room for innovation and creativity.

To date, these objectives have been achieved. We are still on track in terms of the timetable set out within our Development Plan Scheme. We remain committed to our target of publication of the Proposed Plan in December, and feel this is feasible, although it relies on Committees going to plan, information from stakeholders coming on time and meeting a demanding deadline for detailed assessment of representations. Keeping to a prescriptive timetable is challenging when there are so many variables outwith your control.

One of the frustrations of the old system was that, sometimes from the day of adoption, plans became outdated and lacked a mechanism for implementation. We have interpreted the intention under the new system is that plans become more of a 'living document'- a twenty year timeframe with regular five yearly reviews should retain commitment to the original vision of the plan, with updates to policies and proposals being evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The Action Programme will offer the opportunity to co-ordinate delivery of proposals within the Plan, and provide momentum between reviews. Although, we are concerned this will be difficult as the Action Programme does not appear to be enforceable on the stakeholders and their actions identified within it.