You may also be interested in
National Planning Framework for Scotland
Thursday, May 11, 2006
by
Murray Shaw
The National Planning Framework for Scotland was produced in 2004. It is divided into a number of sections.
The introduction indicates that it sets out “a vision of Scotland in which other plans and programmes can share and to which they can contribute”. It is probably fair to say that the Framework does not so much identify new issues or policies but rather draws together in the one document issues which apply within or to Scotland which have previously been the subject of discussion and/or other policy documents. Scotland is a relatively small country and having this vision set out within the one document is probably helpful. In making that comment, however, it has to be recognised:-
- That while Scotland is a small country, within Scotland there are clearly very different needs and requirements.
- While Scotland is a small country, the Scots people, and possibly more significantly their elected representatives, appear to have an incredible capacity to fight, argue and debate over what should be common themes. Whether therefore there is real acceptance of this Framework (despite extensive stakeholder involvement) is not clear. Interestingly enough one of the ideas which is put forward in this document, which might be considered challenging, is found at paragraph 147, where it is suggested that the relationship between Edinburgh and Glasgow is of “key importance” and viewing the two cities as complimentary would benefit the economy as a whole. At the time the document was published in 2004, there may have been real doubts about what might be done in this context. Whether as a result of the Framework or otherwise, there has been a thawing of attitudes over the last year.
As indicated above, the document is divided into a number of sections. Briefly these as are as follows:-
1. an Introductory Section
2. This section is entitled “Scotland Today”. This section essentially contains factual information about Scotland, much of which is of interest.
3. The next section is entitled “Key Issues and Drivers of Change” and summarises what the Executive considers as significant issues for Scotland. A number of these key issues are relatively obvious such as sustainable development, community regeneration, transport and infrastructure. Others are less obviously in the category of “Key Drivers of Change and Issues which need to be addressed” such as waste management though the text in this section helps identify why it is a significant issue.
4. The following section is entitled “Spatial Perspectives”. This section appears to be intended to set out action to be taken to address the issues which have been identified in the earlier parts of the document. Little of the proposed action appears to be new and in addition the section is lacking in detail about how the necessary action is in fact to be taken and achieved. For example in paragraph 156 reference is made to exceptionally high residential land prices in Edinburgh and the growing imbalance between demand and supply. The paragraph goes on to record that priority must be given to ensure that supply of development land is adequate, that major sites identified for housing are made available in good time, and there is adequate provision of social housing. The development industry would probably agree with all of that but nothing really tangible is said about how this is to be achieved.
Issues
1. It might be questioned what is the purpose of this document in real terms. It does helpfully draw together both factual information about Scotland together with information about significant trends and summarises policy initiatives (some of which are clearly aspirational) which are already in place. It does not appear to set out any new policy directives. In paragraph 1 of the Introduction it is stated that the Framework “will be taken into account by the Executive and its agencies in policy and spending decisions”. What in fact does that mean? One of the issues which is frequently commented upon is a lack of initiative in Scotland from the Executive and its agencies in taking the lead in development. Common examples are projects where there are multiple ownerships and a need for upfront infra-structure spending. Often it is difficult, if not impossible, to bring about the necessary agreements in an acceptable time frame to ensure development proceeds. That must be an issue in relation to some of the areas identified in the Framework which requires to be addressed so as to achieve many of the objectives set out in this document. The Framework does not deal with practical issues such as that and it is not entirely clear what is meant by the Framework being “taken into account”. Recent policy pronouncements suggest a desire to tackle issues. However, what is the real commitment at Executive level to addressing the issues identified in this document? Possibly the Framework needs to be “work in progress”.
2. As indicated above Scotland is a relatively small country. Nonetheless certainly in the past year to eighteen months there has been a plethora of planning documents, both in terms of SPPs, PANS, Circulars and ad hoc guidance such as the West Edinburgh Planning Framework. Is it necessary to have all of these documents? Given the number of documents there are a well briefed planning consultant (or indeed lawyer) is likely to be able to find support for any proposition in one or more of these, which certainly does not make the planning process any clearer. There is also the issue of potential conflict. The Framework document in itself is stated to be a material consideration (see paragraph 1). On the basis it sets out general information and rehearses policies which are already in place it is probably consistent with other documents including structure plans and local plans. The Framework document specifically states that there has been extensive involvement from the ubiquitous stakeholders (see paragraph 5). Nonetheless it is not part of the development plan there must be a risk of conflict in amongst all of these documents unless there is consistent drafting and updating.
3. Almost inevitably, there is conflict amongst the themes set out in the Framework document, though this conflict is not acknowledged. For example there is extensive comment about sustainability with particular reference to trying to achieve rethinking in relation to transport and transportation. There is reference to the growth of flight and the need to extend airports (see paragraph 121/122). At least some parties think that the growth of air travel is a major impediment to a cleaner more sustainable environment though there is no acknowledgement of that view. Is that because the view is rejected or has it simply been ignored?
The Introduction by the Minister sets out significant aims for this document. It makes clear that the Framework is not a prescriptive master plan or blueprint but is seen as a “key element in a package of measures to modernise and reform the planning system”. In that context, the status of the Framework is to move on. The Planning Bill proposes to give the Framework a statutory basis to provide for review by the Parliament and perhaps more significantly, to establish the principle for certain developments such that the need for them will not be open to debate at inquiries. If the bill is enacted, the status of the Framework will be significantly enhanced and it may will have the significance it deserves.
The information contained in this article is given for general information only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter.