Download Scottish Executive Consultation: Edinburgh Council's Response to Development Plans and more Lecture notes Project Management in PDF only on Docsity!
+ ED IN BVRG H+
T H E C I T Y OF E D I N B U R G H C O U N C I L
Item no
Report no PC1003104-051CD
Scottish Executive Consultation Paper:
Making Development Plans Deliver
Planning Committee
5 August 2004
1 Purpose of report
1 .I To recommend a Council response to the Scottish Executive’s consultation paper Making Development Plans Deliver.
2 Summary
2.1 The Scottish Executive has published a consultation paper Making
Development Plans Deliver which proposes a range of very significant changes to the form, content, procedures and management of development planning. These include replacing local plans with local development plans and replacing structure plans with city region plans, changing the way plan inquiries operate and plans are approved and adopted. Many of the suggested reforms can be supported, but others are too prescriptive and would constrain the ability of councils to determine locally the most appropriate structures and processes for managing development planning.
2.2 Many of the proposed changes to city regional planning would result in extra costs, including new examinations in public and the creation and running of statutory joint Committees with dedicated officer teams. Authorities must be given the additional resources to make these proposed arrangements work.
3 Main report
Background
3.1 Committee has considered a series of reports in recent years on the Scottish Executive’s (SE) proposals for modernising the planning system (see background papers). The current SE consultation on Making Development Plans Deliver (MDPD) is part of that process and runs in parallel with the Rights
of Appeal in Planning consultation which members considered in June.
The context was set by the SE’s Review of Strategic Planning - Next Steps
and Conclusions (June 2002) which set out the proposed new system of strategic plans for the four largest cities.
3.2 Having outlined the broad shape of the new system, the MDPD consultation paper seeks views on the detailed arrangements for strategic planning and ways in which the current system of local planning can become more effective. It has been prepared following discussions with local authorities and other stakeholders, particularly through seminars held at the Scottish Executive in April and November 2003.
3.3 Written comments are invited by 30 July 2004. This Committee meeting falls outside this deadline, but the SE has agreed to accept a response following Committee consideration. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in Group Rooms. It can also be viewed on the web at:
www.scot1and.qov.uklconsultations/planninq/mdpdc-0O.asp.
The consultation was also the subject of a Members’ Workshop on 29 June with officials from SEDD.
3.4 The consultation sets 17 specific questions and a suggested CEC response to
each is set out in Appendix 1. A number of general comments on points not covered by the set questions are also made.
Main Proposed Changes
Speedina UD Dreparation and review
3.5 The SE contends change is needed because development plans are not always up-to-date, take too much time to prepare, are too long and are often not effectively implemented by councils and other stakeholders.
City Region Plans
3.6 City Region Plans (CRPs) would replace structure plans for the four largest city
regions. They would be focused on a long term spatial strategy and four key
land use topics. Statutory Joint Committees would be responsible for preparing CRPs, supported by dedicated officer teams. There would be a mandatory examination in public stage which the Joint Committee would fund. CRPs would continue to be approved by Ministers.
The City of Edinburgh Council response
3.14 The paper seeks consultees' views on 16 questions. These are listed in Appendix 2 with a recommended response to each, informed by this Council's own experience or concerns about the future operation and resourcing of the planning service.
3.15 A number of the proposals are already built into the Council's practice. These include comprehensive Action Plan, Project Briefs for development plans and targeted consultation in place of consultative draft plan. Other proposals make constructive suggestions which can be supported. These include publication of development plan schemes, a statutory duty for key agencies including infrastructure providers to engage in development planning, and establishment of a development planning forum.
3.16 However, there are a number of matters that cause the Council concern. These are:
Penalties on local planning authorities for failing to keep development plans up-to-date (Q3);
Statutory backing for supplementary planning guidance ( Q I I ) ;
Limitation on the scope for local planning authorities to depart from a Reporter's recommendations (QI 3);
City region plans should include retail issues as well as the four mentioned (Q14);
Representation on a Joint Committee and share of joint costs should be in proportion to population (Q15a and b).
3.17 The tone of the consultation paper suggests that problems involved in keeping plans up-to-date are solely due to the actions of local planning authorities. Whilst good management of the process is clearly essential, the Executive should consider how the statutory process itself could be speeded up by reducing the time taken up by local inquiries and also the number of stages a plan must pass through.
3.18 The consultation was also considered by the ELSP Joint Liaison Committee on 8 July. It was agreed that the Joint Liaison Committee would respond expressing its disappointment that current joint working arrangements are not recognised as an option for the preparation and management of the strategic plan for the Edinburgh city region.
4 Financial Implications
4.1 As a consultation paper, there are no immediate financial implications for Council budgets. However, if its key provisions are implemented in future years, many would involve major additional costs to the Council such as running a dedicated Edinburgh City Region Plan team and funding mandatory CRP examinations.
5 Conclusions
5.1 This important consultation paper includes many proposals for reform which can be supported, but others go to the heart of local democracy and the principle of subsidiarity and should be reconsidered.
6 Recommendations
6.1 It is recommended that the Committee agrees that this report and Appendix 1 be forwarded to the Scottish Executive as the Council’s formal response to the consultation paper: Making Development Plans Deliver.
Andrew M Holmes
Director of City Development
APPENDIX 1
Response by The City of Edinburgh Council to Scottish Executive Development Department consultation Paper: “Making Development Plans Deliver”, April 2004
1 .o
1 .I
Introduction
The City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) welcomes this consultation paper and the opportunity to consider the proposed new arrangements for carrying out city- region and local planning.
CEC has considered the issues raised in the paper within the context of the overall review of the operation of the planning system in Scotland and its own experiences in undertaking joint working on structure planning and rationalising its local plan coverage.
General Response
Many of the proposed initiatives and procedures are already built in to this Council’s practices, including comprehensive Action Plans (Rural West Local Plan, Edinburgh and the Lothians Structure Plan) and Project Briefs and targeted consultation in place of a draft plan (Edinburgh City Local Plan).
CEC supports change that does not further erode local democratic accountability for plan-making and planning decisions, and does not impose an unreasonable additional financial burden on planning authorities. Many of the proposed changes to city regional planning would result in extra costs, including new examinations in public and the creation and running of statutory joint Committees with dedicated teams; authorities must be given the additional resources to make the proposed arrangements work.
Some of the proposed changes are too prescriptive. There needs to be much more flexibility to allow individual councils, or councils working together, to determine locally the most appropriate structures and processes for managing development planning.
The Lothians authorities’ model of flexible joint structure plan working has produced a well regarded plan to a challenging programme. It is therefore disappointing that the flexibility and efficiency benefits of this model have not been acknowledged in the consultation paper where the focus is exclusively on less flexible dedicated teams. The Lothians model should at least be available as an option.
The Review of Strategic Planning exercise trailed the proposal that city region plans may identify site-specific development proposals. This current consultation does not mention this possibility and clarification is sought on this point.
3.0 Responses to specific questions
List of questions on which views are sought
71: What are the most important factors in the successful
manage , ment of development plann ing?
Proposals
The way the development planning process is managed can have a significant impact on how plans are perceived and used.
Response
Clear national policy guidance - the National Planning
Framework’s role is key
0 Clear project planning
Firm project management
Securing the buy-in of a wide range of interests
This Council appreciates the need for effective project management
and this is reflected in the approach to the new Edinburgh City Local
Plan. A^ Project Brief has been published which sets out the look and content of the plan, the main work packages, a timetable and the opportunities for public consultation and involvement.
Q3: What are the most effective ways to ensure quick preparation and review of development plans?
Proposals
Introducing a statutory duty to update plans within a defined period, limiting the primacy of the development plan after a set period, removing the right to charge fees on planning applications after a sei period after adoption/approval, linking good performance with additional resources.
Response
Preparation speeds would be increased if the number of procedural stages are reduced and stakeholder involvement more focused, consistent with ensuring effective participation. Local Plan Inquiries could be shortened through greater use of Written Submissions. The suggested measures imply that the problems in keeping plans up-to- date are solely due to the actions of local planning authorities. They are excessive and would be likely to be counter productive. It is important that there is flexibility to anticipate legitimate changes to plan programmes to accommodate new issues and variable levels of public participation. Not all aspects of project management are within planning authorities’ control; for example, the time taken by Ministers to approve structure plans has a significant bearing on plan timescales.
24: Do you agree that early targeted consultation on the key issues
Proposals
Consultation and engagement should be on basis of identifying the issues and options for change rather than a draft plan. Plan preparation should focus on two stages: early engagement 01 stakeholders on the key issues, leading to the preparation of a single “proposed plan” to which formal objections and or support can be made. It is also proposed to notify parties directly affected by land use proposals in the plan. This would bridge the gap between consulting on plans as a whole and notification of specific planning applications.
Response
Targeted consultation is supported in principle and should generally be preferred to a full-plan consultative draft stage. The option for councils to do either or both in response to local circumstances should however be retained. The Council is already pursuing this targeted approach with the Edinburgh City Local Plan where, following the publication of the project brief, a consultation paper will be issued later this year covering selected key plan issues and choices.
Notifying parties of specific land use proposals in plans will need to be carefully defined to avoid imposing very significant cost and time burdens on authorities. The likely effect would be to increase participation in the plan-making process, but the inevitable consequence would be to extend the inquiry and preparation times generally, which would act against the paper’s stated aim of streamlining the process. This issue illustrates the central issue for development planning: the tensions between rapid preparation and maximising meaningful public and stakeholder participation.
26. Do you have any suggestions for improving the involvement 01
businesses in the development planning process?
Proposals
The involvement of the business community in development planning has neither been sustained nor consistent. Local authorities and the
private sector must seek ways to co-operate more effectively on
development planning so that the economic implications of the land
use strategy can be properly taken into account.
Response
Businesses are key stakeholders in plan-making and this Council takes a number of steps to ensure their engagement in the process, including targeted focus groups and workshops. However, the priority given to sustainable economic growth should not be used to override the involvement of other equally important interests such as local community groups and environmental groups. The question also suggests that businesses have a common community of interest, but this is often not the case. Consultation with the different business interests is facilitated when they themselves are organised into
representative groups such as housebuilders, retailers, chambers of
commerce. Community Planning provides a mechanism to improve communication between the Council and business interests on development planning and other Council services. However, it should be noted that there can also be a mismatch between market-driven commercial planning horizons that tend to be short-term, and long- term strategic land use and transport planning. This makes it difficult for the two processes to constructively engage.
Q7. Do you agree that the certified copy of the plan should remain i
paper version?
r Proposals
Internet technology should be exploited to improve access tc development plan information. Draft and adopted plans should be displayed online but it is intended that the certified copy will remain i paper version.
Response
This Council is at the forefront of e-planning. It has introduced ar award-winning web based planning portal and all its developmen, plans are available electronically. However, for the foreseeable future
a significant part of the population will be reliant on accessing plans ir
the traditional way and the certified copy should remain the papei version. This should be kept under review and guidance provided or how to avoid cartographic confusion between paper and e-versions.
:Q8: Do you agree that a Development Planning Forum should be
- formed to support better plan-making?
Proposals
A Development Planning Forum of local authority planners should be
set up to engage with users of the system and exchange ideas on
policies and their effectiveness. It could also discuss best practice on
I process management development planning outcomes.
1 Response
Yes, this could be a useful forum for sharing and shaping best practice in terms of product and process.
Q1 I: Do you agree that, where it can be demonstrated that there has been community and other stakeholder consultation supplementary guidance should have a statutory backing?
Proposals
To provide a statutory basis for supplementary guidance, on whict there has been public consultation and subsequent approval by the Council. This will allay fears that supplementary guidance is used tc make policy by the back door.
Response
If city region and local development plans are both to be shorter and more focused on spatial issues, general, criteria-based policies will have to be contained outwith the development plan, eg the Council's award-winning affordable housing policy. It is vital that these policies retain full weight as material considerations. The main benefit of SPG is that it can be produced and updated relatively quickly. The Council
is not persuaded that according full statutory weight to them is
necessary as it could undermine the benefit of speedy production. For example, there may be a need to allow objectors to have their objections tested in an independent forum. The consequence would be that SPG could take much longer to produce and, if developed piecemeal, would divert excessive resources from plan-making.
An alternative would be for the Scottish Executive to publish guidance in the form of a SPP or PAN that set out the Executive's views on what a SPG should contain and how it should be produced.
Q12:Do you support greater consistency in the style of plans, : particularly proposals maps? P
Proposals
The style of current local plans varies widely. There are key elements which should be relatively consistent, as councils increasingly move towards internet publishing.
Response
A balance is needed between standardising those aspects of plan
presentation that are genuinely common to most plans, and allowing each council or group of councils to present their plans innovatively and creatively, reflecting distinctive local situations. There is a clear role for the SE in identifying and disseminating best practice in plan presentation, particularly in terms of maximising the interactivity of I web-based material.
213: Under what circumstances should local authorities be allowed tc
depart from the Reporter's recommendations on the local develoDment Dlan examination?
Proposals
As now, authorities would appoint reporters to carry out local plan inquiries and carry the costs of the process. But it is proposed thal the scope for councils to depart from the reporter's recommendations should be limited; only in exceptional circumstances should the recommendation be overturned or amended by the local authority.
Response
In the interests of local democracy, it is vital that the present scope for elected planning authorities to ultimately decide the best local development planning solution for their local areas is retained. Planning authorities are responsible for adopting local plans and should logically have the power to control their content. Introducing effectively binding reporters' recommendations would not be in the interests of local democracy and accountability. Procedures exist for Ministers to call-in local plans and determine their compliance with national policy and this provides sufficient checks and balances. There is an inconsistency between this proposal and the statement in the 2002 White Paper "Your Place, Your Plan", that the local plan belongs to the local authority (paragraph 63).
If this procedure is to be adopted, then for consistency, Ministers' discretion to depart from Reporters' recommendations on CRPs should be similarly limited.
21 5a:Should there be equal representation of local authorities on thc joint Committees? (^) c
Proposals
The SE’s preference is for CRP Joint Committees to be made up o
an equal number of councillors (probably two) from each constituenl council. The JC for Edinburgh and the Lothians would include the existing structure plan authorities plus Fife and Scottish Borders councils (See Appendix 2). The boundaries of the CRP would be i matter for the constituent authorities to determine. The papei proposes that costs be divided equally amongst the councils.
Response
To reflect the central role of the city in its city region, the guidins principle should be that Joint Committee representation should be in direct proportion to each council’s population. Costs would also be divided in the same proportions.
Note: The consultation paper proposes to retain the current (so far unused) safety valve provision that allows a council to submil alternative proposals to Ministers where authorities are unable to agree on a joint CRP.
115b:How should costs be divided among local authorities on the
Proposals
Costs should be split equally between constituent councils but the paper also suggests an alternative model could be sensible in some cases, where the city authority would take a slightly larger share of membership and costs.
Response
In the interests of fairness, costs should be divided in the same proportion as representation on the joint Committee. (See response to Q15a)
216:Do you consider that the proposed approval process will be quick and transparent?
Proposals
There would be a 2-stage approval process. CRPs would first be
examined independently by reporters and them formally approved by
Scottish Ministers as currently. The form of examination would be
flexible and the paper suggests any oral examination would last a most 2 weeks. The Reporters’ findings would be published for objections and comment, prior to passing over to Ministers for the formal signing off stage of the approval process. Ministers would be expected to approve the plan, with modifications, within two months.
Response
The proposals would introduce a degree of transparency, but are unlikely to deliver time savings in reality. Structure Plan Examinations in Public have not been held in Scotland for many years. The requirement to carry out a mandatory examination could introduce delay into the process; in the case of this city region, a two week examination in public is likely to be a very significant underestimate, although it is accepted that the form and content could to some extent be controlled by the reporters. The costs of administering an examination would fall to the Joint Committee and represent a significant extra cost which would need to be compensated by the SE.
