Future Plans

The Scottish Executive’s White Paper “Modernising the Planning System”

What is it?

It is a discussion paper which will lead to a Bill to go before the Scottish Parliament which, in turn, will become law. In other words, it will be a more powerful instrument than even the Scottish Planning Policies. It is expected to alter our planning system considerably and has been described as a “once in a generation” revision.

What are the main points?

It offers four main aims for Scotland’s planning system: fit for purpose, efficient, inclusive and sustainable.

Some of its proposal are as follows:

• Production of a second National Planning Framework for Scotland. (The first one is already out and is rather general in tone.)

• Abolition of Structure Plans for rural Councils. A Structure Plan is a set of principles to which the subsequent Local Plans must conform. Structure Plans would only continue for the four main metropolitan areas surrounding the four big cities. For example, eight planning authorities (Councils) around Glasgow are already subject to one Structure Plan. Among them are our neighbouring West Dunbartonshire and Inverclyde. If we had not moved into Argyll and Bute, we too would have had the advantages of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan. And since we are still geographically, culturally and economically part of the Clydeside Conurbation, it ought to be relevant to us. Instead of a Structure Plan, each rural authority would have to produce a “Main Issues Report”. It remains to be seen how useful these will be.

• Big “national” planning applications will be more centrally controlled and minor developments will be made easier. These should reduce bureaucracy and increase efficiency. The fear has been expressed that this will allow central government to ride roughshod over local communities regarding developments which are seen as having national significance

• Development Plans will be firmer. This means that once a Local Plan is in place it will be more difficult to depart from it with exceptions. They will be updated every five years

• There will be greater involvement of the public, local communities and voluntary organisations in planning decisions. That’s easier said than done. About a quarter of the White Paper is devoted to this issue of “inclusion” and there are a few new proposals to permit local involvement. However, community right of appeal (or what is misleadingly called “Third Party Right of Appeal”) is not included in the White Paper. This means an inbuilt unfairness. Developers and landowners have the right of appeal if they do not like a Council’s decision but local communities, which have to live with the consequences of what developers do, would have no right of appeal. Understandably there is much unhappiness about this omission

• Greater use of electronic communication in planning matters

What was the HGBG response?

HGBG supported many of the main themes of the White Paper but expressed reservations about the following:

• We can’t comment on the second National Planning Framework until we see it

• Cross-authority cohesion is important. Therefore there should be consistency between metropolitan structure plans and the local plans for settlements (like Helensburgh) which are in rural authorities but in essence part of the wider metropolitan areas

• The “Main Issues Report” for a rural authority should involve local communities in its creation and not merely a consultation process after the event

• Reminder that although Local Development Plans would be revised every five years, the Green Belt aspects would have a 20 year duration if SPP 21 is implemented

• No objection to greater use of electronic communication in planning matters as long as conventional paper-based involvement and consultation processes remain in parallel

• The HGBG provided a section of comments on the processes of community and local organisation involvement / engagement in planning. In doing so, it supported the thorough document submitted by the Helensburgh Study Group on this important issue. HGBG supported the concept of greater voluntary organisation involvement in planning and many of the specific proposals and, among other aspects, HGBG urged:

  • clarity of definition of terms to avoid confusion

  • The need for a system to enable and resource public involvement, not merely to permit it

  • The importance of staffing planning authorities sufficiently to ensure that they carry out the process of involvement and other facets such as enforcement, good design, sustainability and landscape improvement.

  • Introduction of a system of community right of appeal.

Download a .pdf version of our response [124kb]

Back to TOP