Planning Review Panel Report Published

The Panel tasked with conducting a "root and branch" review of the Scottish Planning System and to identify "game-changing" ideas published its report on 31 May: www.gov.scot/planningreview.

There are 48 recommendations in total. While some 'old chestnuts' have been recycled (e.g. use of 'combined consents'), there are many fresh ideas with potential. There is a lot of ground to cover but below are some first thoughts on a few aspects which jumped out.  

One finding that will grab immediate attention is something the panel is not recommending: a “third party right of appeal”. Most countries' planning systems do not have a third party right of appeal and the panel has, rightly in my view, concluded introducing one would be contrary to the aims of this review. Developers will welcome this conclusion. Privately, if not publically, I suspect politicians will also be relieved.

Another potential headline-grabber is the proposal that regional housing targets are set nationally in the National Planning Framework.

As with the 2006 reform (which similarly excluded a third party right of appeal), perhaps to offset those decisions, there is much emphasis on local ‘ownership’ of and engagement in plan-making and decision-taking. In this vein, there are welcome proposals to diversify and enhance local participation, for example, by building “place planning” into the school curriculum, better use of IT and social media, as well as an enhanced role for community councils at the plan preparation stage.

Probably the most striking proposal in this context is to empower communities to bring forward their own “locality plans”. These would have statutory status as part of the local development plan. This is an interesting but challenging idea. As the Panel acknowledge, experience of “neighbourhood planning” in England and Wales has been mixed at best - such plans can reflect a “preservationist” rather than an “enabling” agenda. This will require very careful consideration and detailed consultation.

In view of the review’s 'streamlining aim' the proposed removal of the Strategic Development Plan layer and Main Issues Report stage had been widely expected - these seem likely to be taken forward in some shape or form. The suggested 2 year plan preparation process with strategic development plan authorities re-purposed to focus on co-ordination and deliver is welcome in my view. This reflects a concern that there is too much emphasis on “control” and insufficient focus on “doing”. Plan preparation should not be an end in itself.

There will be concerns a proposed 10 year plan cycle is too long given economic and other circumstances can change quickly. The Panel has sought to pre-empt that criticism by suggesting flexibility is incorporated to allow updating of parts of the development plan within the 10 year period. In practice it may prove difficult to strike the right balance between certainty and flexibility.

The expansion of Simplified Planning Zones to allow use on a wider scale, and the proposal that allocated sites be afforded Planning Permission in Principle and/or benefit from exemptions from pre-application consultation requirements and fast-tracked appeals, could be game-changers. The devil will be in the detail - proposals in England to introduce “outline planning” for housing on brownfield land have run into some practical challenges. Nonetheless, these ideas deserve serious consideration.

Proposals to streamline and minimise the use of S75 planning obligations are also welcome in light of evidence that S75 has been miss-used and is causing serious delays to major applications. The development sector will fear a sting in the tail in the form of proposals for a new national or regional infrastructure levy to capture land value uplift. This needs very careful consideration - as the panel notes, the CIL regime in England and Wales has obvious weaknesses and is under review.

More unexpected but very interesting is the proposal for a national infrastructure agency with (as yet unspecified) statutory powers. This has some merit in principle, not least as a way of bringing together disparate key agencies to provide a more joined up approach, but may help to depoliticise this aspect.

Finally, in relation to resources, it is no surprise to see the proposal to hike up planning fees substantially, although developers will be disappointed the Panel has shied away from “ring-fencing” fees to ensure these flow into planning departments.

In a world where planning departments must function with fewer resources (and to minimise the need for fee increases which might deter investment), there is a strong case to do / regulate less, and focus on things which add most value. In that context, the less eye-catching but perhaps necessary proposal to substantially expand permitted development rights to de-clutter the system could make a difference if properly embraced.

There is a lot in this report for the Scottish Government to digest. The Scottish Government has already committed itself to a new Planning Act and modernisation of CPO legislation but, with the summer holidays fast approaching, it seems likely to be later in the year before we see a considered response  and get a better sense of next steps and timescales.