Publication - Research and analysis

Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project - Volume 1: Main Report

Published: 22 May 2014
Part of:

This report provides the fundings of the Land Use Strategy Delivery Evaluation Project undertaken in Scotland between 2012 and 2014. It evaluates eleven case study land use delivery mechanisms to ascertain their effectiveness in translating the strategic Principles of the LUS into decision-making on the ground.

131 page PDF

3.9 MB

131 page PDF

3.9 MB

Land Use Strategy (LUS) Delivery Evaluation Project - Volume 1: Main Report

131 page PDF

3.9 MB


1. Scottish Government (2011a) Getting the best from our land - a land use strategy for Scotland: [accessed 07/03/14]

2. Scottish Government Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 pages: [accessed 07/03/14]

3. Scottish Government Regional Land Use Framework (LUF) pilot pages: [accessed 07/03/14]

4. For the most part, material from interviews has been paraphrased as part of the general evidence base produced through the research (i.e. quotations have not been used). There are three direct quotes used to illustrate a specific point in Chapter 4. For these quotes, specific consent was sought from the interviewee for the quote and their name to be used in the report.

5. A map showing the actual spatial extent of the CSGN region can be found on the CSGN projects page: [accessed 24/03/14]

6. Details of Buccleuch Estates land holdings in Scotland and England: [accessed 24/03/14]

7. The structure of the CSGN in terms of lead partners and governance changed radically at the end of 2013 when FCS and SNH began handing over control to a new Programme Committee and at the end of March 2014 when the CSGN became the Central Scotland Green Network Trust - the CSGNT. The CSGNT in its new guise (e.g. in terms of new governance structures) has not been considered in this research. Further information on the CSGNT can be found at: [accessed 01/05/14]

8. As has happened in several cases - see Chapter 7 for further information

9. On the basis of the case study sample considered in this research, only LUS Principle B on regulation and G on vacant and derelict land (VDL) have been assessed as non-applicable under Research Question No.1. Both of these Principles are highly specific and may not be relevant to land use/management in a given area or for a given land use delivery mechanism e.g. it could be the case that there is no VDL resource within a management area

10. There are ten LUS Principles and eleven case studies equating to 110 possible 'instances' of LUS Principle translation (see Figure 3.4 for a visual representation of this issue)

11. Ibid

12. Indeed there will be statutory consultations on certain changes e.g. applications to create new woodlands: [accessed 03/05/14]

13. CBD Ecosystems Approach pages: [accessed 03/03/14]

14. SWT are also one of the landowning partners in the CALL project: [accessed 03/03/14]

15. Scottish Government Regional Land Use Framework pilot pages: [accessed 03/03/14]

16. EU WFD pages: [accessed 03/03/14]

17. EU Habitats Directive pages: [accessed 03/03/14]

18. EU Floods Directive pages: [accessed 03/03/14]

19. National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000: [accessed 03/03/14]

20. GCC Stalled Spaces initiative pages: [accessed 03/03/14]

21. Glasgow LDP MIR summary postcards: [accessed 26/03/14]

22. The LUS Delivery Evaluation Project was initially considering the Highlands FWS though programme issues within Highlands Council meant that this case study had to be replaced in Autumn 2013 to ensure that the availability of sufficient FWS case study data for the evaluation

23. SRDP 2014-2020 pages: [accessed 30/01/14]

24. Scottish Government (2013) Statistical Bulletin PLG/2013/1 Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey 2012: [accessed 31/01/14]

25. Statutory objectives/aims for National Parks are set out in Part 1 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. There are clear areas of synergy between thee aims and the ten LUS Principles e.g. the second objective to "promote the sustainable use of the natural resources of the area". [accessed 05/03/14]

26. Lifetime membership of the Trust costs a nominal fee of £1

27. Getting the best from the land theme group pages: [accessed 24/11/13]

28. However it is also important to consider significance criteria - i.e. how much VDL constitutes a 'significant' resource that should be considered, discussed and planned for?

29. Scottish Outdoor Access Code - Your access rights pages: [accessed 01/05/14]

30. In this particular case, the statutory basis of case study land use delivery mechanisms was not investigated under the Research Question No.4 analysis as this criterion was only applicable to a small number of the case studies (Glasgow LDP and to a lesser degree the CSGN and two FWS case studies)

31. Further information on the definition of partnership working adopted in this research is provided at Appendix 5

32. Based on the location of the Queensberry Estate - i.e. the focus of the Buccleuch Estates case study in this research

33. Heavily influenced by the underlying geology of Torridonian sandstone and Lewisian gneiss, the area encompassed by the CALL project is also broadly akin to the Assynt-Coigach National Scenic Area: [accessed 07/03/14]

34. Planning authorities are encouraged to adopt FWS as supplementary guidance to SDPs and LDPs - in this regard they may become material considerations in relevant planning decisions:$FILE/fcfc129.pdf [accessed 07/03/14]

35. This will be dependent on farm/estate type - e.g. hill farming in the Less Favoured Area (LFA) would be largely remote rural/very remote rural whereas dairy farming in Galloway could be within the accessible rural area

36. Ibid

37. That said, the approach taken to characterising case studies that are adopting a partnership based approach has been relatively simplistic. For example, the partnership working approaches adopted by the case studies indicated at Figure 4.2 will no doubt include a range of subtle variations that have not been captured within this research. In essence, the situation will undoubtedly be more complex than that presented in the analysis above

38. See Appendices 5 and 6 for further information on the criteria used to define the case study characteristics outlined at Table 4.1

39. Recognising that LUS Principle A is a specific representation of a multiple benefits objective for land use/management

40. Noting that for the Monitor Farms and WES case studies this classification is an estimation as discussed further at Table 4.1

41. The Macauley Land Use Research Institute (2013) LCA pages: [accessed 10/03/14]

42. Scottish Government (2014) Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report: [accessed 16/01/14]

43. This was undertaken for the four woodland types defined by the FCS Right Tree Right Place guidance (FCS, 2010):$FILE/fcfc129.pdf [accessed 10/03/14]

44. Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership (2013) Green Network Opportunities Mapping pages: [accessed 10/03/14]

45. See, for example, SNH's spatial data download pages - NaturalSpaces: [accessed 10/03/14]

46. Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005: [accessed 10/03/14]

47. See the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011: [accessed 10/03/14]

48. FCS pages on the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (Scotland) Regulations 1999: [accessed 28/02/14]

49. SNH LVIA pages: [accessed 28/02/14]

50. IEEM EcIA Guidelines pages: [accessed 28/02/14]

51. Schedule 3 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 - Information for Environmental Reports: [accessed 10/03/14]

52. See for example Eigenbrod et al (2010) The impact of proxy based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services: [accessed 28/02/14]

53. CEH (2011) Landcover map 2007 dataset documentation: [accessed 28/02/14]

54. Forest Research Integrated Habitat Network Modelling pages: [accessed 10/03/14]

55. Scottish Government Public Service Reform pages: [accessed 01/05/14]

56. Consultation messages are presented on postcards and consultees are invited to return the postcards with details of their response, comments, ideas etc in relation to the proposals

57. CSGN news pages: [accessed 10/03/14]

58. GCC Stalled Spaces homepage: [accessed 11/03/14]

59. Scottish Government Architecture and Place pages: [accessed 11/03/14]

60. See for example Delivering Better Places in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2010): [accessed 17/02/14]; and Creating Places a Policy Statement on Architecture and Place for Scotland (Scottish Government, 2013): [accessed 17/02/14]

61. Compensatory planting may be required as per the FCS' policy on the Control of Woodland Removal: [accessed 11/03/14]

62. Recognising that based on the findings of this research (which was based on eleven case study land use delivery mechanisms), all ten LUS Principles are relevant in most contexts

63. For example the peat survey data available for purchase from the James Hutton Institute: [accessed 26/03/14]

64. Forestry Commission - UK Woodland Carbon Code homepage: [accessed 26/03/14]

65. See, for example, the Mid Term Evaluation of the SRDP 2007-2013: [accessed 27/03/14]

66. Scottish Government - SRDP homepage: [accessed 26/03/14]

67. At present, the Scottish Government anticipate that the SRDP 2014-2020 will be launched in January 2015: [accessed 26/03/14]

68. Similar issues were picked up in mitigation recommendations as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process undertaken during the development of the SRDP 2014-2010: [accessed 26/03/14]

69. CSGN Development Fund pages: [accessed 27/03/14]

70. Climate Challenge Fund pages: [accessed 27/03/14]

71. Scottish Government news item on the new powers for Scotland's communities under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill: [accessed 01/05/14]

72. Clearly there are also strong interactions with planning policy in this example - e.g. planning consent for housing development may not be possible on greenbelt land

73. In March 2011, following the adoption of the LUS, the Scottish Government Built Environment Director and Chief Planner issued a letter to all heads of planning setting out the role of the LUS in the statutory planning system in Scotland

74. Equating to Land Capability for Agriculture (LCA) classes 1 - 4.2 from the Macaulay land capability system: [accessed 28/03/14]

75. Further information on the Research Question No.1 evaluation process, criteria and four point scale used in the assessment is provided at paragraph 3.7

76. There are ten LUS Principles and eleven case studies equating to 110 possible 'instances' of LUS Principle translation (see Figure 3.4 for a visual representation of this issue)

77. There are ten LUS Principles and eleven case studies equating to 110 possible 'instances' of LUS Principle translation (see Figure 3.4 for a visual representation of this issue)

78. The research identified potential reasons why a particular method/approach may be attractive for use by land use/management practitioners and stakeholders e.g. is has been proven to work, it is easy to use etc (see paragraph 5.86)


Email: Liz Hawkins