Fourth National Planning Framework - position statement: consultation analysis

Delivery

Question 5: Do you have further suggestions on how we can deliver our strategy?

Around 190 respondents made a comment at Question 5, with some comments extensive. The analysis below provides a summary, but please note that all comments are available in full to the policy team at the Scottish government.

General comments included that delivery mechanisms to implement NPF4 will need to be robust and innovative and be supported by collaborative partnership working. It was suggested that it will be important that Planning, and specifically Chief Planning Officers, are represented at the highest local authority level to help enable delivery of NPF4.

There were also calls for the delivery programme to be co-produced with local authorities and Key Agencies and for a more cross sectoral approach to both development and delivery of the strategy. It was suggested that wider aspirations, such as the Place Principle, 20 minute neighbourhoods and a wellbeing economy, may be better achieved by looking beyond Planning alone. Support for local authorities in the form of a national delivery agency was also proposed.

Other general issues respondents identified as important for successful delivery of the strategy included that:

• More robust wording is needed, with some arguing that NPF4 should require actions rather than offering support for them. It was suggested such clarity is important in allowing Planning Authorities to make decisions with confidence.
• NPF4 should be accessible to everyone, not just planning professionals. Consideration should be given to how elected members, community councils and the public view the document.
• A one-size fits all approach should be avoided. Allowing for local variation is more likely to promote local engagement and involvement.
• The distinction between the differing needs of rural and urban areas should be clear.
• There should be explanation of how the changes required to deliver on climate targets can also deliver other outcomes around promoting greater health and wellbeing and reducing inequalities.

It was also suggested that further details and guidance will be required with respect to funding, timescales, monitoring and delivery partners.

Funding: Suggestions with respect to funding included that delivery must have resources and costs at its heart and that, ideally, a fully funded delivery strategy should be delivered in tandem with NPF4. A structure for signposting to, and co-ordinating with investment strategies that are led by other interested parties (including public and private bodies) would be helpful; this could advise where investment should be directed, from which sources and for what purposes.

Timescales: The need for defined timescales and priorities for delivery were also suggested. To allow for better understanding of timeframes for progressing the work, information on the timing of suggested policy changes outlined in the Position Statement was requested.

Monitoring: It was argued that monitoring the impact and outcomes of planning policy should be an integral part of the system. Proposed elements included:

• A set of indicators against which policies can be evaluated.
• Systems for tracking, benchmarking and monitoring.

The need for transparency was also highlighted, including publishing performance data and progress reports. Recent work on planning performance, including the Planning Performance Framework, and provisions in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, was reported and further collaborative work to ensure that performance measuring accurately captures NPF4's outcomes-focused priorities was proposed.

Delivery partners: There was a call for further detail on the identities and responsibilities of delivery partners, and it was suggested that the linkages and relationships between participating partners should be set out.

Planning resources

Respondents highlighted the importance of ensuring local authorities and Planning Authorities have proper training and resources in order to play their role in delivering NPF4. The importance of staff training was highlighted, and a lack of specific ecological expertise and influence was suggested.

It was argued that NPF4 should not seek to pass additional workload on to local authorities. If local authorities are tasked to undertake an action, help to specify the work required should be provided, with national resources to support that work. It was also suggested that a move towards full cost recovery should be considered and that the burden of resourcing a radical change of approach cannot simply be passed to the private sector.

There was also a call for increased investment in planning and wider consenting services. A specific suggestion was that the Scottish Government should better fund design governance capacity in local authorities. These funds should directly support design-led plan-making, masterplanning, improved community engagement and leadership positions within local authorities.

Operation of the planning system

In association with comments on resourcing for the planning system, respondents were looking for streamlining of planning procedures, or a faster consenting process. Suggestions included that:

• The Scottish Government should change the appropriate legislation/regulations to allow developers to use digital EIA tools to submit applications.
• Planning procedures should be streamlined. This was connected to solar power developments, renewable energy developments and marine farming projects in particular.

Respondents also commented on the role of the recently published Digital Strategy for Planning^[16] in the delivery of NPF4 and SPP, with one of its key missions being to unlock the value of planning data. Consistent and quality datasets were seen as crucial to supporting policy changes and evidencing decisions made. A number of respondents noted their willingness to work with the Scottish Government to ensure robust data is available.

It was also seen as vital that all local authorities develop the capacity to manage, maintain and use the best spatial data available, to the best effect, to inform evidence-based decisions. Bringing skills across all authorities up to the highest level possible was argued to be extremely important.

Alignment

The importance of consistency of approach across national strategies was highlighted including maintaining alignment between NPF4 and other national strategies. For example, it was suggested that NPF4 should be reviewed in line with revisions to the Energy Strategy and the Land Use Strategy. However, it was also noted that while useful, alignment does not provide a hierarchy and it will be important to clarify which policies and strategies will have primacy.

The absence of significant reference in the Position Statement to either the National Performance Framework or SPP was noted. With respect to the former it was suggested that the final NPF4 should incorporate commitments, including the national outcomes, from the National Performance Framework.

With specific reference to the Land Use Strategy it was suggested that NPF4 must make clear how the 10 Principles of Sustainable Land Use will influence planning decisions on the ground.

There was a query as to whether the intention to merge SPP with NPF4 remains. While this was supported, a concern was raised that it could lead to important policies being 'relegated' from SPP into a lower tier of guidance. Retention of good practice guidance from SPP was advised, and it was suggested that a timetable should be set for updating guidance and advice notes to bring them in line with the new spatial strategy.

We will work with the national Infrastructure Delivery Group, involving the full range of public and private infrastructure delivery organisations, to consider the draft NPF4 as it emerges and identify how it can be supported by a delivery programme that relates to development planning at all scales. This type of improved collaboration with infrastructure providers will also play a key role in helping us to embed an infrastructure first approach to planning and development within the context of the new system.

There was support for the infrastructure-first approach set out in the Position Statement and for alignment with work being undertaken by the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland and with the National Infrastructure Investment Plan.

While the intention to make best use of available capacity before investment in new infrastructure was welcomed, it was also argued that NPF4 should also set out remedies for instances where there are strategic shortfalls in existing infrastructure.

The need for collaboration with infrastructure providers was considered important, including to ensure an integrated, outcome-based approach to land use planning. It was also suggested that:

• Early engagement between infrastructure providers and other public bodies will be needed to ensure the burden of delivery is apportioned appropriately.
• NPF4 should identify private sector-led growth areas and co-ordinate this with public infrastructure plans so burdens and risks are shared between local authorities and developers.

Also with respect to collaborative and partnership working, it was suggested that driving cross-boundary infrastructure projects will be important and that co-ordination of activity will be vital, as will the financial resources for "joined up" delivery. A linked capital investment programme was seen as the best vehicle to help deliver the ambitions of NPF4.

It was noted that co-ordinated infrastructure planning will be a key part of the new Gatecheck and Evidence Report requirements and further guidance on the scope and content of these requirements was expected. There was interest in exploring mechanisms that could support up-front delivery of infrastructure.

We will continue to support planning authorities as they develop their early thinking on regional spatial strategies. We expect to broaden the conversation on this emerging thinking in the coming months and have published an update on progress alongside this Position Statement. Indicative strategies will continue to inform our national priorities. In turn, NPF4 can support the delivery of regional priorities by identifying significant place-based opportunities for infrastructure planning to reflect and respond to. Alignment with city and growth deals at this scale will also be critical to ensure that land use planning at a regional and national scale supports delivery of agreed priorities.

There were concerns that RSSs are being produced without input from stakeholders and are not taking a consistent approach with respect to considering housing numbers. It was argued that NPF4 must set out clear and transparent land requirements for development in each area and that these requirements should be linked to spatial strategies and other growth frameworks.

Given their contribution to Scotland's future, it was argued that appropriate oversight is required to ensure they are being produced consistently. If NPF4 is being informed by the RSSs, there is a need for consistency in what they address, and NPF4 needs to be clear on the scope of these emerging RSSs.

We will also articulate how we expect an infrastructure-first approach to be embedded in the spatial strategies of local development plans. This includes ensuring that our plans are informed by evidence as recommended by the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland, focusing on need, demand, opportunities and geography. Part of this is the appropriate appraisal to determine the infrastructure requirements of potential spatial strategies at the start of the plan process, including who will fund and deliver it. This will ensure land use decisions are informed by these requirements rather than being developed after the land use decisions have been made. In the past this has led to sub-optimal infrastructure solutions that are not capable of being funded or delivered.

The intention to articulate how an infrastructure-first approach should be embedded in the spatial strategies of LDPs was welcomed, and it was agreed that clear guidance is required. Clarity about the methodologies to be used to determine infrastructure was seen as important.

It was reported that different financial landscapes in rural and remote rural areas mean the primary route for infrastructure is through the public sector and it was suggested that how the private sector can be better incentivised and/or rewarded to provide infrastructure in rural areas should be considered.

It was also argued that the proposed infrastructure-first approach to development suggests an implicit reliance on grid infrastructure (electricity, water supply, wastewater treatment, telecommunications) and an assumption that infrastructure provision, and hence settlement patterns, are driven by economies of scale arguments. There was a concern that this approach will not provide opportunities for the innovation required to repopulate rural Scotland.

Local place plans were also introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, enabling communities to prepare plans for their own places. Community scale planning has an important role to play in the new system and we will consider its role in helping to deliver outcomes as we develop regulations and guidance alongside NPF4.

With respect to more involvement of wider society in the planning process, it was suggested that the Scottish Government should ensure that easily accessible platforms and opportunities for engagement are made available, both during preparation of NPF4 and afterwards when major developments are proposed. There was also a call for action to address inequality of opportunity to participate, with specific calls for a greater voice for children and young people and groups such as Gypsy/Travellers.

A number of respondents commented on the involvement of communities in the planning system, with arguments that the planning system should:

• Engage with and listen to local communities, and that consultation should apply to retail and transport projects as well as to housing developments. It was also suggested there should be better engagement with community groups and organisations trying to achieve 'green' objectives.
• Ensure the consultation is meaningful and not simply a cosmetic exercise. It was suggested that at present community consultation happens at the end of the process when, it may appear, decisions have already been made.
• Allow communities to contribute to the design of developments and materials.
• Give communities the right to appeal and provide resources to enable them to challenge decisions.
• Reference the role of Community Councils – as the only community group with a statutory role in planning.

It was argued that training will be required, to support communities to better understand a complex system and around developing and implementing LPPs. LPPs were seen as a good way for communities to have their say, but it was also argued that they must provide real powers to influence planning decisions. Other points on LPPs and communities included that:

• Communities should be helped to find a positive role for LPPs so that they do not become a barrier to delivery and a new source of conflict.
• NPF4 must describe the methodology for calculation of required housing land in a manner that can be understood by members of the community.
• Consideration should be given to how LPPs can be used in the absence of local community controlled bodies but where there may be opportunities for other actors to lead the LPP process.

It was suggested that a way of measuring and understanding how well public authorities, property owners, and developers are engaging with citizens should be developed.

We are carrying out a review of existing developer contributions mechanisms, such as planning obligations, which will inform our future policy approach. This includes not only NPF4, but also potential updates to Circular 3/2012 and implementation of the infrastructure levy, powers for which are contained in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. Subject to the findings of the review, we will explore how we can provide greater certainty, consistency and clarity around the scope and use of developer contributions, including to identify, fund and deliver infrastructure up-front. It will be important that any new approach is grounded in an understanding of development economics and delivery. For this reason we will consider the need for greater detail on the role of viability assessments in shaping both development plans and decision-making.

There was approval for use of NPF4 to standardise policy on developer contributions, to guide local authorities in ensuring the way they use these is appropriate and provides clarity for investors.

One local authority respondent noted their own formulaic approach to demonstrating the need for developer contributions and arriving at a level of payment based on the costs associated with delivery of infrastructure to offset the impact of development. They suggested a similar nationwide approach could be considered to provide certainty and consistency.

There was a call for strong policy direction and guidance on the impact of contributions on the viability of proposals. It was argued that:

• A one-size-fits-all approach to contributions will not work because of the variable nature of development economics across different geographies.
• Phased introduction of new arrangements may be necessary to ensure that comprehensive infrastructure requirements for a locality can be established and can be accommodated before investment in development land takes place.

Greater use of unilateral developer obligations to allow for off-site carbon reduction to take place was proposed as a means to help deliver the overarching outcome of net-zero by 2045.

Land assembly and compulsory purchase in our future planning system will also be considered. In particular, we will explore how future national planning policies could help to promote a more proactive and collaborative approach, and how such an approach can support planning and place-making objectives.

It was suggested NPF4 should recognise the potential for greater use of Compulsory Purchase powers and should provide clear guidance on situations when the making of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) will be encouraged. This should not exclude smaller scale interventions.

It was also suggested that the CPO process should be made more straightforward to encourage local authorities to use these powers more frequently where infrastructure deficiencies are preventing necessary development from taking place.

Further detail on the practicalities of land assembly and compulsory purchase options was also requested.

Masterplan Consent Areas (MCA) will be a useful, proactive delivery tool to promote and incentivise investment in development, including new housing, and to support the delivery of local development plan strategies and particular local priorities. They will allow planning authorities to plan and enable delivery of quality development in their places; front-loading engagement, consideration of design, re-use of existing buildings, infrastructure and local assets at an earlier stage in the planning process and so placing authorities in a position of leading and enabling the planning of high quality places. Developed with community consultation, MCA schemes can be used to provide consent for specified types of development, subject to conditions in a particular area. They will be able to grant up-front consents for planned development, so adding certainty and removing much of the risk for potential investors, and supporting planned development and investment.

Points in relation to MCAs included that, along with streamlined compulsory purchase powers, these could be very powerful tools to ensure land is available and released to meet demand. It was thought that identification of MCAs could support the alignment of development processes and increase delivery of both housing and commercial developments, and could be particularly useful for large and complex mixed-use development sites by helping to de-risk a complicated development process. However it was also suggested that a deeper understanding of how MCAs and LPPs will contribute to delivering the strategy is required.

Meaningful community consultation and contribution to development of MCA schemes was also supported.