National Planning Framework 3
The next item of business is a statement by Derek Mackay on the national planning framework 3. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:16
This Government sees planning as a key component of delivering sustainable economic growth, with planning playing its full part in the finance, employment and sustainable growth portfolio and being geared towards contributing to the Scottish Government’s purpose of delivering that sustainable growth.
From the top-level strategic plan to the detail of the Scottish planning policy and front-line implementation, our duty is to ensure that the system moves forward and continues to make Scotland the best place to live, work and invest. Planning is a priority for this Government and, as we stated in our manifesto,
“a more efficient and effective planning system will be good for investment and growth.”
The Government’s economic strategy, which it published in 2011, highlights the role that our planning system has to play.
Today, I want to announce three important areas of work to strengthen planning’s contribution to increasing sustainable economic growth and to reflect on the progress that has already been made in Scotland to drive forward improvements and efficiencies in our planning system. Those three areas of work are: the review of the national planning framework; a review of the Scottish planning policy; and an update on the “Planning Reform—Next Steps” package of measures that was set out in March.
As I mentioned in my statement to Parliament on 28 March, work on the third national planning framework has begun. The NPF is a spatial strategy for Scotland’s development over the next 20 to 30 years and I want that future to be about ambition, opportunity and place. I said in March that I saw the key themes of NPF3 as being helping economic recovery and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy. I remain of that view, but there are other broad objectives that must be remembered, which include creating jobs and supporting people; moving to zero waste and improving green infrastructure; adapting to climate change; and improving connectivity through better transport links, energy networks and broadband.
Today, I have published our participation statement for NPF3, which sets out how we will go about preparing the new national planning framework. In responding to the development of the second national planning framework, Parliament asked us to go further to ensure comprehensive and meaningful engagement for NPF3 by beginning early and sustaining participation throughout the process.
The participation statement shows that we have already started doing that. For example, we have consulted a wide range of stakeholders to shape the engagement process, including community groups, business interests, professionals and public bodies, whom I thank for providing their thoughts, advice and time. We will prepare a report on the main issues instead of preparing a detailed and full draft proposed framework, which will deliver a much more effective way of presenting different options and seeking views on them.
In 2007, cabinet secretary John Swinney set out the criteria that ministers would use to identify national developments for the current national planning framework. We consider that those criteria remain relevant and have updated them to reflect current circumstances and priorities, and, in particular, our economic strategy.
Proposals must make a significant contribution to sustainable economic growth and they must be nationally significant—not just regional. In addition, national developments must make a significant contribution to one or more of the following: job creation and skills development; meeting our Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 commitments and an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050; adapting to or mitigating the effects of climate change; the zero waste plan; the Scottish Government’s renewable energy targets; delivering jobs and investment; strengthening Scotland’s links with the rest of the world; improving our digital, transport, energy, utilities or green infrastructure networks; and improving the quality of the built or natural environment where we live and work.
We will use those criteria to assess all candidate national developments that are proposed to us, and we will identify those that we think should be designated as national developments in our main issues report, which is to be published in spring 2013.
Fourteen national developments are currently identified in the second national planning framework, from the Forth replacement crossing to the facilities and infrastructure related to the 2014 Commonwealth games. We will consider whether each of those should remain as a national development in NPF3. Some of them may not—for example, those that are already consented and on track for delivery. However, it is likely that several existing national developments will be carried forward into NPF3 and updated and modified as necessary.
When the second national planning framework was being prepared, Parliament took a close interest—and rightly so—in the process for identifying national developments. The Scottish Government has put in place improved consultation arrangements for finalising national developments and is making accessible more public information about how we assess them.
Today, I intend to issue a call for candidate national developments. I want, as far as possible, to hear about proposals for national developments as early as possible. That will enable us to properly assess projects from the outset, so that we have the best candidates. We want to be open about the information that we receive about all candidate national developments and about how we assess them. Therefore, we commit to publishing all suggestions for national developments and supporting information that we receive and to publishing our assessment matrix at the same time as the main issues report.
Today, we also publish the scoping report for the strategic environmental assessment of NPF3. This is the first stage of the SEA process and will accompany other assessments on equalities, business and regulatory impact, and carbon.
The NPF is the spatial strategy that indicates where we want to see development in Scotland and which developments are national priorities. The Scottish planning policy is about how that vision is delivered. In 2010, we published the current SPP, which consolidated into a single policy 21 previous policy documents on topics such as housing, renewable energy and transport. It reduced our weight of planning policy by some 80 per cent—down to just 55 pages from 400—and our planning policy is clearer and more proportionate as a result. Although the policies were largely developed before the economic downturn and in a different planning culture, that consolidation has proved to be innovative and effective.
Today, I am announcing a review of the Scottish planning policy to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and meets the challenges presented by the economic circumstances that we now face. The SPP makes it clear that sustainable economic growth is a material consideration and indicates that planning should proactively support growth-enhancing activities. That does not mean development at any cost. Protecting community and environmental benefits will continue to lie at the heart of our policy. Indeed, the Government economic strategy is clear that the quality of Scotland’s built and natural environments is vital to the success of the economy. The Government economic strategy is clear on the priority of developing good-quality, sustainable places. We will therefore look to make place more central to the policy.
I have set the Scottish Government a challenging timescale, which is to complete the review and publish a revised SPP by the end of 2013. I have asked my officials to carry out the review of the SPP alongside work on the early stages of the review of the NPF. That means that interested parties will be able to see the connections between the two.
The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced the biggest changes to the Scottish planning system in a generation. Those changes have made a difference. Our subsequent planning reform actions include: completion of the e-planning programme; investment in practitioner training; service improvement plans from Government, planning authorities and agencies; delivery of efficiencies in the operation of the planning appeals system; and earlier and more proportionate involvement in planning from agencies.
It is worth noting that, last week, our United Kingdom counterparts announced a series of amendments to the English planning system. In Scotland, we have already gone a long way towards addressing issues that are being looked at south of the border. We have permanently increased permitted development rights for householders, thereby reducing regulation, and we are taking forward changes for non-householder developments. We have introduced measures to enable developers to revisit legal agreements that have made developments unviable. We are addressing performance through a new performance framework, which has been developed by and with planning authorities and which has been welcomed by many stakeholders. We are working with partners to improve handling of major planning applications, through better use of processing agreements and initiatives such as planning protocol in enterprise areas. We are working towards streamlining multiple consents processes and ensuring that appraisals and assessments are conducted without adding unnecessary financial burdens and time delays to the planning process. We have a comprehensive, joined-up package of reforms in Scotland to tackle issues in the short and long term.
My next steps statement in March contained a package of measures, which focused on ensuring a fitter, more streamlined planning system, giving a higher priority to place than to process. I take this opportunity to update the Parliament on the measures. We published the analysis reports on “Planning Reform—Next Steps” last week. Shortly, I will begin to lay legislation that will simplify the regulatory burden for developers and planning authorities. We have worked with planning authorities on progressing their development plans and exploring new ways of working. In recognition that it is not just about legislation, we are working to improve culture, leadership and delivery.
Planning authorities approve around 93 per cent of applications, but performance remains variable across the country and needs to improve. We want the process to be more predictable and more proportionate. Following the publication of the new planning performance framework in March, I am looking forward to receiving the first annual performance reports this month, which will cover the quality of services and commitments to future improvements. I have made it clear that there will be a direct link between performance improvement and an increase in planning application fees, on which we have consulted. I will confirm the way forward in that regard in the coming months.
Making the system work more efficiently is not an end in itself; it is about supporting economic recovery, providing a supportive business environment and—importantly—promoting quality of place for people to live in, work in and enjoy.
The minister will take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I strongly agree that the national planning framework presents an opportunity to focus public and private sector investment on national priorities. Does the minister agree with the Royal Town Planning Institute, which has called for a review of progress on NPF2 projects? It is important that we learn the lessons of success and barriers, to inform the delivery of NPF3.
We need to focus on national developments that will bring economic prosperity and put Scotland firmly on a low-carbon path. It is instructive that although expansion at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports was a key objective in NPF2, proposed rail links to both airports and investment in the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme have been either dumped or drastically reduced. The Government talks the talk on jobs and green growth but fails to deliver on the ground.
In the context of strengthening our contacts with the rest of the world, the failure of Scottish National Party MPs to turn up to yesterday’s debate at Westminster on the west coast main line franchise calls into question the SNP’s commitment to rail.
If we are to deliver national developments, we need big thinking, big investment and big decisions. My criticism is that there is no sense of that from today’s document. Rather than having a list of projects, do not we need NPF3 to develop into a coherent national physical plan that joins up Government strategies and plans and gives us a vision, so that leaders from every sector in Scotland can buy into that vision and work to deliver it?
I thought that the harmony that had developed between Sarah Boyack and me would perhaps continue with her opening question, as I agree that we have lessons to learn from NPF2 about the process and what can be transplanted and augmented in NPF3 by way of participation and involvement. There will be projects that can adapt, and there is a monitoring arrangement for the work in NPF2. That is reported to us, and we consider it closely. However, we are setting an ambitious agenda for Scotland, and the national planning framework will certainly cut across all agendas and strategies. Whether we are talking about our marine, renewables or regeneration strategy, it is clear that we want a joined-up and strategic approach to our ambitions for Scotland.
On the bigger and better question, if we had all the powers of an independent nation we could do even more to realise the ambitions that, I am sure, members of the Labour Party share. However, we will get on with delivering a very ambitious agenda with the tools that we currently have.
I apologise for not being in the chamber for the start of the minister’s statement. I thank the minister for early sight of that statement. I want to look at the forthcoming review of Scottish planning policy.
What role, if any, does the minister envisage community benefit clauses, with their ability to create jobs and promote regeneration and sustainable growth, having in the planning policy? I am disappointed that, further to the “Planning Reform—Next Steps” statement on 28 March, there has been no reference to the crucial role of enforcement in the planning system. Can the minister give an assurance that enforcement will be covered in the review, given that it is fundamental to the efficiency and effectiveness of any planning system?
On the connection to other bills and benefits, economic benefit is, of course, a material consideration in any planning application, and each planning application should be judged on the merits of its case. Economic benefit is already taken into account in the planning function. Through the Scottish planning policy review, I want to ensure that appropriate weighting is given to economic benefit and economic development in any planning application and in the implementation of the policy. It is appropriate that we should consult on that to ensure that we get the maximum benefit and get the policy right.
On enforcement, we are currently looking at how we can ensure that the planning system is fit for purpose and can adapt to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I remain interested in how individual planning authorities execute their regulatory and enforcement functions, of course, and would be happy to have further talks about how the member thinks they could be strengthened, taking that opportunity forward, but this is about ensuring that the system delivers and supports the development that we all want to see.
I, too, thank the minister for his statement.
The “National Planning Framework 2 Monitoring Report 2012” states:
“Growth in renewable energy capacity is providing benefits in relation to climate change mitigation, but at the same time, landscape trends suggest that onshore wind is having cumulative effects on the character of upland areas which may become increasingly significant in the coming years.”
What consideration is the Scottish Government giving to that issue in drawing up the third national planning framework?
The “National Planning Framework 2 Monitoring Report 2012”, which was published in March, concluded that wind farm development
“has not physically impinged on ... landscapes safeguarded by designations to any significant extent”.
We have produced guidance on the cumulative impact and effect, which is considered with any application, and we have gone to great lengths to ensure that our environment is protected and that our renewables policy is delivered in a way that is sensitive to the local environment. That work and that on-going approach will be built into both our national policy and local policy as it applies in such determinations.
I thank the minister for providing an advance copy of his statement. I note that there is no mention in the statement of a specific strategy for cities. Glasgow, along with other cities, is the powerhouse of Scotland’s economy and while I am pleased to note that the minister has included the 2014 Commonwealth games, the national planning framework is about not the next two years but the next 20 years.
With that in mind, what action will the minister take to ensure that a specific city strategy is included in the national planning framework 3? What steps will he take to ensure a legacy of regeneration for Glasgow after the 2014 games?
The city of Glasgow is clearly a major driver in the Scottish economy—that point is well made. However, the Government has outlined a policy approach and new resources to support the cities, both individually and collectively, to ensure that through the city strategy there is greater effect from the cities working together. The development opportunities that will be presented and the developments of a national scale will reflect the place of cities in our strategy. At this stage, as we move towards NPF3, we are looking to the opportunities that exist across cities, towns and villages and rural Scotland. Of course, cities will play a central part in that, as they already do in the Government’s over-arching economic strategy.
I welcome the minister’s statement. Can he confirm that the Scottish Government will actively consider removing from NPF3 any possibility of a coal-fired power station being built at Hunterston? He will be aware that an application to build one generated 21,000 objections—more than any other application in Scottish planning history—and was subsequently withdrawn. Does he appreciate that while another application is unlikely, the possibility greatly concerns many of my constituents and a host of environmental groups across Scotland who fought against the previous unwanted proposal?
I am sure that Mr Gibson would not want me to prejudge the outcome of both the ongoing engagement, through the participation statement, and the process that I have outlined today. It is possible that projects identified in NPF2 may not progress to NPF3 but each case—each candidate project—will be considered on its merits. Some projects may not progress, but we will engage in the process and whatever we do will be done in a very transparent and open way.
Following the announcement in June that a national community planning group, comprising all 32 community planning partnerships, would be set up, will the minister update Parliament on the progress being made by the group? Will he outline the part that it will play in taking forward the developments announced today?
The national community planning oversight group has had a very productive first meeting. It will assist in combining both spatial planning, as discussed today, with community planning—it has the potential to do that. The group will provide guidance, support and leadership in the way that we would expect in order to realise the ambitions outlined in today’s strategy.
I apologise to the minister for being late. Last week, we discussed the plan for a steel workers’ memorial at Ravenscraig. I was pleased to see the support for that from the Government and Opposition back benchers, not just for the past but also for the future of Ravenscraig.
Ravenscraig is Europe’s largest brownfield site and gives the Scottish Government the opportunity to stimulate the economy of not just North Lanarkshire and central Scotland but the whole of Scotland. [Interruption.] You will have to excuse me, Presiding Officer, but I have forgotten my reading glasses.
This year, the NPF2 monitoring report notes that tax increment financing will support the second phase of development at Ravenscraig, However, the project should be more than just a regional priority. I call on the minister to ensure that NPF3 seizes the opportunity and moves beyond TIF and regional status for Ravenscraig regeneration, so that it becomes a substantial national development that is significant at European level and will boost Scotland’s economy.
I see that you have still got your glasses on, minister.
Indeed, Presiding Officer, and when Mr Pentland locates his own he will be able to read eagerly the call for national candidate projects and he will, I am sure, assist his local authority to progress the Ravenscraig project to transform it into the kind of project to which he aspires.
For the member’s benefit, I say again that whatever we propose will be decided according to an assessment matrix that is published and which will have participation and involvement in every priority. Every project will be fully considered. I know that the Ravenscraig project is very close to the member’s heart and I am sure that he can compose with partners a case that ensures that, in addition to the range of supports that the Scottish Government has already delivered for that initiative, it gets the priority that it deserves.
In light of cases such as that relating to the Aberdeen western peripheral route, in the north-east, which has been subject to huge delays as a result of legal challenges, how can the planning process be streamlined further to ensure that decisions on key strategic infrastructure projects can be progressed more efficiently?
The member might be aware that through our on-going reforms we want to remove processes that add little to decision making on planning. Sometimes interventions, however justified they might be, can be frustrating.
As for the case the member has highlighted, the member will also be aware of Lord Gill’s Scottish civil courts review, which made a number of recommendations on public interest litigation and looked at, for example, judicial review procedures, time limits and case management by the courts. We are now preparing legislative proposals for civil courts reform with a view to issuing a public consultation by the end of the year.
Given the lack of detail that the minister has mentioned today, will he inform the Parliament whether it will be able to amend the national planning framework when it comes forward?
On planning fees, which the minister referred to in his statement, is his policy objective full cost recovery or is he planning to cap planning fees according to the size of the development? I would be grateful for some detail in that respect.
Finally, the minister will be aware that the strategic environmental assessment scoping paper that he published today with his statement contains 80 separate key environmental objectives. What does he expect developers to do about SEA when potentially they will face having to deal with 80 separate objectives?
In response to Parliament’s request about its involvement in NPF2, we have made amendments to the process for NPF3, some of which are outlined in the participation statement. On whether Parliament will have a say before the conclusion of the process, my answer is yes. Final decisions will, of course, rest with ministers, but members will be able to input on the issues. What will be helpful in that will be the kind of main issues report that we have for planning, which will present options, rather than a fait accompli or a recommendation without any options. That, together with the assessment matrix and the publication of all national candidate bids that are made, will result in a very transparent, open and engaging process.
On planning fees, it is proposed that such fees will be capped. The costs will still be less than those in England but will leave enough finance to support planning authorities in delivering the kind of planning service that they want—and we would expect them—to deliver. However, planning fee costs, application costs and the performance delivered must be linked. Such an approach will not deliver complete cost recovery; however, it will contribute much more to the planning fee system, and further detail on how we will deliver that link can be found in the March statement; the consultation, the responses to which were published online last week; and the consultation on the better regulation bill, which is live.
As for the impact on business, we propose to deliver systems that take as much of the burden as possible off business while still protecting the environment. As a result, many of the impact assessments will still be necessary, but we want to deploy them in a proportionate way.
The minister might be aware of North Lanarkshire Council’s decision last week not to grant permission for the construction of a new store in Motherwell, which would have led to hundreds of new jobs and a diversification of retail opportunities. I realise that he cannot comment on the specific application, but can he tell us how sacrosanct local plans should be in a reformed planning system in the face of a specific application that would create hundreds of new long-term jobs and act as a precursor for further investment in any local authority area?
Indeed, I cannot prejudge any planning application but, speaking in general terms, I note that support for a plan-led system gives local communities a great deal of power as it ensures that local plans reflect their wishes. We support a plan-led system, but decisions and determinations on applications can depart from the zoning of a local plan if material considerations allow that. Economic benefit would be one such material consideration, so in some cases complete adherence to the local plan might not be delivered because circumstances lead to another conclusion.
The review of Scottish planning policy will be designed to support greater weighting for and emphasis on economic benefit. The approach might therefore give further support and strength to those who wish to secure sustainable economic growth in such areas.
I listened carefully to the minister and wrote down what he said. He said:
“We want the process to be more predictable and more proportionate.”
Can he reassure me that he will not go down the route of the coalition Government at Westminster, which wants to introduce a planning free-for-all that is in danger of taking us back decades, if not centuries?
I assure the member and the whole Parliament that whatever we do in respect of planning reform will be methodical, will engage stakeholders and will take the profession and local authorities with us, because it has to be delivered in partnership. Sometimes, planning is perceived to be a process of conflict between applicant and objector. It is important to focus on partnership and to take a can-do approach. Planning is about enabling development and not about being seen to stifle development.
That said, whatever we do has to create places in which people want to live. It is also about protecting the environment and ensuring that processes are right and have been reviewed and delivered in a methodical way. That is exactly the process that I have undertaken as the planning minister, as I outlined in March and in my statement today, and I will continue with that approach as we turn to further legislation.
I will, of course, watch carefully what happens by way of planning reform in other parts of the UK, but we will take only the best from that. I believe that we in Scotland have delivered much of the best reform, both in the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and in further refinements. Whatever we do will be delivered in a methodical way to support sustainable economic growth, not necessarily to grab headlines but to deliver the kind of society in which we want to live.
I welcome the plans for greater clarity and transparency on how the national developments are proposed and finalised, and for targeted engagement with affected communities.
On the subject of parliamentary participation, will the minister make a commitment to bring a Government debate on the main issues report, when it is published, to allow the Parliament to be consulted at that earlier stage?
I am delighted that there is such enthusiasm in the chamber today. It seems that members have not heard enough from me on the subject of planning and want me to return to the subject in a future debate. [Interruption.] I hear dissension from the Labour Party.
I am, of course, more than happy to return to the chamber to outline our vision for Scotland and to discuss how we will deliver a planning system that is fit for purpose and use every lever at our disposal to deliver sustainable economic growth.
I have two issues with the national planning framework 2. First, in my constituency, we felt that we lost out unjustifiably because of a matrix, a weighting and a decision-making process that acted against us in relation to offshore renewables construction. Secondly, the committee of which I am convener took evidence from many of the applicants to the national planning framework who lost out in that process.
Can the minister assure us that the process will be open, transparent and well understood to ensure that there is the maximum number of applications and the maximum amount of success for jobs in Scotland?
I reassure the member that we are trying to be as engaging as possible. We are putting more information in the public domain than ever before and we are being fully transparent about how we will deliver the programme. Crucially, participation will be on-going and it will evolve and adapt to circumstances to ensure that people feel that their voices are being heard. If Mr McNeil would like to contribute his views on how I can further improve that, I will certainly be interested to hear from him.