Spatial planning emerged as a state function across Western Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, marking the rise of the interventionist state. Over a hundred years later, a ‘transformation’ of spatial planning is underway in Scotland, with the Government asking for ‘the involvement, experiences, skills and enthusiasm of people, businesses and organisations’ to help shape it. In this post, I’ll share some suggestions.
But first, a little history.
1909 is generally regarded as the birth year for spatial planning in the UK, seeing the introduction of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc. Act with a focus on providing housing for the working class. It wasn’t until World War II ended that spatial planing became central to the state’s activities, with the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act passed to facilitate reconstruction and meet the housing needs of those returning from war.
Planning in Scotland changed substantially when responsibility was devolved to a re-established Scottish Parliament in the 1990s. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act passed in 1997, was amended in 2006, and is expected to further change as a result of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (which, to keep things simple, I’ll refer to as the 2019 Act from this point onwards).
Planning in Scotland works something like this: the Scottish Government defines national planning policies, communicating them through documents including the National Planning Framework (currently on its third iteration – NPF3). These priorities are then delivered by Scotland’s Local Authorities, National Park Authorities and Strategic Development Planning Authorities (soon to be replaced with Regional Spatial Strategies).
Scotland has a plan-led, discretionary system. This means that planning decisions – known as the development management process – begin when an application is made. Development management follows guidance from a local development plan, which is effectively a framework for realising local priorities and localising national priorities. Refusal of planning permission would be based on justifiable reasons that suggest a lack of compliance with local plans.
Planning for National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is currently underway, with feedback sessions already hosted across the country (now shifting online as a result of COVID-19). The Scottish Government’s planing team shares that the aim is to ‘lead the development and use of land in the long-term public interest’, aiming for a ‘substantial transformation‘.
So what should the national priorities be for a spatial planning system? My argument is for the following four areas.
1. Prioritise Environmental Sustainability
Climate Change Secretary Roseanna Cunningham made a statement to the Scottish Parliament in May 2019, saying ‘there is a global climate emergency. The evidence is irrefutable’ and ‘people have been clear: they expect action’. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon further declared that Scotland ‘will lead by example’, seemingly echoing Cunningham’s views and acknowledging the global nature of the challenge.
Environmental sustainability is already a component of Scotland’s planning system, albeit not yet a stated priority. Factors considered during development management include ‘climate change mitigation and adaptation’ and ‘sustainable land use’. Policy also includes ‘a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development’, however, a 2017 court ruling found this only applied in limited circumstances. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are required on some applications, with the purpose of ensuring resulting consents are made ‘in full knowledge of any likely significant effects on the environment.’ The aims of NPF3 include ‘a low carbon place’ and a ‘natural, resilient place’, though the method for achieving those goals is the ambiguous and malleable ‘sustainable economic growth’.
Balancing local and national challenges is an integral part of planning, reflected in the structure of Scotland’s system. But in a future of climate crisis, international challenges are likely to become prominent. The Scottish Government’s Programme for Government 2019-20 states ‘the global climate emergency means that the time is right for wide-ranging debate on more radical planning policy options’, something which was welcomed by the Scottish chapter of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
I’d argue that it’s time for the ambition and opportunity of the Programme for Government to apply in practice, with a national planning system which truly puts environmental sustainability first, even if overall goals are as much international as they are national in nature.
There are early suggestions that this mindset has started to become part of government. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 set emission reduction targets and established a Committee on Climate Change (CoCC), but the 2019 Act clarified the obligations for planners, including contributing to national emission reduction targets, involving the CoCC in the development of NPF4, and requiring impact assessments and lifecycle emission expectations.
Other opportunities exist for prioritising environmental sustainability, including changing the scope, content and role of of EIAs. Calling-in planning applications – when Scottish Ministers intervene in a case – based on environmental sustainability could also be considered more frequently. To date, this power has mainly been reserved for heritage and infrastructural concerns.
The 2019 Act defines the purpose of planning as ‘manag[ing] the development and use of land in the long term public interest’, considering anything which ‘contributes to sustainable development’ or ‘achieves the national outcomes’ as long term public interest. This is not the radical change called for by the Programme for Government, suggesting that if a political desire does exist, it is yet to be reflected in policy. NPF4 can play a part in addressing that.
2. Create Community Value
It is common for development discussions to focus on perceived adverse community impacts. However, a spatial planning system which creates genuine value for communities can assist in both reframing the discussion and delivering a quality public realm.
Let’s start by stating the obvious: to create community value, an understanding of local values is needed. That suggests a role for participative planning – a process of decentralised decision making where citizens are given the opportunity to deliberate and engage with issues related to local developments. Participative planning can engage marginalised groups, create consensus and reduce conflict. Comprehensively achieving all of these things is probably unrealistic, but doing a better job of all of them is valuable.
It is arguable that there is a local democracy issue in Scotland’s planning system. The local authorities responsible for producing development plans serve populations ranging from 20,000 to as many as 600,000. The 2019 Act calls for the creation of a Chief Planning Officer for each planning authority, theoretically providing leadership but potentially further undermining local democracy. Additionally, unlike our neighbours in Ireland (but like our neighbours in England) the Scottish system has no third party rights of appeal, affecting those who are indirectly impacted by development issues.
Despite this, recent community-oriented legislation suggests an ambition to meet local needs and create a sense of ownership. Crofting is a traditional system in Scotland where communities form around small-scale agriculture. Individuals work on high-quality plots, with lower quality areas shared for grazing. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 gave crofting communities the right to buy land without the owner’s consent – effectively a specific form of compulsory purchase.
Other opportunities exist through ‘community right to buy’. Upon forming a community body, groups can acquire compulsory purchase rights to buy land which is abandoned, neglected or causing harm. Between 1990 and 2017, land in community ownership increased from 112,158 to 562,223 acres.
The approach taken to funding affordable housing in Scotland could be considered an act of creating community value. Developers contribute funds, as does the national government, supporting affordable housing targets. This approach could be taken further, with the 2019 Act proposing an infrastructure levy connected to planning permissions. A relevant approach can be found in Spain, where the constitution states that local communities receive a 5 to 15 per cent share of the benefits from spatial planning. This not only provides opportunity for value creation, it also sets an expectation at community level.
The 2019 Act also calls for Local Place Plans (LPP). This process requires planning authorities to invite communities to prepare their own proposals for an area, which would then be considered when local authorities finalise development plans.
Creating community value is not necessarily about being anti-capitalism. Visible signs of change can be how communities perceive value – provided enough of that change is actually considered valuable in the first place. Positive steps have already been taken in Scotland, and the 2019 Act suggests that political motivation exists to go further. This is an opportunity for the formalisation of community value creation ideals in NPF4.
3. Facilitate an Appropriate Housing Supply
Planning in the UK originated as an attempt to control housing development, and that remains a key element of the Scottish system (and most others). A right to housing features in the constitutions of Brazil, India, the Netherlands, Seychelles and South Africa, suggesting that responsibility for facilitating an appropriate housing supply could be considered a reasonable area of focus.
Responsibility does not mandate an approach, of course, and multiple options would be available. Facilitating the availability of land could enable housing development, involving zoning or land use plans – where a flexible, discretionary system like Scotland’s has benefits. Planners can support the development of infrastructure, such as roads and public transport, to further encourage development.
Construction can involve private companies, government, or housing associations. Most neoliberals accept a need for some state intervention in housing, and likewise, most socialists accept a role for private developers. Though the only thing that’s certain is change, it is fair to assume that capitalism will underpin Scotland’s planning system for some time, suggesting that a future responsibility for facilitating housing must consider those not served by the market.
Facilitating an appropriate housing supply is about more than just affordability, with appropriate design standards also critical. A goal of planning in Scotland is the ‘design and delivery of high quality and successful places’ with policy further aiming to ‘enable provision of a range of attractive, well-designed, energy efficient, good quality housing.’
Scotland has a Housing and Planning Delivery Framework which includes Scottish Planning Policy, Housing Need & Demand Assessments and local housing strategy. The aim is to improve coordination across these different policy areas, increasing housing supply, demand-responsiveness, and improving affordability. Despite this structure, Scotland’s planning system has yet to meet the goal of facilitating an appropriate housing supply, with housebuilding levels falling to a record low in 2013 after peaking way back in the 1950s and 1960s.
There is a housing crisis in Scotland. Housing has become unaffordable for many, while as a nation we are not building enough homes to meet need. This crisis affects all parts of the housing system.
The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations
Housing targets within NPF4 and resulting local development plans would be one way of beginning to address the shortage. The 2019 Act supports this, requiring ‘targets for the use of land in different areas of Scotland for housing’ and local development plans to ‘include targets for meeting the housing needs’ of people living in the area. Housing needs of elderly and disabled people are considered, as are self-build requirements.
Based on these changes, facilitating an appropriate housing supply should become a more measurable priority in the future, and part of NPF4.
4. Support Development
In many regions, including Scotland and the other parts of the UK, a planning system has emerged which is both rules-based and consensus-based. This potentially results in a compliant planning proposal failing to get approval. If aiming to support development, a system which leans more towards being rules-based, with defined criteria and a presumption in favour of developments that meet them, would be advantageous. This would need to be supported by a similar process that required specified and detailed criteria when rejecting an application.
Yes, the ‘leans more towards’ is doing a lot of work in that paragraph. A strictly rules-based planning system is unlikely to be appropriate, especially considering the status quo, potentially being seen as inhuman and resulting in disengagement. A need for human perspective remains, even in a rules-based system, to assess compliance and engage with stakeholders. Methods for achieving both efficient support of development and creation of community value would therefore need to be explored.
Community involvement on a strategic level could be part of this, with potential early-stage opportunities including community roles in developing local plans, or community-endorsed localised design standards, allowing approval of projects which comply with previously-validated approaches.
The challenge for planning remains finding the right balance. With consensus that we are living in a time of climate crisis, plus localised challenges associated with urbanisation, prioritising the effective support of development which meets specified goals is key for spatial planning in Scotland.
A commitment to deliver high quality places and a presumption in favour of sustainable development (however limited) suggests the Scottish planning system considers the need to enable development. Standards also exists in planning and the design of buildings and public space.
Presumably aware of the inefficiencies of a discretionary system for development management, the Scottish Government has previously trialed Simplified Planning Zones (SPZ), granting up-front permission for compliant developments within the zones. Positioned as supporting development plans by identifying opportunities at an early stage, it is nonetheless conceivable they could be manipulated without community oversight.
Other opportunities exist, including an expansion of permitted development rights. Employed in England for converting offices into residential the scheme received criticism for ‘actively incentivising sub-standard housing’. If pursued in Scotland, stricter criteria would be required.
Compulsory land purchase could also be considered, having already been deemed suitable in specific community circumstances. Kate Campbell, convener of Edinburgh council’s housing and economy committee, acknowledged this in 2018, saying ‘where needed, we will use compulsory purchase orders to deliver on our strong commitment to regeneration and building homes.’
The presence of LPPs in the 2019 Act brings an additional component to the planning system, which could suggest development delays, therefore failing to contribute to the goal of supporting development. However, LPPs could be used to streamline planning, acting as a community-endorsed development plan. This aligns with another aspect of the 2019 Act – the creation of Masterplan Consent Areas, which are effectively evolved SPZs. As the details of NPF4 are shaped, the potential cornerstones for a respectful support of development are apparent.
What Next?
If a spatial planning system should prioritise environmental sustainability, Scotland’s political approach of modifying the status quo rather than bringing forward radical change could be seen as today’s politics beating future concerns. This may be the practical reality of a plan-led, discretionary system in a neoliberal climate. If planning was to become more radical, it could also become more contentious. A discretionary system which values stakeholder consensus on individual applications above systemic impact in addressing a climate crisis could experience strain.
Though the areas put forward in this post have not all been met, the intentions of the 2019 Act seem to support them. From expanding in scope to serve a post-wartime population to evolving as the UK is devolving, planning systems in the UK have shown themselves to be adaptable as the priorities of society evolve. This puts Scotland in a position to change in the future, with the development of NPF4 being an opportune moment.
Photo: Adam Marikar
