Development plan amendment regulations: consultation

Strongly Agree to keeping the proposal broad and non-topic specific. This restricts the process of triggering a full review to situations where the amendment’s significance is at the discretion of the Scottish Ministers. For example if it was topic specific, there are a number of topics/policies more contentious than others that could trigger a full review but may have limited implications for the whole of NPF4.

Uncertain if it’s a single significant amendment that could trigger the review or if its cumulative, or both? If it was cumulative, how would this be quantified and monitored etc?

See also response to question 2 below.

The council considers that the ‘trigger’ for a full review of the NPF will be dependant upon the nature of the proposed amendment/s itself. It is difficult to predict what issue or proposal would contribute to the amendment of more than half of the national developments or policies.

Therefore, the council believes that it may be more appropriate for a full review of the NPF to be at the discretion of the Scottish Ministers. However, this should be promptly followed by a consultation with local authorities, key agencies and any other relevant stakeholders as to whether the approach taken is necessary.

Agree that a consistent approach should be taken, as long as its appropriate to the specific proposed amendment.

We would note that at times it may be appropriate to define further groups when consulting with the ‘public at large’ where they are of direct relevance to the proposed amendment, the approach taken therefore allows for that flexibility. Equally, it may be appropriate and proportionate to limit the scope of the engagement and consultation if the amendment is on a very narrow topic or only affects a particular geographical area. In this regard the proposed consultation mechanism for MCAs would allow only community councils within the geography of the MCA to be consulted if appropriate.

North Lanarkshire Council has been consulted on the draft community engagement guidance prepared by the Scottish Government. The council’s view included some reservations surrounding specific implications of wording used when undertaking engagement with communities. Therefore it is difficult to agree or disagree with this question as the guidance has not been finalised and as yet there has been no indication of when this is likely to happen.

In providing examples of the types of change which could trigger an amendment to a LDP, whilst highlighting that there is discretion, it has not provided an example of the timing in the life of the LDP when an amendment would not be proportionate (e.g. not within a certain period post adoption or once the formal plan review has started) or of the content or scale of change that would trigger an amendment other than that it should not relate to individual sites. This could run counter to the nature of a LPP or MCA which may relate to single sites of varying scales.

The council would also like to highlight a concern at carrying out a further process of engagement when amending a LDP to incorporate LPPs or MCAs as both should already have been subject to engagement and public consultation. The Government should consider whether it is proportionate and fair to repeat an engagement process, potentially opening up repeat consideration of objections and repeat hearings or examinations, particularly for MCAs, which are de facto planning permissions. This would run contrary to the intention for the new planning system to provide certainty and divert resources from the delivery of the plan.

Additionally, there is no detailed guidance on how Planning Authorities are to consider LPPs for inclusion in a LDP and the cycles of preparation of the respective plans are not aligned in any way while citing LPPs as a potential trigger for amending a LDP. There is concern that without this guidance or the context described above, expectations could be raised around the responsiveness of the system and could create an ongoing process of submission and consideration of LPPs at what should be fixed points in the process (e.g. after drafting of the plan has commenced or during the examination process or immediately post adoption) potentially tying up resources that could be used in delivering on the existing LDP.

The council agrees. A separate statement is most likely to be preferred as this can be tailored to the engagement required on the specific proposed amendment. The DPS should also be a consideration in any statement of engagement.

The council agrees. The planning authority should use their judgement as to whether engagement with children and young people is required depending on the content of the proposed amendment. This sort of proportionate approach is to be welcomed and encouraged.

The council agrees unless a PSA is of relevance to the proposed amendment.

The council agrees unless the self-build list is of relevance to the proposed amendment.

The council agrees, this proportionate approach would give discretion to the planning authority to decide on the appropriate level of approval depending on the nature of the proposed amendment.

The council agrees, however there is no clarity in this consultation on the requirement for other assessments normally associated with the LDP process and that sit alongside the plan such as SEA, HRA, EqIA? It is hoped that the Government, in writing its guidance on this matter, will take a proportionate approach in this regard.

The council agrees. Equally, it may be appropriate and proportionate to limit the scope of the engagement and consultation if the amendment is on a very narrow topic or only affects a particular geographical area. This would allow planning authorities to decide who should be consulted depending on the content of the proposed amendment and align the LDP and MCA process for consultation. We note that paragraph 71 of the consultation document lists community councils but this question does not and we would suggest discretion is offered in this regard when the amendment relates to a limited geographical area.

The cost/resources involved with an examination may not always be appropriate. Potentially this process could be more comparable to that of an appeal rather than a lengthy examination process if only about a specific topic or minor in nature.

The council agrees. Any impact assessment that the relevant NPF or LDP relates to, should be a consideration when providing the justification for the proposed amendment.