Draft National Planning Framework 4

Stepps and District Community council (SDCC) applaud and welcome the mention of the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis throughout the draft NPF4.
State how important it is that we focus our efforts on achieving this.
You can add that in order to transform the way we use our land and buildings so that “every decision we make contributes to making Scotland a more sustainable place”
• The ambitions in Part 1 spatial strategy need to link better with Part 3 and Part 4 of the draft NPF4
• Planning departments need better support services including ecologists
• Planners and councillors need training. eg in carbon accounting and net biodiversity gain to understand how to deliver better decisions
• We should be under no illusion that any development contributes to climate emissions and a good number have the potential to lead to a loss of biodiversity.
• NPF4 policies need to recognise that a reduction in environmental impacts cannot be achieved without downscaling current levels of production and consumption.
• NPF4 should be looking to stabilise or even reduce the per capita consumption of residential space and built-up land area. Such ideas are in keeping with the principles of compact towns and policies on 20 minute neighbourhoods and circular economy but is not explicit in the document.
• Policies need to be strengthened to reflect the level of ambition. Developments that contribute to net climate emissions or result in a loss of biodiversity are no longer acceptable. The bar needs to be set very high for exceptions to these policies.

SDCC welcomes statements such as “We hope to empower more people to shape their places”.
In order to achieve this
• Communities need to be given the resources and active support to develop community led Local Place Plans
• Resources, support are needed to help to deliver community led developments in keeping with Community Wealth Building principles.
• Coupled with this should be the right to challenge unsustainable developments that don’t conform to plans.
• Communities need a level playing field, where they are recognised as key stakeholders and given the same rights as developers, including a right to appeal planning decisions to approve permission; particularly on proposals that are questionably not in the public interest or do not conform with development plans.

SDCC welcomes the transition to a just and nature positive economy and the principle that development and investment decisions need to be guided by democratically-determined goals that benefit collective wellbeing, rather than by market forces alone.

This section needs to include a reflection that land is not a commodity, although sadly it is now seen primarily as a financial asset and the object of speculative lending and investment. It has become monetarised, something made to be bought and sold, but it should be viewed in terms of the social and environmental benefits it provides to us all, not the financial benefits to a few making money from land speculation.

Yes, we strongly agree that addressing climate change and nature recovery should be at the heart of the planning system and decision making.

The current wording in Draft NPF4 doesn’t say that policies on climate and nature should be given more weight than other policies, so it’s not clear how these issues will be considered in decisions.

SDCC recommends that
• proposals that do not comply with a Local Development Plan should have a strong presumption against approval,
• proposals should fit in with adopted Local Place Plan aspirations.
• Should also say what other plans might be taken into consideration, for instance local place plans.

SDCC suggests that
• Welcome the policy intention that significant weight must be given to the Global Climate Emergency.
• Policy 2 should apply to Local Development Plans as well as proposals (planning applications) ie The climate emergency must be given significant weight and priority in Local Development Plans
• Policy 2 on climate change be given additional weighting over other policies.
• More linkage should be made between climate and biodiversity crises in the narrative as they are interlinked and of equal importance.

The policy 2c) states that exceptions can be made for developments with significant emissions, if it is proven that the level of emissions is the “minimum that can be achieved for the development to be viable and in the long-term public interest.
PD have concerns with the exemptions on viability, public interest.
We suggest
• The climate emergency policy must make it clear that emission reductions and a lack of support for high emitting developments is the policy’s primary aim.
• Exemptions should not be seen as a standard approach, but very much a last resort.
• The public interest exemption must be removed. Although significant emissions is not defined it is clear that any development that contributes significantly or even moderately to climate emissions cannot be viewed as being in the long term public interest.
• Significant emissions needs to be defined or made clear how it would be measured.
• Viability exemptions should be removed.

The last section of policy 2c) states that off- setting might be allowed. It says that off setting can be off site if onsite is not possible. The acceptance of off-setting measures will have the effect of locking in emissions from high emitting developments and activities, the off-setting measure(s) will come with risks and environmental impacts.
• The policy should make it clear that off-setting should be a last resort.

• Agree that addressing climate change and nature recovery should be the primary guiding principles for all our plans and planning decisions.
• As currently worded, Policy 3a) begins by stating “a) Development plans should facilitate biodiversity enhancement, nature recovery and nature restoration across the development plan area”. The use of the word ‘should’ means that this is optional and ‘facilitate’ does not signal the strong, leading position that LDPs should take. This statement must be strengthened, for instance the wording could be changes to say ‘Development plans must support and encourage the delivery of biodiversity enhancement, nature recovery and nature restoration across the development plan area’.
• All public bodies have a legal duty to further the conservation of biodiversity and this must be reflected in local development plans
• Policy 3 should be amended to echo Policy 2a), for instance by stating ‘When considering all development proposals significant weight should be given to the nature crisis’.
• Biodiversity policies are to be given added significance and weight.

• In order for this policy to be effective local planning authorities must be resourced properly.
• Every local authority should have adequately resourced and trained ecologists and environmental planners.


• A strong government position is needed for mandatory enhancement or biodiversity net gain across Scotland, with a consistent and measurable tool for everyone.
• The policy needs to be implementable by Local Planning Authorities so that there is a real change, and planning plays its part in halting and reversing biodiversity loss

• Add a policy that requires proposals and plans to take into account surrounding pressures and cumulative impacts.
• A Scottish Nature Network should be included in NPF4, so there is an strategic approach to an ecological network across Scotland linking nature rich sites. This would help to deliver enhancement, protecting existing links and directing enhancement to areas where it could help the network grow and develop. Without inclusion in NPF4 there is a greater risk local authority approaches won’t be coordinated

• This policy should recognise that to achieve equality in the planning system communities should have the same rights and opportunities as developers. This includes the right to appeal the planning decisions that are guided by the policies contained within NPF4. Providing communities with a right to appeal will also help deliver Policy 1 Plan-led approach.

• Scotland’s model for community wealth building should be seen as a broadly transformational model, not merely as a means of achieving local procurement. In its broadest and most transformative sense it could be seen as a vehicle to renew democratic participation by putting local communities at the heart of the planning process.
• CWB should be a means to achieving broad socio economic changes that encompass social and values of co-operation rather than individualism and competition. It can act as a means to stimulate the thinking around the civic duty of developers.

• Welcome the recognition of the importance of providing communities with local access to natural spaces as well as other to the facilities.
• Welcome the support for people to choose to travel by other means than private car
• This is not a new idea and needs to be delivered in practice

• Support the infrastructure first approach
• The policy must make clear that this includes natural infrastructure (the definition in the Infrastructure Investment Plan should be used)
• A national nature network would support the infrastructure first approach by supporting natural infrastructure across Scotland

Delivery of climate and nature friendly housing
• Policy hierarchy needs to be clear and significant weight given to the climate emergency and biodiversity crises including with respect to housing developments.
• There is a policy requirement in NPF4 requiring Local Development Plans to carry out an assessment of how housing needs can be achieved using the least damaging sites and lowest means of climate emissions using a combination of retrofit, renovation, conversion and new build and to assess the impact of building out the entire MATHLR, which is focussed on new build.
• A new policy of building reuse first (similar to the brownfield site first policy 30 c)) be developed. Building re-use is mentioned in Policy 27 and Policy 28 but an overall clear approach/guidance is not set out. A clearer steer is required that addresses the embodied energy and carbon in existing buildings not just whether their previous use is no longer viable.
• Climate policies in NPF4 policy 2c) which are applicable to proposed housing developments, should not include exemptions on grounds of viability.
• Support the first sentence of 9(i) "New homes on land not identified for housebuilding in the Local Development Plan should not be supported”. However, the exception that “overall progress in the build-out of sites included in the housing land pipeline is exceeding delivery timelines set out in the most up-to-date delivery programme for the plan” needs clarification. Although it is important that the third bullet that “the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including on 20 minute neighbourhoods, rural places and infrastructure” is retained.


• Local Development Plans should include an assessment of how to meet housing need in the most climate efficient way (for example encouraging a combination of retrofit, renovation, conversion and new build).

Protecting against greenfield developments
• Greenfield housing developments around urban centres should be prevented by a moratorium (as recommended in the Town Centres Review 2021) and supported by draft NPF4 policies 29 d) and 30 c).
• Housing density should be sufficient to reduce the average housing land required to a minimum.

Ensuring the right type of houses are allocated in the right places.


• Local Development Plans should allocate land for specific tenures including social, affordable, self build and community or public led housing only. The policy aim should be to focus finite land resources towards developing land for housing need, not market demand.

Enabling communities and local authorities to deliver our housing needs
• The requirement of the legislation is to meet housing needs, but this can be achieved via public and community led planning as well as through the private sector. However, there is not enough to assist this approach in NPF4.
• Local Development Plans should state how public development corporations and community development corporations will be supported to assemble land and proactively manage the development of housing where it is needed by local residents, in line with Local Place Plans.
• Policies should welcome and support community led housing proposals to demonstrate commitment to enabling communities to deliver housing needs and to work towards a Community Wealth Building approach to housing.
Improving the new Statement of community benefit
• The statement of community benefit proposed in 9e) should be expanded to address positive and negative environmental changes that will impact the local community.
• NPF4 should make it clear how a community might be involved in the development/ assessment of these statements or be able to highlight any oversights.
• NPF4 should make clear how the community benefit statement will be used as a basis for improving the development or as a means of putting in place meaningful and enforceable planning conditions
Housing Figures
• The population data needs to be up to date and housing targets should not be inflated. Current figures reflect pre Brexit and Covid situation.
• The method of setting the targets should not artificially inflate housing figures.
• We disagree with the addition of an additional flexibility allowance of 25% urban and 30% rural areas, there is no justification given for the high percentages.

• Agree that the planning system should support development that minimises the need to travel unsustainably.
• Welcome Part g) of policy 32, ‘Design of new transport infrastructure can be a valuable opportunity to incorporate blue and green infrastructure and nature rich habitats (such as natural planting or water systems) where possible’.

• Welcome the aims of the policy which seeks to support and enhance blue and green infrastructure
• The importance of the responsible right of access on open land, and of existing access routes should be recognised, (currently not stated)
• Welcome the recognition that blue and green infrastructure can provide a range of benefits to peoples’ health and wellbeing and provide important shared community spaces while offering benefits to biodiversity and climate mitigation and adaptation.
• Concern that this policy covers too many different things and might be seen as a substitute for a nature network which would have a different, main function
• Although green and blue infrastructure would feed into a national nature network, this policy is focussed on settlements and edge of settlement areas and wouldn’t include nature rich places across the whole of Scotland

• The policy should include coastal flooding
• The desirability of using natural measures to address flooding is welcomed,
• The wording should be strengthened to say that SuDS should have multiple benefits, including for biodiversity
• The best sustainable drainage schemes incorporate a range of habitats that are good for water management and also good for wildlife.
• Consideration should be given to how SuDS and other measures contribute to wider strategic goals, like the local biodiversity action plans.
• To ensure this policy helps the delivery of positive effects for biodiversity, it needs to highlight the part that flood management should play in enhancing nature networks, creating new habitats, combating climate change and mitigating the effects of climate change.
• It should however be made clear this policy sits alongside policy 33 (Peat and carbon rich soils) as restoring and keeping peatland areas healthily can help reduce downstream flooding issues as well as storing carbon.
• Creating and restoring habitats such as ponds, wetlands and woodlands can also help reduce run off and contribute to a Scotland wide nature network.
• Want to also see recognition of the need to protect and enhance the contribution undeveloped open land (including Green Belt) around urban centres to enable natural flood risk management.

• Would like to see greater clarity that development proposals that will be detrimental to active lifestyles, health and wellbeing will not be supported.

• A plan led approach must recognise constraints on development and guide development to most suitable areas
• The need to produce spatial locational guidance at Local Authority level, which is in the current SPP, should be reinstated.
• ‘Renewable energy’ and ‘low carbon fuels’ are not currently defined in Policy 19 and that this could lead to planning permission being granted for new wood-burning biomass plants, despite the detrimental biodiversity, climate and health impacts of wood combustion on a large scale.
• Recommend a planning presumption against new medium-sized and large-scale wood burning plants. Please note that we are using the terms ‘medium-sized’ and ‘large-scale’ to have the same meaning as under environmental permitting rules. Under the definition, a biomass plant burning as much as 300,000 tonnes of wood a year would be ‘medium-sized.

Solar
• The policy wording should be strengthened to ensure solar arrays do not adversely affect protected species and habitats, and this should be included in the list of considerations, for solar development.

Peatlands
• Windfarms often impact on peat and carbon rich soils. Guidance needs to be provided on how to assess impacts these area, including the impact on carbon released when such soils and damaged and removed.

• Support policies 24 and 25

• Stepps has been under attack by developers for greenbelt sites not allocated for housing in the LDP. The community has campaigned to protect its greenbelt from unsustainable development and the conflict caused by developers. Communities must be heard and the LDP and greenbelt must be protected.

Support the section titled "Urban edges and the green belt” and the clear setting out of the multiple benefits of green belts set out in the 2 paragraphs of preamble and policy 29 a).
• Support the clear link in policy 29 a) between the protection of green belts and the prevention of unsustainable development with resulting benefits to the environment and quality of life.
• Support the potential range of developments but it should be made clear that the mainly open landscape of the green belt should be protected as should the ability for people to access it.
• Support the wording of 29c) that the primary consideration will be whether the development could instead be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt and why a green belt location is essential. The wording relating to the qualities of successful places should mirror that used elsewhere in the document and say “the six qualities of successful places” to make clear it refers to those set out in policy 6.
• Support the protection being given to prime agricultural land, and to land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use, except where it is essential.
• Give a tighter definition of ‘established need’ for development given the climate and biodiversity crises and the cumulative “cost” to the environment of all development as referred to in 29b.

• Support the policy for local development plans to seek to reuse vacant and derelict land as a priority,
• Support policy 30 c) “Proposals on greenfield sites should not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the development plan, and there are no suitable brownfield alternatives”

Recommend
• Generally welcome the re-use of existing housing stock and other existing buildings and bringing empty homes back into use, this is good in terms of reducing carbon emissions and further greenfield expansion
• Include a requirement that a full assessment is made of the contribution existing brownfield sites make to biodiversity.
• Incorporation of extra wording to the policy 30a) Local Development Plans should seek to reuse vacant and derelict land “where a return to a natural state is not likely”

• Welcome the preamble that states “the natural environment underpins our economy, health and wellbeing, biodiversity and climate resilience
• Welcome recognition of the need to protect, restore, and enhance nature
In part a) the wording needs to be clearer, the term ‘valued’ is ambiguous in this context.
• The wording should be changed to say that all European, Ramsar and SSSI sites must be identified and protected
• All public bodies have a legal duty to further the conservation of biodiversity and this must be reflected in this policy
• Welcome reference to nature networks but its not clear how these will be delivered and there is a need for a national nature network across a Scotland
• Biodiversity everywhere needs to be protected not just in the most protected sites, policy should also reflect this.
• Part c) doesn’t give any policy position but just refers to regulations. The policy needs to clearly set out that development should not damage European sites and there is a very strong presumption against this. If this is not done developers might think its ok to damage our most protected wildlife areas
• If the loss of biodiversity is to be halted and reversed the focus cannot simply be on already protected sites. Non-statutory sites, such as local nature reserves, and species and habitats everywhere a are also really important
• Policy 32 needs to really emphasis that harm to nature should be avoided whenever possible, if it can’t be avoided then impacts mitigated. If there is still some harm caused then this must be compensated for, for instance planting trees to replace those removed or damaged.
• Paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework for England has useful wording and states:
• “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.”

Agree that local development plans should protect valued soils.
• Express concerns over part c) of this policy, the language needs to be strengthened so there are not too many loop holes for what development would be acceptable on peatland and carbon rich soils
• Policy 33c) still states certain development could be acceptable on peatland and carbon rich soils. Cumulatively these could be significant. Exceptions must be monitored and measured to monitor peatland loss.
• There needs to be clear guidance on how decision makers assess what are acceptable impacts on peat
• Guidance on how to assess the likely effects of development on CO2 emissions will be required. There is no mention of the carbon calculator which is currently used in the assessment of windfarms of 50MW and above
• There are also exemptions given to the ban on commercial peat extraction, possibly for the whisky industry which may be the “industry of national importance to Scotland”. If so perhaps this should be named to avoid this opening up development to a wide range of industries.

Welcome the acknowledgement of the importance of trees and woodland to meeting climate targets and reversing biodiversity loss and the new protections given to ancient woodlands and veteran trees.
Agree that local development plans should identify and protect existing woodlands and identify potential for woodland expansion – but expansion must be sensitive to other habitats that have a high biodiversity value (i.e. grasslands).
This is a considerable improvement on the ambiguity of current Scottish Planning Policy and does have the potential to eliminate inappropriate development as a threat to ancient woodlands, and ancient and veteran trees. However, to allow planners and developers to comply with these policy changes the following will need to happen:
• Scottish Government must see through the SNP manifesto and Programme for Government ancient woodland register commitment so that the current Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) is updated and made fit for purpose.
• Local authorities must be resourced with biodiversity and tree officers associated with their planning departments.
• As is the case for ancient woodlands, there needs to be an ancient and veteran tree inventory such as the Woodland Trust’s Ancient Tree Inventory, to ensure planners and developers can comply with the requirements of policy 34.
• We also encourage a definition of ancient woodland to be added to the Glossary.
 

• If the primary policy of NPF4 is to ensure a plan led system, monitoring needs to be introduced on a national level to assess whether the key policy is actually being achieved.
Planning in the public interest.
We support the recognition in policy 1 that local development plans should manage the use and development of land in the long term public interest. However public interest is not an easy term to define, much like sustainable development. To ensure this public interest development is achieved the NPF4 should introduce a requirement for all new development to be subject to a set of ‘public interest tests’.
• We would welcome exploration of the idea of introducing public interest panels.
• While we welcome the community benefit statements introduced by the NPF4, our concern is that these are likely to become more tickbox exercises carried out by the developer, with no real meaning.
Resourcing
• Local planning authorities must be resourced properly.
• Every local authority should have adequately resourced and trained ecologists and environmental planners.

Training
• To deliver the climate and biodiversity policies training for planners and decision makers such as elected councillors must be carried out for example in assessing carbon emissions of developments.
 

There is nothing particularly in this document that convinces us that development will be delivered differently or more sustainably. Policies do not provide strong enough detail and are not weighted sufficiently in favour of good development. Importantly there is little that convinces us that the wrong type of development will be prevented through these policies. There is little space or creativity in this document to challenge the systems that need to change in order for Scotland to deliver on biodiversity, housing, or biodiversity outcomes.

• The population data needs to be up to date and housing targets should not be inflated. Current figures reflect pre Brexit and Covid situation.
• The method of setting the targets should not artificially inflate housing figures.
• We disagree with the addition of an additional flexibility allowance of 25% urban and 30% rural areas, there is no justification given for the high percentages.

• The MATHLR is not a minimum requirement which implies it is represents the minimum number of housing units needed to fulfil real housing need. It is already inflated by the method used to arrive at it, has generous flexibility added (ie a large contingency) and doesn't distinguish between real need and wider demand (choices based on ability to pay).
• An all tenure target will not deliver efficiently on the affordable and specialist need housing that is really needed but will allow more market rate “executive” homes to be given permission and built by volume house builders. This market housing is more profitable but it’s social, affordable or specialist adapted housing that is most needed. This priority has been recognised in the Programme for Government but somehow needs to be reflected in planning policy (SPP).
• Referring to the HLR in policy 9a as the “housing target” is confusing for people. It is not an absolute target for housing to be built

GLOSSARY
A lot of terms are not well defined, such as Community Wealth Building and Ancient Woodland. You could ask for more detailed definitions in the glossary section.