Local Place Plan Regulations consultation

I agree there could be confusion if a Locality Plan and LPP cover the same area
but have different priorities, noting that Locality Plans in Aberdeen City, Angus include
information on new and affordable housing. Consideration of a Locality Plan when
preparing a LPP is important in ensuring there is an evidence base for LPPs.

I note the Scottish Government’s aim of focusing LPPs on the community’s
development priorities. It is important, though, that LPP preparation happens with an
understanding of wider circumstances, much as an LDP must be based on evidence.
I recommend that community bodies preparing LPPs should also have regard to
the Evidence Report for adopted and emerging new-system LDPs, so far as they are
relevant to the content of the LPP. Evidence Reports will provide a readily-accessible
source of information directly relevant to development planning. They are likely to
include information that is equally relevant to LPPs, including evidence relating to
housing.

I agree with this but considers that additional guidance will be needed on the
required or potential form and content of the statement. Will it be a high-level vision or a
set of specific proposals relating to specific types of development or sites? The type and
3/9
level of detail of the content will likely have a significant bearing on its consequences in
practice and the ease with which the planning authority can reflect it in the LDP.
As well as the statement and map, it would also be beneficial for the LPP to include any
information the community body has gathered on how its proposals could be delivered
in practice. Is there, for example, agreement in principle from landowners or have
potential development partners been identified? Could any of the proposals be delivered
through developer contributions if LDP policy prioritised their use for that purpose?
This consideration of delivery would help ensure readers and users of the LPP
understand where proposals are already likely to be delivered and where additional
support will be required.

I consider it appropriate and indeed essential for the Scottish Government to
require community bodies to encourage and enable wide stakeholder engagement in
LPP preparation. Without wide engagement LPPs cannot fulfil their intended role in
helping increase collaboration and reduce conflict. They will also be more at risk of
delivery failure. It must not be possible for a LPP to be registered if there has been no,
or only limited, stakeholder engagement.
Engagement requirements should consider communities of interest, including business
and land interests, in addition to the general public. Because of the specific relationship
of the LPP with the statutory development plan, and their intended role in articulating
development proposals, key interest groups include:
• Landowners (who have land interests and make key decisions on how land is used)
• Home builders (who may have land interests and may be able to help with delivery)
• Businesses active in the area (whose interests may be affected)
• Young people (who may have concerns about their ability to keep living in the area)

I believe the community body should have a general requirement to seek the views
of people (including organisations) with an interest in land in the area to which the LPP
will relate.
Guidance should elaborate on how such people may be identified, how these views are
to be sought and the time frame for doing so. For example, home builders with interests
4/9
in the area might be identified through reference to the Housing Land Audit, through the
local authority and through Homes for Scotland. Consideration should also be given to
whether this requirement is incorporated within the governance of community bodies
and the role of local authorities in regulating same.
Community bodies should also be required to promote and facilitate participation by
children and young people, in common with the new statutory requirement for local
authorities to do so when preparing new LDPs.

In line with new requirements for prospective applicants for planning permission, it
would be appropriate for those who have engaged in LPP preparation to be able to see
and hear feedback from the community body on how their comments have been taken
into account, before the LPP is submitted to the planning authority.

The arrangements for pre-application are inflexible and do not build on the opportunities
for and upskilling in digital engagement that have emerged in recent month in response
to social distancing restriction out in place during the pandemic. Community bodies
should be able to take their own decisions on methods of engagement, but they should
also be asked to explain them.
5/9
Regulations should stipulate that, whatever method for this stage of engagement, the
community body should publicise it in a way that is likely to bring it to the attention of
those living, working or with an interest in the area, including those who have previously
engaged in its preparation.

I believe this should probably be a matter for guidance rather than a requirement.
Making it a requirement could undermine the objective of giving communities a more
independent / alternative means of expressing their ambitions. Councillors already have
extensive powers of their own on development planning and decision-making. The
preparation of LPPs should be non-political, ensuring that the community are able to
voice their opinion at a stage which is separate to the LDP process where Councillors
will play a key role.
An alternative option could be for the planning authority to provide a ‘for-information’
notice, to be included on the LPP register, expressing its view on whether the LPP
proposals accord with the statutory development plan. This would mirror the new
requirement for them to include such statements in planning decision notices, as
introduced by s30 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. This wouldn’t change the ‘take
account of’ relationship between the LPP and the LDP but it would add some clarity on
how the LPP might be considered in decision-making.
Having answered ‘no’ to the main premise of this question, HFS notes that the potential
positive reasons the Scottish Government has set out for a community body to seek
ward councillor views about LPPs could equally apply to encouraging councillor
dialogue with prospective planning applicants and in giving councillors a role in preapplication consultation of communities by home builders and others.
If the Scottish Government does require community bodies to seek the view of ward
councillors, it should also consider providing greater encouragement to councillors in
having pre-application dialogue with potential planning applicants. I made
recommendations to this effect in its recent response to the Scottish Government
October 2020 consultation on revisions to the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

I consider this important as an aide memoir, but that the local authorities and
Scottish Government should also take responsibility for helping ensure community
bodies have met the statutory requirements.
I consider this should include a participation statement setting out how the
community body has promoted and facilitated participation by different interest groups,
who has been engaged, and how the comments of those who participated have been
taken into account.
I also consider there should be a pre-registration step in the LPP preparation
process that involves an independent review of the LPP. This should include an
independent review of whether it has complied with the legal requirements, including the
requirement to have regard to the LDP (and other specified matters).

There should be a requirement to maintain a simple online register. During the transition
to a more fully digital planning system the planning authority could also be required to
make a hard copy available for public inspection, but the focus should be on making the
information readily accessible online which will provide potential developers with a
source of information on a community’s future aspirations.
HFS supports the proposal for a common digital register maintained and funded by the
Scottish Government.

Yes, in principle, and in the early years of LPP practice, but the focus should be on
requiring the most important information to be made readily accessible online. The
register should make a clear distinction between what is the LPP itself and what is
supporting information. It may be appropriate to review what type of information is
typically submitted and whether this is of value to wider stakeholder, and to use that
review to scale back requirements on registration in due course if appropriate.

As indicated in our answer to Q8, the planning authority could be asked to register a
‘for-information’ notice, alongside the LPP, stating whether (and why) the authority
consider that the LPP is in accordance with the existing development plan.
A participation statement should also be included on the register. See HFS answer to
consultation question 9.

HFS’s understanding is that, whilst LPPs will be a consideration in LDP preparation,
they are not being introduced solely for that purpose, but as an independent record of
the community body’s own aspirations for their area. Allowing the local authority to deregister them seems at odds with the objective of giving communities a role of their own.
This could increase rather than reduce conflict between authorities and communities
and would remove the transparency for developers in understanding the community
aspirations.
A potential unintended consequence of requiring a LPP to be automatically deregistered at the request of the community body, especially of this happens at short
notice, and within less than 2-3 years of it being registered, is that this could reduce the
confidence that potential delivery partners (e.g. a home builder) may have in the LPP as
reliable basis on which to prepare development proposals for the area.

The primary requirement should be for the map to be readily accessible online. HFS
supports the proposals for a common digital register maintained and funded by the
Scottish Government.

I agree with the statement at paragraph 12 of the partial Business and Regulatory
Impact Assessment that businesses may have an interest in the proposals contained in
LPPs. We also agree with the statement at paragraph 36 of the same, that proposals in
an LPP will influence the development plan for an area and therefore decisions made by
the planning authority on planning applications.
It is not possible to pinpoint or assume any positive or negative financial implications at
this stage. Too little is known about how community bodies will use LPPs in practice
and whether they will have any real effect in either increasing or reducing opportunities
for sustainable development.
On the Scottish Firms Impact Test statement at paragraph 58, HFS agrees in principle
that this legislation should not significantly affect the overall costs for individual
businesses of engaging in the planning system (as it is clear there is to be no
mandatory cost to any businesses associated with their preparation) and that local
businesses may see value in engaging voluntarily in the preparation of LPPs. To
maximise the chances of that value being realised, the Scottish Government should
require community bodies to encourage and enable business engagement in the
preparation of LPPs, as set out in our answers to consultation questions 4, 5 and 6.
On the partial Equalities and Child Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessments, our
recommendation that community bodies should be specifically required to engage with
children and young people (see our answer to consultation question 5) would increase
the likelihood of LPPs securing positive outcomes for these groups. Overall, an
accessible and transparent process for preparing LPPs will assist in securing positive
outcomes for the majority of groups within the Equalities Impact Assessment.

No

I consider that any decision on whether a LPP requires strategic environmental
assessment should be deferred until it is clear how community bodies make use of the
new powers in practice and what bearing they prove to have on statutory development
plans.
In terms of the Fairer Scotland Duty, it is more likely that the Council shall pay due
regard at the point of adopting the LDP.