Masterplan consent area regulations: consultation

These are a new concept and as with anything new flexibility will be required to ensure that any lessons learned can be incorporated to improve the deliverability and effectiveness of MCA’s and this can be done quickly by changing guidance as opposed to having to amend the secondary legislation regulating the MCA’s.

As highlighted above, these are a new concept and must be kept flexible so that any new emerging landuses can be included to accord with future social or economic requirements. As we have just seen, a housing emergency has been declared and future political direction and policy frameworks will change and adapt so MCA’s must retain flexibility to accommodate any such change and adaptions as required by society and ensure economic growth.

These are areas of international and national importance and should receive similar protection as they would in terms of policy consideration of any development proposals affecting them outwith MCA;s. Paragraph 6 provides the Ministers the rights to alter paragraph 4 as required to take account of any emerging designations which might require similar protections.

It should be flexible for planning authorities to decide how best to inform and communicate their consideration of MCA’s and not be prescriptive in Regulations so that they can do this is the most effective way that suits the scale and nature of their authority. Guidance will be helpful in advising of good practice on this and can be adapted more easily to improve on how this should be done based on experience as MCA’s are considered.

Community Councils are a relevant statutory body for notification of planning applications and have been established now for so long that most communities understand they are there to represent them on planning matters, even if those members of the public only engage when there is something of particular interest that might affect them. It is only right therefore that community councils should be consulted and engaged in the early stages of any MCA so they can feed in the community’s view on the contents of the MCA and how it may impact the community . Depending on the scale of the MCA and the type of development proposed it may also be beneficial for neighbouring community councils, whose residents may travel to the area affected by the MCA for work or leisure, to be consulted. Such engagement is also likely to provide valuable information to assist the council in preparing any MCA.

The planning authority are to undertake the consultation then prepare the MCA and adopt it, so to be fully accountable and transparent they must as a minimum undertake similar consultation and feedback process that applicants are required to undertake for categories of major and national developments. All stakeholders, particularly communities affected must be consulted and their representations must be taken into account and feedback provided by the planning authority to ensure transparency is maintained and trust in the planning system is built with communities.

All parties need to be clear what conditions are attached to make the development acceptable, the reasons they are imposed and that they meet the 6 tests as set out in Circular 4/1998. This will be of particular importance to developers to understand the implications of meeting the condition provisions and what this would mean for programme and costs, and also for communities so they could understand what further details need to be addressed to ensure the development is undertaken to safeguard the environment and amenity.

Informatives in the form of design briefs or criteria for certain design aspects of the MCA might be helpful to manage the expectations of both developers and communities in what the planning authority’s vision for the area is and how different forms/types of development/landuse will integrate into a coherent development and fit with the surrounding area.
A mechanism to secure developer contributions should also be included in the MCA to ensure that the relevant supporting infrastructure, based on the type of development proposed within the MCA, should be taken forward.

These are the key agencies listed within the development management regulations as statutory consultees so it would be commensurate with that requirement to have them similarly consulted within the MCA regulations. Scottish Natural Heritage is listed under Schedule 1, and elsewhere in the regulations. For clarity should this state “Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH - who operate under the name NatureScot
Additionally give the changes required to the energy systems across Scotland to accommodate the green energy transition we would consider that electricity network operators and generators should be added to Schedule 1 where their infrastructure is located within or adjoining a MCA?

Given the extent of broadband and mobile network coverage that now exists and accessibility of digital devices we would agree that publication on the internet is the most appropriate method to reach the widest audience as possible with some limited areas of public deposit. For those properties receiving neighbour notification, it is considered that the approach taken to neighbour notification adopted for allocations in the LDP should be followed for MCA proposals.

On the basis that this is a similar period for EIA representations to be made and sits between the period for Simplified Planning Zones and that for a planning application this seems a reasonable approach.

If development is of such importance to be listed as a national development within an NPF then its principle has already been established. Consideration should be given to the value of a hearing as it may slow the process if there are no outstanding objections. However where there are unresolved objections raising material planning considerations or the MCA would lead to significant departure from the Development Plan, it is considered that a hearing would be beneficial in terms of transparency of the process and build trust in the planning system.

If Hearings are to be part of the process then for accountability all interested parties (those with unresolved representations to it) should be given the opportunity to be heard.

These are categories of development in the national interest whereby the Ministers would have particular interest and could utilise their call in procedures or determine applications as in the case of section 36 & 37 applications under the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) and as such they should be notified of MCA schemes in such instances.

These are similar publication methods for EIA and Section 36 development decisions and the magnitude of an MCA is such that wider publication and availability of the scheme once made is necessary to ensure all stakeholders are aware of the scheme and can view its contents for reasons of transparency.

As the MCA effectively grants planning permission, listed building consent, and conservation area consent and all of these would separately be available on the public planning register for inspection, to ensure transparency the MCA should be available on the public planning register.

These seem proportionate to an alteration of a scheme. Many of the same requirements are necessary but agree whilst consultation is required the holding of public engagement events are unlikely to be necessary in most cases. However if the type of development to be covered by the MCA is materially different to that of the originally proposed MCA then it may therefore be expedient and good practice for the planning authority to hold such an event.

Whilst similarly to the response to questions 1 and 4 flexibility of approach is key and it should be for planning authorities to decide what is appropriate to put in their notices, however guidance with some suggested template styles and wordings would be helpful to planning authorities given the current widespread under resourcing so that if they so chose to use such templates and they were appropriate they would have this option available to them.

These are very similar to the town & country planning EIA regulations and give that the effect of a MCA would be similar to giving planning permission where EIA is required it makes sense from a regulatory and experiential point of view to have them the same as far as practicable.

No Comments