Masterplan consent area regulations: consultation

Local Planning Authorities (LPA) need the flexibility to implement MCAs through mechanisms that respond to the local contexts and issues. The regulations can set the legislative framework but advice/guidance will be more useful to developers at a local level.

Developments can be locally contentious and there are other dynamics that affect development. How do MCAs deal with local place plans, changing local socio-economic context. There have not been any examples of successful masterplans within Edinburgh where the proposals have been built out as first envisaged. This leads to uncertainty and undermines the process.

We believe that the designations listed are highly sensitive areas that require a bespoke approach, and treated with more scrutiny at the point of an application. However, this is also a case for conservation areas to be within the exclusions, due to the sensitive nature of these areas. This is the same for listed buildings.

This does not require further regulation.

It will be important to involve the community councils, particularly where there is a local place plan.

This level of consultation should be a minimum. However, we are conscious of the burden this may place on local authorities.

This would seem fair in the interests of transparency.

The MCAs need to be assessed on a case by case basis. The Local Planning Authority needs to consider each aspect within its local context.

This appears to relate to notification (as opposed to consultation) of the MCA to the land owner or any premises within the site of an MCA. Is the process to inform, or consult? These are not interchangeable phrases. If the intention is to inform land owners and existing proprietors, then the provisions seem adequate and consistent with the existing Regulations.

Agree in principle, but it would also be helpful to include consultation with community councils as a matter of course.

30 days would appear reasonable.

This is in line with NPF4 in relation to National Developments, so would be consistent.

Agree in principle.

The proposals seem consistent with the current Regulations.

This regulation is slightly confusing; it refers to the decision notice, however the provisions of the regulations also refer to the need to publicise “a statement that the masterplan consent area scheme has been made and how it may be inspected”. This seems like it would be irrelevant at the point of the decision notice being advertised, particularly where it is duplicated in (3).

This seems reasonable.

It would be useful for further guidance to be issued in this regard. This regulation is particularly confusing and poorly worded.

Consistent wording of notices may be beneficial for agents and members of the public in order to make it clear what is being applied for. Similarly, it may reduce the risk of any legal challenges.

The consultation states that it will be for planning authorities to carry out EIA for qualifying schemes. It further states that the Scottish Government want to promote a collaborative approach to the production of MCA schemes including EIA work, with planning authorities working in partnership with those who will benefit from the certainty of the MCA scheme (including developers and investors).
However, in practise, the preparation of an EIA is costly and requires resources that are not always readily available to planning authorities. While a collaborative approach is welcomed, it would be unlikely that costs would be recovered from third parties in this regard.

Agree in principle, however it is unclear whether the LPA would also require to carry out separate Impact Assessments during the preparation of an MCA.