Planning Magazine is currently looking for aged planners to let them know how the present planning system compares with that of 40 years ago.   While it has not taken 40 years to approve Winchburgh, it has taken an inordinately lengthy period.  It all began with the draft Lothian Structure Plan of 1992 (and presumably some officials’ recommendations prior to this date, probably around 1990).  The Plan proposed significantly expanding Winchburgh in recognition of both likely future need and the obvious locational advantages of a settlement astride the principle road and rail routes of Central Scotland.  However, the then Secretary of State for Scotland amended the Plan approved in 2007 and left the proposal as effectively an afterthought and with no statutory force.  Although CALA Homes took up the challenge and entered into an option agreement with one of the two principal landowners, their plans made no substantial progress in the absence of formal development plan support.

It is interesting to reflect that this same Plan supported Shawfair new community on the southern outskirts of Edinburgh.  By contrast, no consent has ever been granted for this new community of nearly 5,000 homes (although separate consents have enabled some office development and a park and ride site to be developed).

It took another 12 years before Winchburgh was included in a new Core Development Area in the Structure Plan of 2004 following a protracted process where the constituent planning authorities vied with each other for the benefits that growth might bring.  West Lothian was rewarded as one of the most successful authorities in Scotland and at a crucial meeting of West Lothian Council, the choice of development at Winchburgh as part of the new CDA was endorsed.  Success.  Well, not exactly because the process of preparing a Local Plan and a planning application could only now begin.  Such was the legislative process, it was not until 2009 that a Local Plan was adopted.  It has taken a further three years to conclude the planning application process begun by CALA in 2005.  Only Armadale CDA on the new Airdrie Bathgate line has moved more quickly and is making good progress.  Winchburgh developers are now at an advanced stage of reaching agreement with housing companies.

The Planning Magazine question is a good one:  would our new planning system have delivered these projects more quickly?  The answer has got to be ‘yes’ because since the 1990s we now have the benefit of the National Planning Framework, the introduction of a clear basis upon which to calculate need for both homes and jobs, an acceptance of the concept of effective land and a local plan system which is faster to reach conclusions and which determines how much effective land is required.   However, the more fundamental question is will the new system last to bring about the anticipated benefits?  The current consultation from the Scottish Government demands a careful and robust response lest we slip back into the old ways where Reporters’ recommendations are not binding on authorities and where many developers choose planning by appeal as the only means of giving effect to such recommendations.

 It would appear from the consultation document that the Scottish Government’s desire to have a hands-off relationship with local planning authorities has chimed with the opinion of some authorities that being told what to do by local development plan Reporters is unacceptable:

 “The “binding” nature of reporter’s recommendations, particularly where additional housing sites have been recommended is, increasingly, proving a source of contention with some planning authorities. Whilst the change was introduced to support stakeholder involvement, some authorities suggest that the imposition of additional development land undermines the role of elected members and the involvement of local stakeholders who contributed to the process.”

 The ‘imposition’ referred to is of course only what Reporters have always done which is to recommend changes to a plan in order to give effect to national policy on meeting needs with an effective housing land supply. The big and welcome change brought about by the 2006 Act was not ‘to support stakeholder involvement’ but to ensure that local planning authorities did deliver the requisite amount of land that had been recommended. All parties could take part in the examination into the Plan. The adopted Plan would therefore reflect a genuinely democratic process. If authorities are now to be permitted to undershoot the need target, it is householders looking for a home who will suffer.

 Recent examples in Aberdeenshire and Fife have demonstrated that the examination process is a fair and balanced one. In the case of Aberdeenshire’s LDP, the elected members’ decision not to accept officers’ recommendations for the site of a new settlement south of the City was upheld by the examination Reporters. In Fife, the similar circumstances seem likely to have the opposite result where Reporters are expected to find that further effective housing land is needed in order for the new LDP to be consistent with the structure plan.

 The huge benefit to planning brought about by the 2006 Act has been demonstrated by the tail-off in planning appeals and the switch of DPEA workload to examinations. In other words, there is now more confidence in the plan-led system and an acceptance that the appeal route is no longer the preferred route. Some now go so far as to say: “a local plan allocation is as good as planning permission in principle”.

 There are further consultation documents available on the Scottish Government website dealing with planning fees, changes to the GDPO, etc. All deserve urgent and careful responses, but none more so than on the subject of examinations.