1

Development Planning WorkshopKey Agencies Group | 31 January 2013

2

CONTENTS

PARTICIPANTS

Introduction + Agency Roles 3

The development planning process - agency input 4-5

What works well 6

What could work better 7

The next generation of plans 8

Final reflections 9

Appendix: DP notes for meeting on 7 September 2012 10-11

3

INTRODUCTIONThis report records the output of a workshop session held on Development Planning at a Key Agencies Group meeting in January 2013. The reporting style is informal and intended to capture the spirit of the discussions.

The workshop was organised to enable agencies to reflect on experiences of progressing through the first round of development plans following revisions to the planning system.

The aim of the workshop was to gain a shared appreciation of how each agency engages with the development planning process, to discuss what was working well, what could be working better and to identify areas for action.

The event generated a lot of interest and was well attended by representatives from nine key agencies. The following report summarises the programme which included brief presentations by each agency, as well as provocations, group discussions and synthesised thinking.

The following themes and issues were noted as a result of the introductory presentations from individual agencies:

• Identify where to ‘add value’ / resourcing – need to maximise input - early engagement crucial

• Project management - Engagement works best when there is clarity about what information is required and when; when and how to engage (timescales / time to respond); clarity of strategy

• ‘Plan-led’ - But, not one ‘plan’. Several (NPF, SDP, LDP, SPG + community planning, etc). Iterative involvement and different processes - SEA

• Plan not an end in itself - needs to deliver and make things happen

• Plan links to national agendas and policy targets; also links to separate agency policy ambitions

• Placemaking - all comes together - involving and consulting agencies simultaneously enables all to gain understanding across policy areas and assits identification / resolution of differing views or priorities

• ‘Still working out what it all means’ (finding our way); things have improved

• Good working relationships essential; collaboration and communication – develop trust; process works best when Planning Authorities (PAs) see agencies as useful

• Action programmes – integral to delivering the plan, not afterthought

• Agencies provide an essential resource; a source of knowledge on a wide range of issues

• Benefits in helping to draft the plan; agency ownership – iron out any later issues; BUT everyone needs equal opportunity to comment otherwise two tier planmaking.

AGENCY ROLES

4

THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PROCESS

DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME

PRE MIR | VISIONING / CALL FOR SITES / DRAFT MIR, SEA

MIR - PUBLISH, MONITORING STATEMENT, SEA

MIR CONSULTATION

PUBLISH PROPOSED PLAN & ACTION PROG, FINAL SEA

PLAN CONSULTATION, REPRESENTATIONS, MODIFICATIONS

SUBMIT TO MINISTERS, SCHEDULE 4’S

MODIFICATIONS ADOPTION ACTION PROGRAMME

MONITOR/REVIEW

Decide what SPG is being taken forward.

Published DPS timeframes unreliable. Speaking to planning staff better.

Moving goalposts

Influencing LPA though regular partnership liason. In terms of strategic priorities and focus for growth. Not necessarily linked to DPS.

Highlight cross cutting nature of historic environment, potential to achieve PA placemaking aspirations, vision etc

Screening for major issues eg flooding and information provision

Flagging issues at early stage

Influencing plan vision and spatial strategy priorities

Providing economic intelligence in support of economy technical note prep

Meet and greet TS, planners and roads officers. Call for sites, advise on appraisal, feed in TS schemes.

HRA issues considered “show stoppers”

Almost too late! Lack of evidence base.

ISFRA?

How much does SEA influence plan?

Commenting on prepared strategy and options

Difficult to take into account the cummulative impact of sites as you dont know order they will come forward despite phaising

Draft policies

Normally holding representation - awaiting completion of transport apprisal

Hopefully matters / issues addressed in advance of this

If necessary

Rarely but some-times

If necessary

Sometimes

Focus on deliverability sometimes lost

Key infrastrucure milestones - very useful to find out developer + timescales

Useful for masterplans but not always of value

TS schemes listed. Trunk road & rail infrastructure - funding identification, lead consultee

Key stage for identifying non-starters in draft spatial strategy - resource heavy

Drafts, iterations. Crucial stage.

Stage inbetween can be crucial for resourcing issues

Good point to try to influence outcome / alternatives

The whole group gathered around a sketched diagram of key stages in the development planning process. Colored pens and stickers were available and everyone was invited to indicate points their agencies engaged in the process (as indicated by coloured dots on diagram below). Individuals were also encouraged to note any arising thoughts and issues directly onto the diagram. The results of the exercise are captured below:

5

DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME

PRE MIR | VISIONING / CALL FOR SITES / DRAFT MIR, SEA

MIR - PUBLISH, MONITORING STATEMENT, SEA

MIR CONSULTATION

PUBLISH PROPOSED PLAN & ACTION PROG, FINAL SEA

PLAN CONSULTATION, REPRESENTATIONS, MODIFICATIONS

SUBMIT TO MINISTERS, SCHEDULE 4’S

MODIFICATIONS ADOPTION ACTION PROGRAMME

MONITOR/REVIEW

Decide what SPG is being taken forward.

Published DPS timeframes unreliable. Speaking to planning staff better.

Moving goalposts

Influencing LPA though regular partnership liason. In terms of strategic priorities and focus for growth. Not necessarily linked to DPS.

Highlight cross cutting nature of historic environment, potential to achieve PA placemaking aspirations, vision etc

Screening for major issues eg flooding and information provision

Flagging issues at early stage

Influencing plan vision and spatial strategy priorities

Providing economic intelligence in support of economy technical note prep

Meet and greet TS, planners and roads officers. Call for sites, advise on appraisal, feed in TS schemes.

HRA issues considered “show stoppers”

Almost too late! Lack of evidence base.

ISFRA?

How much does SEA influence plan?

Commenting on prepared strategy and options

Difficult to take into account the cummulative impact of sites as you dont know order they will come forward despite phaising

Draft policies

Normally holding representation - awaiting completion of transport apprisal

Hopefully matters / issues addressed in advance of this

If necessary

Rarely but some-times

If necessary

Sometimes

Focus on deliverability sometimes lost

Key infrastrucure milestones - very useful to find out developer + timescales

Useful for masterplans but not always of value

TS schemes listed. Trunk road & rail infrastructure - funding identification, lead consultee

NEXT DEVELOPMENT PLAN CYCLE

Tayplan starting to look at “so what next?”

Now aberdeenshire LDP adopted, FIRS group has evolved to look at site prioritisa-tion, upfront funding etc. SW continues to be involved to help with delivery of LDP and make it a success

Plus offer of developer workshops in Aberdeen City involving KA’s where issues arise

If no significant change in spatial strategy then very little additional appraisal (transport) required

Implementing Action Programme - Briefs, Masterplans, delivering infrastructure

6

THE CURRENT CONTEXT

On the basis of the above activity there was an open discussion to synthesise points and attempt to arrive at a set of key observations. Discussions were focussed around identifying three key things that worked well and three key things that could work better.

WHAT WORKS WELL?

• Sharing drafts. The best engagement occurs where agencies are able to engage with planning authorities during drafting of policy. This is greatly assisted when agency involvement in the process can be planned for from the outset. Agencies appreciate that PAs may not always want to change plans in line with agency comment - agree to disagree - still engenders trust and respect.

• Early and ongoing engagement and a good dialogue lead to the best results. Focussed engagement with key agencies is encouraged at key stages. There is a preference for engagement at a pre-MIR stage and then on a regular, proportionate ongoing basis with Planning Authorities. It was noted that ongoing contact doesn’t have to be an onerous undertaking. Quick phone updates can be effective.

• Visioning. Everyone working together to make better places. Developing a shared idea of what you want to achieve. An early idea of a spatial strategy and a focus on what, where, why, and how to deliver. Collective discussion at the right time can assist in the sharing of knowledge and expertise. This ensures evidence base is right from the start. Accounting for what developers need by thinking about deliverability while developing plans.

WHAT WORKS WELL

1. Sharing policy drafts

2. Early and ongoing engagement

3. Shared vision of types of place to be created - expressed in a spatial strategy

7

WHAT COULD WORK BETTER?

• To see the Development Plan scheme as a positive project management tool – not just a process that has to be worked through.

• Viability. A plan to show where you can develop, where you can’t, and where you should. Would welcome more positive visions for how places will develop. To ensure viability ‘visions’ need to be place specific and not generic. Should inform strategy and the ‘call for sites’ – rather than a housing emphasis (via Housing Need and Demand Assessments). Power to de-allocate sites should be used if necessary.

• Better ongoing monitoring and review of the Development Planning process. Would welcome interactive reflection on agency roles (feedback on what has worked well – best practice), on action programmes and PPFrameworks.

• The potential role of SEA as a positive tool to add value.

• Delivering the Plan: develop action programme as integral part of plan – a positive vision for how to deliver. Potential role for agencies at action programme stage - assessing how to help in taking plans forward. Encouraging use of supporting planning eg transport appraisal. Contribute to monitoring of action programmes? Review successes?

THE CURRENT CONTEXT

WHAT COULD IMPROVE?

1. Make better use of:

• Development plan scheme

• SEA as a positive tool• Action programme

2. Viable visions that are place specific, not generic

3. Feedback between planning authorities and agencies

8

THE NEXT GENERATION OF PLANS

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The following themes and issues arose from discussions around what agencies would like to see happen as we move towards the next round of plan making.

• Maintain the conversation and input early. Early and ongoing dialogue. Try to avoid communication drop off between MIR and proposed plan stages.

• Monitor and review for outcomes. ‘It’s our plan’: agencies to monitor and follow up on any obligations. Evaluate whether commitments were met Eg: landscape capacity – promises, spg are they actually happening? If not, were requests necessary or what were the consequences?

• Improved intelligence. Are there research gaps? What would we like to do, given time and resources? Would welcome research to inform next round of plans. Need data early to enable common understanding. Research about how useful developers find the plan would be beneficial. Planning Performance Frameworks - what percentage of planning applications comply with the plan? Action programme - role for re-allocation? Economic intelligence - Scottish Enterprise. Create a solid evidence base for visions.

• Need to be more visionary; place specific visions will be critical. Emphasis on placemaking and outcomes of SPP and NPF reviews will influence next round. There’s an opportunity to do things differently, given better preparation and a focussed input for next pre-MIR stage.

B

C

D

1ST GENERATION 2ND GENERATION 3RD & FUTURE GENERATIONS

TIME>

A Opportunity to make a difference: learning from the first generation of a new form of planmaking

B What do we need to do to prepare (better?) for the next round

C Focussed input and targeted action to get better outcomes

D Continual service improvement across 2nd, 3rd & future generations of plan making

A

9

THE NEXT GENERATION OF PLANS

• ‘It’s better than it was’! more engaged and more chance to influence

• Are we servicing a process, or making better outcomes? Both? agencies contribute to add value

• ‘Do it once / do it well’ – there should be an element of consistency over time – 2nd and 3rd generations of plans should not radically alter – principles should remain – therefore refresh / ‘top it up’

• KAG can help to monitor – has plan delivered on its objectives?

• What role do agencies have as ‘doers’ / deliverers

• Seek feedback on agency involvement ? E.g. “we got benefit/value because ...”

• KAG contribute from this workshop to HOPS/SGov – devpt planning forum?

• How useful do developers find plan-led system? Possible research? What is % of applications comply with the plan?

• Evaluate and look for improvements

• 1st generation dealing with legacy of former plan making

• ‘too much reliance on what came before / previous methods’, not backed up by evidence....

• Become too efficient/streamlined? lack of opportunity to sit with reporter and explain

• Need to get in at MIR – otherwise missed the chance - When at proposed plan stage there is a focus towards adoption – don’t want to revisit / loss of draft stage and chance to amend

• Use resources to pursue getting proposal/allocation into the plan (but doesn’t get PP); or use £’s to fund planning application (not plan-led) (+ confidentiality and commerciality)

• Benefits in helping to draft the plan; agency ownership – iron out any later issues; BUT everyone needs equal opportunity to comment otherwise 2 tier planmaking

• Feedback Process is better than it was. More engaged. More influence. What role do agencies have in making it happen? Have seen a big change through better involvement. Getting news out about where things have worked well.

SOME FINAL REFLECTIONS

10

APPENDIX

The following notes were fed back from across the agencies to inform a meeting with HOPS and the Scottish Government about Development Planning on 7 September 2012. The notes are included as an appendix for ease of reference to gather agency comments on development planning in one report.

How PAs and KAG engage in Development Planning process – opportunities for improved working?

1. Helpful to get PAs feedback about what is working, etc and if agencies should change their approach?

2. Preference for open workshops sessions at early stages – rather than ‘consult and respond’. (Benefits: face to face contact builds relations and trust, + more likely to pick up phone for informal chat should issues arise. Themed topics/meetings means agencies don’t have to attend everything. Feedback from workshops ensures mutual understanding and agreed actions.

3. Useful when PAs update (short e-mail?) every couple of months or so - assists in understanding where PAs are at in their process and when agencies are likely to engage further, also acts as prompt to make contact if any new developments or things have changed; useful for resource planning purposes, and being forewarned about when things are likely to need comment.

4. Useful to see ‘draft’ MIRs and ‘draft’ Proposed Plans to identify ‘showstoppers’ – can be unmanageable if ad hoc - build into project management: requires realistic timescales to respond (agencies can meet short turn-around with proper notice; preparing a project plan/ consultation timetable around committee dates and sharing this with Agencies can work well

5. Some Councils have fed through particular policy sections rather than the whole draft MIR/PP which can work well, albeit some PAs nervous about sharing drafts before members approval; confidentiality is something that everyone need to be mindful of.

6. Possible use of templates for DP allocations? potential benefits of Agencies taking a more coordinated approach to commenting on development plan allocations through, e.g. the use of a standard ‘template’ which PA’s could pre-populate with the background information?

7. After a call for sites, it would be good if PA’s did a first sift to get rid of the ‘non-starters’, so agencies are able to focus on the ‘possibles’. (there may be occasions when PA’s will seek comments on ‘non-starters’ to add weight to reasons for exclusion, but this should be by exception; It can be useful for PAs to indicate preferred and alternative spatial strategy options as well, particularly where cumulative impacts need to be considered; avoid ‘drip-feed’ of sites).

11

APPENDIX APPENDIX

8. There are benefits in carrying out site assessments in a way that enables integration with SEA – possible use of ‘template’ for agencies to input comments within their remit. (SG Assessment Team - Lewis Hurley - aware of this) - draft template to be presented to SEA Sharing Good Practice Event 12 Sept. (cumulative impacts of allocations need considered, site by site basis may need caveated).

9. Is there similarity in approach among PAs to applications for enquiries that come forward for areas not allocated in the local plan? Are there figures for the number of applications for developments which come through without an allocation and the proportion of these that get consent?

10. Good to think about agency collaboration in delivering the plan and what that means for agency involvement in Action Programmes (a means of securing agency influence on some of the key sites, to ensure delivery of agency policy ambitions) (+ build on KAG letter sent last year?)

11. Useful to let PAs know where agencies have been approached by a developer to comment on proposals either as part of pre-app discussions or otherwise - lets PAs know what discussions are taking place and gives them the opportunity to attend any meetings should they wish.

12. Agencies deliver training, some of which relates to development planning; e.g. SEPA will be delivering training on new flood risk guidance during Sept / Oct.

13. The SPACE tool has been developed to help planners quantify the potential consequences, in terms of GHG emissions, of spatial planning policy decisions, to enable authorities to fulfil their duties under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. SEPA have organised training on this for local authorities which is being delivered 24/25 Sept.

14. Issues noted regarding the reference numbering of development plan allocations, which can change between consultation drafts, creating extra work in reassessing allocations to cross reference between the drafts.

15. Merit in KAG producing something similar to the pre-app engagement protocol/statement but for engaging in development planning? (Q: How do agencies resource this?

16. Opportunity for agencies to inform the monitoring statement / what did the plan achieve or deliver; what agency (ies) policy ambitions were achieved?

12

Produced by the Key Agencies Group