RSPB Scotland Parliamentary Briefing

Planning White Paper
Briefing for parliamentary debate October 2005 /
Background

RSPB Scotland is involved in all aspects and stages of the planning system. We are regularly approached by local authorities, developers, communities and individuals seeking our views and advice on planning applications. We currently deal with over 400 pieces of casework per annum in Scotland alone.

The publication of the white paper is welcome as are many of the proposals it contains. We agree with some of the analysis in the Paper, for instance, that planning has sometimes been slow, lacked certainty, and resulted in out of date plans. However, having considered the paper in detail we share a number of concerns which have also been raised by Scottish Environment LINK.

Three Key Omissions:

1. What is the planning system for? (A Sustainable Development Purpose)

The White Paper clearly and repeatedly states that the planning system must ensure that development is sustainable yet there is no proposal to include a statutory purpose based on sustainable development. We urge the Executive to reconsider and include such a duty in the draft bill. We believe that a clear and robustly constructed statutory purpose could help the planning system to actually deliver more environmentally, socially and economically beneficial development in the future. There is, already, a range of legislative examples of sustainable statutory purposes.

In particular;

  • The Water Environment and Water Services Act 2003, s.2(4)(b)(ii) places a duty on Scottish Ministers and SEPA to: “act in the way best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”
  • The Local Government Scotland Act 2004, s.1(5) relates to local authorities’ duty to secure best value which requires: “The local authority shall discharge its duties under this section in a way which contributes to the achievement of sustainable development”
  • s.39 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 places a duty on those producing development plans to ‘exercise the function with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development’.
  • The Government of Wales Act 1998 requires the Welsh Assembly to make a scheme setting out how it proposes to promote sustainable development.
  • The Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 both contain general sustainable development duties.
  • The duty to promote sustainable development was enshrined in the legislation establishing Scottish Natural Heritage (Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991: “SNH shall have regard to the desirability of securing that anything done, whether by SNH or any other person, in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner which is sustainable.” (s.1(1))

Clearly there is a wide range of legislative precedents relating to a sustainable development purpose and we hope the Executive will be willing to explore this further in relation to the planning bill.

2. How will we scrutinise the National Planning Framework (NPF)?

While we welcome many of the proposals relating to the National Planning Framework, we are concerned that there will be no opportunity to challenge or test this document. This has not been the case for equivalent documents developed elsewhere in the UK. If the NPF is to establish the principle for a number of nationally important developments, it is critical that the principle be tested in an open and accessible forum.

We understand that the document will be subject to some level of parliamentary scrutiny, yet to be determined. We believe this scrutiny will be significantly aided by the findings of an examination in public chaired by a planning professional. We also appreciate that the document will be subject to SEA, this too is welcome, but would not enable those affected by a proposal to lodge an objection or challenge the principle.

In the rest of the UK the production of spatial strategies has been accompanied by an Examination in Public (EiP), for example:

  • The Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland ‘Shaping Our Future’ sets out the future development of Northern Ireland until 2025. It was subject to public consultation and then to a public examination by an Independent Panel which lasted for 5 weeks.
  • The London Spatial Development Strategy covers 7.3 million people, 32 London Boroughs, provides a strategic framework for London for the next 10-20 years and was subject to extensive public consultation. It was also subject to an Examination in Public by a Government appointed panel for a period of 7weeks.
  • Every Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in England is subject to an Examination in Public (EiP) unless there are exceptional circumstances indicating why this should not happen. According to government policy this is: “to provide an opportunity for discussion and testing in public, before a Panel appointed by the Secretary of State, of matters selected by the panel to test the soundness of the draft revision to the RSS” (PPS11: Regional Planning)

These procedures are neither lengthy nor complex. They clearly provide a valuable level of scrutiny to ensure that the policies in place are robust and valid. These strategies are similar to the NPF but do not provide ‘approval in principle’ for national projects (for example waste, transport and energy projects). If the NPF is intended to make important decisions about developments that may have significant impacts on individuals and communities surely it too must at least be subject to an examination in public?

3. Does this package of measures actually improve the rights of communities and individuals?

We were surprised by the Executive’s decision not to include a limited Third Party Right of Appeal (TPRA) in the White paper particularly given that 86% of those responding to a consultation on the issue agreed in principle that TPRA should be introduced. We appreciate that a range of ‘enhanced scrutiny’ measures have been suggested in the White Paper but believe these fundamentally fail to address the issue of equity and fairness in the planning system.

Reasons given in the White paper for Ministerial rejection a limited TPRA?

  • Ministers want to strengthen the participation of local people at an earlier stage in the process: This is welcome, but we believe that the proposals contained in the white paper, which seek to deliver greater community involvement, will not secure this long-term aim. The introduction of a limited third party right of appeal would ensure that the form and content of community engagement was meaningful, given that both local authorities and developers would be concerned to avoid delays later in the process. The likelihood of community participation becoming a largely meaningless tick-box exercise would be removed.
  • Minister do not want to deter investment in the economy: A review of World Bank data for 5 other countries (Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden) which currently have TPRA shows that 4 of them have an annual average GDP for the last 5 years which is higher than that of the UK. Only Denmark has a GDP marginally lower than ours. Clearly, TPRA has not had a detrimental effect on these economies (while we do not believe GDP to be the most effective measure of economic prosperity it is widely recognised as the most widely used mechanism for doing so).
  • Ministers do not want to undermine local authority decision-making: We believe a limited TPRA would actually enhance local democracy by increasing the accountability of planning authorities to those who elect them. Developers currently have the right to appeal decisions where their applications are refused yet Ministers clearly do not feel this undermines local authority decision-making, if they did, it would be removed. The white paper also proposes to introduce model policies for development plans, limit the opportunities for local authorities to ignore the recommendations of Reporters and increase scrutiny of applications which depart from an adopted local plan. These proposals are welcome but the introduction of a limited TPRA would not undermine local authority decision making any more than the existing system already does and would be in accordance with proposals aimed at allowing local-decision making within a clear national policy framework.
ConclusionsThe BTO/Stirling University review focuses on the suite of predatory bird species (owls, raptors, raven, cormorant, shag, goosander, red-breasted merganser and grey heron) in Scotland. It summarises the current level of scientific knowledge on population sizes and trends since 1960, and where possible makes distinctions between breeding and wintering population estimates. The Review goes on to assess the scientific evidence for any ecological and economic impacts of these species on the aforementioned interests. It also summarises important gaps in our current knowledge.

We recommend that the Planning Bill should include:

  • A statutory purpose based on sustainable development;
  • Provision for an Examination in Public of the National Planning Framework; and
  • Provision for a limited Third Party Right of Appeal.

Findings of the study

For some predatory bird species, there are good population estimates and trends; for example cormorant, shag, goosander, and about half of the raptor species. Those species where data is less adequate include grey heron, buzzard, goshawk, raven, tawny owl, short-eared owl and sparrowhawk. The report recommends further work to understand the populations of these latter species in particular.

A predator is considered to have an “impact” on a prey species if prey mortality is additive, rather than compensating for other forms of mortality. Hence, the “take” of individual prey by a predator does not necessarily equate to the “impact” on the prey population. The report concludes that few studies have shown that bird of prey mortality is additive, however the science to demonstrate this conclusively is very challenging.

It is difficult to generalise the impacts of predatory birds on their prey between different geographic areas, as some of the key factors determining impact are likely to differ. For example, densities of other predators and prey, and variation in habitat conditions are likely to be confounding factors. The report endorses the need for further work on the factors that influence the densities of key predatory raptors.

There is evidence that fish eating birds can, in some situations, remove large numbers of fish from stocked and natural fishery systems. However, a lack of information on the extent to wFor further information please contact:

Anne McCallDuncan Orr-Ewing, Head of Planning and Development,

RSPB Scotland, 25 Ravelston Terrace, Edinburgh EH4 3TP Tel: 0131 311 6507

Mobile: 07734717019 Fax: 0131 311 6569

Email:

Registered Charity Number: 207076 – October 2005

RSPB Scotland is part of the RSPB, the UK-wide charity working to secure a healthy environment for birds and wildlife, helping to create a better world for us all.

1