Planning Framewoek: Best Laid Plans

13 Jul 2023

Leslie Howson comments on the emerging issues and contradictions inherent in the new National Planning Framework (NPF4), a long term spatial plan to 2050 which sets out where development and infrastructure is required to support sustainable growth.

The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), the new spatial strategy for Scotland up to 2050, has been up and running for five months and signals a major change in land use planning and development in Scotland. It brings together the Scottish Governments long-term national spatial strategy and a comprehensive set of national planning policies to form part of the statutory development plan and sets out where development and infrastructure is required in Scotland to support sustainable and inclusive growth, with the added aim of radically reducing carbon omissions and provides a framework to implement the Planning Act (Scotland) 2019’s definition of planning as land use in the long-term public interest.

The fundamental aim of NPF4 is to set out a strategy for the development and use of land in key regions of Scotland including some national developments. The intention is that NPF4 will form part of the statutory development plan along with Local Development Plans (LDP). The key principles and desired outcomes set out in NPF4 are to be reflected within regional spatial strategies and local place plans. All planning authorities are obliged to prepare LDP’s for their area and together with Local Place Plans and community led plans set out proposals for the development and use of land. Whilst there is no legal requirement for LDP’s to be directly compatible with NPF4, it is a statutory requirement that planning authorities take NPF4 into account. It should be noted that ccurrently adopted LDP’s will continue to form part of the statutory development plan, with existing land allocations maintained. NPF4 requires the housing needs of people living in Scotland to be met, the population’s health and wellbeing to be improved the population of rural areas to be increased, equality to be better, discrimination to be eliminated, C02 emissions reduction targets to be met and biodiversity enabled.

NPF4 is underpinned by six qualities for successful place making and sets out six overarching spatial principles to support the planning and delivery of three distinct types of places; sustainable places, productive places, and liveable places, against which are key policies including in relation to the building of new homes with a statutory requirement to include targets for the use of land in different areas of Scotland for housing. With place making at the heart of this new National Planning Policy, future places are to be planned in line with a set of overarching spatial principles, to empower people to shape their places, to make productive use of existing buildings, places, infrastructure and services, minimising waste and building a circular economy, to support local liveability and improve community health and wellbeing by ensuring people can easily access services, green space, learning, work and leisure locally. Also, to limit urban expansion and make the best use of land, to rebalance development to create opportunities for communities and investment in areas of past decline and to revitalise rural areas encouraging sustainable development that support local communities.

Of the three place making targets it is probably liveable places which will draw most attention for developers and their agents, hopefully with the outcome too of distinctive places. For it is the goal of liveable places which sets design quality, encourages compact neighbourhoods, promotes quality homes, and encourages the provision of more affordable as well as sustainable homes to boost rural areas and communities. Included in the qualities proposed in the document for successful places are provision of resources that will allow people to live, work and with local facilities to enable them to stay more easily within their area home area. Significantly, NPF4 sets clear minimum targets for all-tenure housing land requirements over the next 10 years and applicable to every planning authority in Scotland, thus setting the minimum amount of land relative to housing numbers. The delivery of housing number versus quality of development, ownership and the developer’s agenda, densification and land use for housing, site amenities, delivering quality homes, achieving 20-minute neighborhoods, achieving urban design quality, all justifies special attention, as housing has a significant impact on the environment and especially on land use.

Much as we need a planning system which promotes health, wellbeing and fairness, planning is more about what we build and how we use land and of course place making is very much part of that process. Planning legislation also can and should enable decarbonisation essential to combat the ill effects of climate change by promoting renewable energy systems, better construction of buildings, a more circular economy, protecting the natural environment, controlling urban growth and with a greener approach to infrastructure especially with regards to public and personal transportation. However, there are within NPF4, what might be seen as shortcomings, contradictions and possible inhibitors to the planning outcomes sought, especially in respect of place making and housing. For example, little is said about housing density nor how land, a precious commodity, is to be used.

Surely the prime concern should not be simply about delivering housing numbers but about design quality, provision for varying demographics as well as place making and community building. To achieve liveable and net zero places NPF4 requires urban growth to be compact and to use land around our towns and cities sustainably thus there is a strong case for greater densification and more frugal use of land. Set against these aspirations is the pressure on each of Scotland’s local authorities to deliver a minimum number of housing units. How these two apparently conflicting aims can be squared is questionable. Planning is expected to enable delivery of well-built home affordable homes by allocating sufficient land and in the right locations. NPF4 calls for homes and neighbourhoods that are healthy, affordable vibrant and thus liveable.

Emphasis is on local living with the building of good quality homes and communities served by local facilities and using the 20 minute neighbourhood as a yardstick wherever possible with the need for accessing key facilities, though very little is said about the importance of providing such facilities within large scale residential developments. Also, though there is passing mention in NPF4 of improving residential amenity, there is no real emphasis on the design quality of the housing environment, nor of the need to design to urban design principles as such. Clearly, NPF4 is going to put an extra burden on local authorities diminished resources; at issue therefore is whether Scotland’s Planning authorities will have the resources necessary to be able to deliver the new duties and responsibilities called for? NPF4 will require much interpretation per local authority when drawing up their own LDP.

Pressure is on local authorities to deliver housing numbers as set put in the document yet ensure the building of quality homes The burden of NPF4 on the already under resourced Planning system is one. Local authorities trying to deliver house building targets whilst ensuring quality placemaking is another. Levels of response to NPF4 will differ from authority to authority with incompatibility at the interface between LDP’s and NPF4 is inevitable, and each local authority will have to interpret NPF4 according to local and regional geography and circumstances. Seemingly, in the event of incompatibility between the provisions of NPF4 and LDP, whichever is the later date will prevail so applications already lodged and validated can continue through the normal planning process. Heads of Planning Scotland on behalf of Scotland’s 34 local planning authorities, had much to say about the revised draft NPF4 in their 2022 evidence report to the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

Whilst in support of NPF4, they highlighted several areas of concern to be resolved, including, transitional arrangements and further guidance, resolving resourcing needs and training and skills gaps, simplifying the housing process, eliminating conflicting policies to avoid confusion for the user of NPF4, enabling greater local communities’ engagement in the planning process. Five months on since the adoption of NPF4 surely raises a number of other questions for planning: How will authorities apply NPF, what are current difficulties and issues arising , what resource problems are being experienced, how will NPF4 impact on obtaining planning approvals , ideally how should compliance information be presented by applicants and their agents, in the form of a statement of compliance document and validation check list and should there be a common approach to how local authorities in Scotland respond to NPF4. In rural areas house building and land use will have to prioritise protection of the natural environments whilst building homes to bolster existing communities. In more urban locations and on the fringes of towns and cities higher densities should be aimed for in line with the notion of promoting compact urban growth.

To what extent any of this will be delivered may depend less on NPF4 itself and more on local and regional political pressures on available investment and on who owns and controls development land in each area. Volume speculative housing is and seems likely to be built for some time as expanses of detached villa type dwellings on the outskirts of towns and cities, reliant on personal transport close to major roads and with little or no onsite facilities or services. This situation will continue until the run-off of current Planning approved schemes had ceased. In the meantime, the larger house builders will be considering the negative implications of the restriction to them of NPF4 and re considering when and where to invest to build house and in what numbers with the inevitable consequence of less houses being built that NPF4 calls for. Through NPF4, the Scottish government is committing local authorities to deliver minimum housing numbers set against a minimum all tenure housing land requirement.

However, whilst this is an encouragement for developers to build more houses and for local authorities to take a political view that targets must be met, achieving housing targets might be at the expense of overall design quality. Seemingly, at consultation stage, there were conflicting responses from the building industry with some suggestions that NPF4 was too ambitious and unrealistic and others that in could in fact exacerbate the current housing shortfall by being too restrictive. It is evident there are several issues to be addressed including by the building industry itself. To achieve the 20-minute neighbourhoods with new volume housing, local authorities are likely to be expecting a wide range of housing for varied demographics and a significant proportion of affordable houses or else financial contributions. There may be a requirement for contributions from developers as planning gain, for schools, playing areas and green spaces and social and community spaces.

Clearly, the NPF4 policies under Quality Homes represents one of the biggest changes but an emerging issue for developers is in relation to non-allocated sites. Funding for housing as always will be at issue for both the public and private sectors and to what extent NPF4 will encourage enough investment to build sufficient homes, especially affordable homes remain to be seen. Infrastructure may need to be upgraded in rural areas to achieve the aim of NPF4 but at cost to developers which they may not wish to bear. The way land is developed for housing depends perhaps more on who owns the land than on planning controls. In Scotland much, private land is in the ownership of major building companies.

At present, it mostly they who propose when and where they want to build, what types of houses they want to build and usually in what numbers. NPF4 cannot easily change this fact but should now be able to better control such matters as mix of house types, density, urban design quality and the proportion of affordable homes. However, to deliver the numbers of homes stipulated in NPF4 per area of the country, will be a matter of balancing the realities of the housing market with the outcomes sought of Quality Homes. Land ownership is key to its availability for housing developments and the delivery of the aims of NPF4. The Scottish Land Commission (SLC) have called for land reform and a public interest led approach to land used for development, citing the European experience where local authorities have a much greater degree of control over land and development than in Scotland.

There the public sector assembles land for development and master plans sites but works hand in hand with the private sector who in turn are responsible for viability and delivery. This pro-active role by the public sector reduces risk for the private sector and in turn guarantees that developers sell more homes at a lower- values and allows more of the land value created by housing to deliver quality public and green spaces. This approach with local authority produced prescriptive development plans is not new in Scotland and in such as Midlothian Council, has produced good outcomes for both Councils and developers.

Thus, whilst NPF4 sets out where development should take place and the types of places that should be created, SLC advocate moving from a market led system of housing delivery which focuses on greenfield sites to a public interest led approach that would enable new housing to be built in rural and regeneration areas; a system where the public sector plays a much more active role in assembling land for development and in shaping housing markets working hand in hand with the private sector which the SLC suggest would deliver better outcomes, increasing capacity in the public sector and reducing risk to the developers, allowing development of a wider range of homes, delivery of more homes and achieving a higher level of place quality including provision of land for green space within housing schemes. NPF4 sets out a policy for achieving housing targets, but housing development should be more than just about delivering numbers of units but also about place making, appropriate densities, how land is used, about the appropriates of location of new housing, the relationship of new housing settlements to the existing natural environment.

Apart from the matter of achieving net zero emissions by 2030, housing is also about overall design quality of the homes themselves and importantly, about health aspects, especially provision of natural ventilation. NPF4 is not sufficiently specific in this regard. Political pressure to deliver housing numbers may prove counter to the delivery of quality place making. There is nothing on the issue of housing density nor how land, surely a precious commodity, is to be used. Surely the prime concern should not be simply about delivering housing numbers but about design quality, relevance in terms of demographics about place making and community building. Little is said about densification and the use of land of emphasising care in the development of green belt land surely a precious asset. Although there is passing mention of improving residential amenity of the surrounding area, there is no real emphasis on the design quality of the housing environment nor of the need to design to urban design principles as such. Achieving quality Homes is at the heart of NPF4. In respect of Householder development proposals, the relevant policies state that such developments should be supported where they do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the house and surrounding area by virtue of size, design, and materials and in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. Climate change is to the forefront on NPF4 with policies about the insulation, heating, and cooling of buildings.

However, some fundamental issues have not been addressed. Whilst flood risk prevention is mentioned under Liveable Places, nothing is said specifically about the need for future proof design of new coastal developments against rising sea levels, which is inevitable. Achieving compliance with NPF4 is a challenge for both planning and applicants and their agents. Irrespective of any concerns, conflicting issues, views and scepticisms, the aspirations of NPF4 must be delivered both by applicants and their agents and by local authorities. Of concern is whether Scotland’s planning authorities have the resources necessary to be able to deliver the new duties and responsibilities called for in NPF4. Local authorities clearly face a resource issue which will slow down the approvals process. Applicants and their agents need to develop efficient processes perhaps as statements of compliance to gain acceptance of development proposals. Validation of applications is likely to be an immediate issue so application documentation will need to be extra thorough to achieve compliance and to deliver on NPF4.

Compliance with NPF4 for all scales of project, will have to be demonstrated by architects using some form of validation check list or better with ‘statements of compliance’ and either with or without the help of Planning specialist consultants. Compliance with NPF4 is clearly a challenge both for local authorities in adapting their LPDs to NPF4; and for applicants and their agents in meeting the various requirements this new Planning legislation. With or without the help of Planning specialist consultants. Architects will need to produce dedicated Statements of Compliance for all scales of project and covering issues ranging from demonstrating community benefit, creation of 20-minute neighbourhoods, meeting carbon emissions targets but also dealing with matters of health and well-being set out in NPF4. Housebuilders will be expected to show delivery of housing numbers whilst ensuring quality placemaking. Perhaps much can be learned from issues emerging from The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) being adopted elsewhere in the UK, issues which seem likely to be experienced in Scotland given NPF4’s similar policy objectives.

NPPF is the legislation, policy and guidance which underpins planning in England and like NPF4 seeks to control how land should be developed. It addresses the issue of housing density more robustly than NPF4, with the potential for schemes to be rejected if judged to be at densities that are significantly out of character with the existing area. However, this and other restrictions to development have seemingly, led to accusations from some major house builders that government is abandoning its housing targets with the bill, possibly leading to a slowdown in the allocation of new sites in some areas; perhaps the same may be the case in Scotland. Adoption of NPF4 to replace NPF3 and Strategic Development plans, followed a long period of public, professional and agency consultation and careful consideration by the Scottish Government and NPF4 is now enshrined in Planning law at least until 2050. However, with NPF4 having only been up and running for only a short while, it is perhaps too early to say whether it will prove the panacea for improvement to the planning system in Scotland in the long term as the Scottish Government hope.

Despite the reported conflicting responses to NPF4 prior to its adoption, its aims are not in dispute and now clearly all parties to the planning system must address the realities of compliance and the processes involved in achieving delivery to make it work, warts and all. Deliverability will undoubtably depend on the various players exercising a positive attitude in trying to overcome the issues discussed in this article.