Greater adherence to Local Development Plans

(Idea gathered from contributions at Skye event)

If the Bill’s purpose is to encourage communities to have a greater say in the planning process at the start through local place plans, then once the Local Development Plan is agreed there should be greater adherence to it. 

Why the contribution is important

This change to the Bill should be made otherwise communities will feel there is little point in being involved at an early stage if the agreed Local Development Plan is then ignored by the Planning Authority.

by ScotParlModerator on February 20, 2018 at 09:43AM

Current Rating

Average score : 4.5
Based on : 2 votes


  • Posted by IngaBullen February 27, 2018 at 16:05

    Also applications which are refused because they are against the Local Development Plan can currently be overruled by Scottish Ministers, without their needing to give any supporting evidence or rationale to justify such an action. The planning system and local democracy can be overruled by one politician! This seems monstrously unjust.
  • Posted by ddpeeps February 28, 2018 at 18:56

    I agree with Inga.
  • Posted by LynnWatson February 28, 2018 at 19:23

    Yes. The system for Pre-determination Hearings is a bit of a dog's breakfast - unless a planning authority is FORCED to hold one, why should it? Ours has never bothered.

    We requested a pre-determination hearing as a development was against the LDP (site was open space in a park on the LDP...) Response from planners:
    No, it is not contrary to the LDP.

    2nd site - we request pre-determination hearing as major development planned for site which doesn't feature on LDP, housing land audit etc etc. Response from planner:
    It's up to the planning department to decide that...

    Why do we bother? It's a system of ever-moving goalposts!

  • Posted by homeinellon February 28, 2018 at 22:54

    On the other hand, I think it is important that when a potential development comes along that has significant community benefit and support then a departure from the LDP should be possible with councillor and community agreement rather than waiting for it to be included in the next iteration of the LDP which could be up to five years away. This could help ensure that once in a generation opportunities for a community are not missed due to rigid adherence to an LDP that didn't foresee the opportunity.
  • Posted by davesutto March 01, 2018 at 08:29

    There is not even a duty to monitor and count all applications which depart from approved LDP - and whether approved or rejected. (No doubt because it would highlight how often the LDP is bypassed). With the focus usually on “major” departures, “minor” departures all too often slip through the planning system.

    The Planning Bill fails to address the Minister’s Conflict of Interest - both with a much greater centralised role in setting planning policy - and the growing “calling in for consideration” (177 apps over past 5 years) by Minister. Legally I would have thought the Minister needs to be on one side or the other - but not both!!
  • Posted by LynnWatson March 01, 2018 at 17:53

    homeinellon - I agree. I hadn't thought of that as any examples of things that really seem like they would benefit a community & have a lot of support seem to be refused permission by the planners as they don't fit into the right business category.

    Which would seem sensible if that was going to prevent a relevant business using a site - but we're talking about sites which have lain empty for decades... :-(

    I'm obviously missing the logic in a planning authority building new office space - and giving the reason that 'companies don't want the offices at X business park.' So what happens when a property company asks if a car park in the empty-and-being-vandalised business park could be looked at for housing? Nope. Wrong zone.
    How about re-zoning in the new Local Development Plan? Nope.

    Just why?????
  • Posted by ScPlankns March 02, 2018 at 14:47

    I think that there needs to be greater adherence to the Development Plan. This means that at the start of the process there has to be a greater involvement of local people and that they should have a greater say in what happens in their area. This process should not be seen as a "tick box" consultation. The new Planning Bill should be very specific as to obligations of the lead in this process namely the Local Council. This should include a specific evidence based statement of local involvement which should be attached to any local plan. Anything that encourages and improves local people of all ages in the planning process should be encouraged. A failure to do this will result in a continuation of current status for Local Plans which is that the developers are always seen as the drivers for what is included in a Local Development plan. Further, the 10 year review of a Local as outlined in this new planning Bill should be seen as welcome and sensible approach. This will help to hopefully decrease the continued recycling of planning sites by developers in the review process. Currently you have Scottish Planning Reporters who every five years are reporting on exactly the same development sites which have not changed, over and over again. This is a waste of resources, and the current Bill should seek to address this problem. If a site submitted to a Local Development plan has been refused this should not be allowed to re-appear in a subsequent review of the local plan unless substantive changes have been made.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics