Part #2: My recommendations around LPP production and validation for the forthcoming review

Here are the first 3 of 8 recommendations and changes that I would like to see coming out of the LPP Review, starting with process elements of LPP production and validation that I think need to be implemented differently.

This is part 2 of several blogs about the forthcoming Local Place Plan Review from the Scottish Government.  Part 1 can be read here.

An appropriate expectation of validation timeframes for LPPs should be stipulated and adhered to, and no unjustified additional criteria should be expected prior to an LPP being considered material for planning decisions.

• • Why not 5 days, just like site specific applications?
  • The speed of validation of a Local Place Plan is often profoundly slow, even for LPPs with a clearly evidenced check-list for compliance. I have personal experience of an LPP waiting for over 3 months before validation with no issues raised.
  • This is problematic, not just because its poor customer service, but because LPPs become a material consideration for site specific planning applications they refer to from the point of validation and inclusion on the public register.
  • Validation of LPPs is far, far more straightforward than a reasonably complex submission for PP for a medium scale Local Application. It’s not reasonable to treat community submissions as any less important, not least because validation of LPPs is not complicated.
  • Validation of LPPs should not be confused with the later assessment of their proposals for inclusion in the LDP. And there should be no additional requirements levied on the validation of LPPs or their consideration as material considerations upon validation than those laid down in the Primary Legislation, Secondary Regulations and National Guidance.
  • Situations have arisen where validation has been delayed for matters associated with assessment not validation.
  • Furthermore, some newer LDPs now in force have added unjustified additional expectations on LPPs for them to be considered material for planning assessment. Case in point: Policy 52 of the current Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan which levies the following additional requirements that are not aligned with the legislation or guidance on LPPs (in my view revealing an unfair bias in the system against communities):

• • This policy perhaps needs a blog in itself but (briefly) the three elements in red are not competent because:
    • LPPs need to take account of not accord with NPF4. There is a big and deliberately encoded difference here.
    • ‘Suitable levels of community engagement’ is nowhere defined, not in the relevant Circular nor in the Argyll and Bute LDP itself (apart from the need to run an Information Notice period). Retrospective application of an arbitrary assessment of ‘suitable levels’ would be very inappropriate beyond what is laid out in the Circular.
    • For materiality to be based on a requirement for communities to submit an outline delivery strategy showing that they have capacity to deliver proposals not only make no sense (for policy proposals that would require LA delivery or policy proposals for protection of sites) they are biased against communities. Developers are not required to submit capacity studies for Call for Sites representations or even applications for planning consent. So why should communities?  Especially when the word delivery does not appear once in the 2022 LPP Circular.

The wording of the Local Development Planning Guidance (2023) should be changed to recommend an indicative LPP submission deadline between Gatecheck and Proposed Plan rather than prior to Gatecheck as currently.

• The wording currently states: “To meet requirements for reporting on the invitation and assistance to prepare LPPs within the Evidence Report, it is suggested that the date by which LPPs should be prepared is timed to be in advance of the finalisation of the Evidence Report and in advance of the Gate Check.”
• Problems generated by the current wording include:
  • Actual LPP content, which remains unassessed at the point Gatecheck is very rarely actually included in Evidence Reports.
  • Evidence of no. of LPPs submitted is not required at Gatecheck, just evidence that communities have been invited to prepare and what general support has been offered.
  • LPPs can be submitted at any time, and there is often many, many months after Gatecheck is completed within which it can be reasonable to submit LPPs and still have them assessed
  • Evidence Reports provide communities with powerful data for LPPs to offer evidence of alignment with the direction of the emerging LDP.
  • The deadline is arbitrary and unnecessary, and yet appears to communities as a hard deadline, putting many off even starting to prepare LPPs in the first place
  • This is an example of unnecessary policy with unintended consequences. It offers no real additional benefits to Planning Authorities (PAs) and only offers negative impacts to communities.
• The Evidence Report should exist (in part) to serve communities creating LPPs, rather than community plans existing to serve PAs producing the Evidence Report. Not only that, expecting communities to be able to access the Evidence Report before submission will result a far greater likelihood of alignment between LPPs and the emerging LDP, and therefore better outcomes.

The solution is to state that for LPPs to be considered in time for Proposed Plan assessment they should be submitted at most 4 months out from Proposed Plan being laid before committee, and require PAs to assess anything submitted up to that point.

Planning Authorities (PAs) should be required to constantly update on LPP submission timeframes in a timely fashion.

• Development Plan Schemes keep changing production timeframes as various circumstances force PAs to require more time before the Proposed Plan is prepared. This can include Gatecheck timeframes early in the process.
• A delaying of the indicative LPP submission deadline has occurred in every Local Authority I have worked in. Its a normal feature of LDP production. But it is confusing and can be misleading for communities.
• Communities are often given the impression that they must deliver LPPs by a certain deadline only to be later told that the whole process of LDP formation has shifted back 6 months.
• Communities may have chosen to not start, only to find out later on they had 1 year or more in reality to do so! Others aren’t alerted by councils in a timely fashion that more time is available. Capacity to promise LPP assessment prior to Proposed Plan during Plan Preparation Stage may be different the closer to Proposed Plan deadline an authority gets.
• It should be mandatory for Councils to communicate clearly and frequently what the current situation is.
• Highland Council are an excellent role-model of how to communicate this type of updating in a dynamic way. This should be standardised across Local Authorities.

 This is part 2 of several blogs about the forthcoming Local Place Plan Review from the Scottish Government.  Part 1 can be read here.