|
Submission
from ALGAO:Scotland
SPP consultation
Directorate
for the Built Environment
The Scottish Government
2H Victoria Quay
Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
Dear Ms Richardson,
Scottish
Planning Policy (SPP) Consultation
ALGAO:Scotland
represents Local Authority and National Park archaeological services
in Scotland and is part of the UK-wide organisation, ALGAO:UK. Our
organisation provides a single voice for archaeologists working
through these authorities, and undertakes advocacy for the value
of the historic environment and its appropriate conservation and
management through local government.
The Association
works with central and devolved governments, national agencies and
a broad range of other organisations to strengthen and develop the
role of local government historic environment service in delivering
local, regional and national government policy. To this effect the
Association continues to contribute to the development of strategic
policy for protection, sustainable management, interpretation and
promotion of the historic environment and to develop and promote
standards and best practice in the historic environment profession.
The historic
environment is valued as a cultural, environmental, social and economic
asset that makes a major contribution to the quality of people's
lives. Archaeological resource management in local government plays
a fundamental role in the management of the historic environment,
working to deliver government objectives in protecting and sustaining
the historic environment for the benefit of current and future generations,
and in promoting awareness, understanding, appreciation and enjoyment
of this unique resource. This includes a role in delivering the
government agenda for community engagement and sustainable development.
Local authorities
are responsible for the conservation of the 95% of the historic
environment that is not afforded statutory protection, encompassing
archaeology, the built environment and historic landscapes. Local
authorities provide both a strategic framework for the protection
of historical and archaeological sites at local level, and the policy
context for managing change on a case-by-case basis through day-to-day
advice and information. In this local authorities aim to promote
the highest sustainable quality of life and environment and to deliver
value for money and quality services. We therefore welcome this
opportunity to comment upon the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) consultative
draft and we would like to offer the following comments and recommendations.
QUESTIONS
Q1. Overall,
is national planning policy clearer and easier to understand in
the consolidated SPP compared with existing SPPs and NPPGs?
We feel that a new consolidated SPP should in theory make it easier
to find and cross-reference relevant Government Planning Policy
guidance.
Q2. Do you
support the proposed structure and format of the consolidated SPP?
No comment.
Q3. Do you
agree with the removal of advice and background information from
the consolidated SPP?
Although we recognise that in order to produce a single consolidated
policy that such a move was seen by the Scottish Government as necessary
we do have strong concerns in this matter in relation to the Historic
Environment. The consultative draft states that detailed guidance
on policy and legislation is laid out in the SHEP, but the vast
amount of unscheduled & unlisted historic environment is lacking
in detailed guidance in the SHEP, and this is the area which falls
largely within the care of Local Authorities and by implication
to the advice given within SPP23 & PAN42. Accordingly without the
detailed guidance as laid out in SPP23 and PAN42 we feel that this
will lead to a severe weakening in the delivery of Planning Advise
and by extension to the aims of the SPP which seeks to protect our
nation's heritage.
Therefore we
strongly recommend that if the consolidated SPP is be published
without detailed advice and background information that an updated
PAN42 or equivalent is urgently published in consultation with the
sector.
Q4. Does
this paragraph provide a clear overview of the expectations for
community engagement in the modernised planning system?
Yes we feel that this paragraph provides a clear overview.
Q5. Is the
status of this section in relation to the Planning etc. (Scotland)
Act 2006 sufficiently clear?
Yes we feel that the status of this section is sufficiently clear
but could be improved by additional guidance on how it can be achieved
as 'Sustainable economic growth' is one of the key themes on which
this SPP is based and is also a phrase often used to justify policies
and development.
Also clarification
needs to be made over the term 'Sustainable economic growth'. Following
the recent passing of amendment S3M-3528.2 to motion S3M-3528 tabled
by Robin Harper MSP in the debate on 26th February 2009 on the Scottish
Marine Bill 'Sustainable Seas for All' (http://scottish-parliament.net/business/chamber/mop-09/mop09-02-26.htm)
the term 'environmentally sustainable economic development' was
adopted by the Scottish Government. Accordingly references to 'sustainable
economic growth' we suggest should be changed to 'environmentally-sustainable
economic growth' to reflect current Parliamentary thinking.
Q6. Is the
role of the planning system in assisting climate change mitigation
and adaptation clearly highlighted throughout this SPP?
Yes we feel that the role of planning in assisting climate change
mitigation is clearly highlighted in this SPP.
Q7. Is the
contribution of the planning system to sustainable economic growth,
as explained in this section, clear and easy to understand?
On the whole this section is clear and easy to understand however
we feel that the term 'built heritage' at the end of the fourth
bullet point in paragraph 40 should be changed to Historic Environment.
This term is used later in the SPP when dealing with heritage and
will allow clearer cross referencing and understanding.
In addition
we feel that section 43 dealing with previously developed land (Brownfield
sites) must contain reference to archaeology and historic built
environment which by their very nature are archaeological sites.
Often urban and industrial sites can contain often deep and complex
archaeological remains and historic buildings can act as both opportunities
for sustainable economic growth but can also be significant constraints
upon development. Accordingly it is important that the archaeological
implications of such sites are identified at an early stage in order
that the appropriate mitigation measures are put in place to ensure
both the interests of the historic environment and future development.
Q8. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to town centres
and retailing been included and are they clearly explained?
By and large yes, however the important contribution that the historic
environment plays in creating a 'Sense of Place' must be mentioned
and recognised here.
Q9. Have
the main areas of national planning policy relating to housing been
included and are they clearly explained?
No comment.
Q10. Have
the main areas of national planning policy relating to rural development
been included and are they clearly explained?
Yes and we welcome the statement in paragraph 71 that whilst Planning
authorities should encourage economic activity and diversification
this should be undertaken 'whilst ensuring that the distinctiveness
of rural areas
. the natural and cultural heritage are protected
and enhanced'.
Q11. Do
you support the proposed policy on protection of prime agricultural
land?
No comment.
Q12. Do
you support the removal of the specific requirement for development
plans to classify coastal areas as developed, undeveloped or isolated?
In essence we don't have any concerns over this move. However the
isolated coastal zones of Scotland contain some of Scotland's most
significant archaeological and historic monuments and landscapes
(e.g. World Heritage sites of Neolithic Orkney, St Kilda). Therefore
in terms of the 'isolated Coast', we feel that it is important that
this significance and value too Scotland's Heritage is recognised
here and that the historic environment is specifically mentioned
in paragraph 76 along with other criteria such as environmental,
spiritual and economic values.
Secondly, no
mention is made of how the new marine planning system will interface
with the existing terrestrial one. It is likely that the implications
for the historic environment situated within the coastal zone area
could be particularly significant. Accordingly it is recommended
that the final SPP contain a policy statement on this issue.
Q13. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to fish farming
been included and are they clearly explained?
On the whole yes, however the second last sentence in paragraph
78 (outlining criteria Local Authorities should take into account
when designating sensitive areas) must include the Marine Historic
Environment in order to bring it in line with the forthcoming Maritime
component of both SHEP and the Scottish Marine Bill.
Q14. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to the historic
environment been included and are they clearly explained?
The consolidation of national planning policies relating to the
historic environment as outlined within paragraphs 82-91 of this
consultative draft contain several substantive changes of key and
fundamental elements of current National Planning Policy which must
be addressed in line with the aims of the consolidation process
which clearly states in its Introductory section (p7) that; 'The
consolidation
..is not a review of established policy'
and that 'The new style of SPP requires a different approach to
expressing and explaining national planning policy, but the changes
in wording do not, in most cases, represent
a change in policy. A change in policy would mean that the
intended outcome of the policy is different.'
However in
the following areas there appears to have been significant changes
in National Policy from the previous SPP23. We believe strongly
that this must be addressed within the final version of the Consolidated
SPP.
- Omission
of the phrase 'Material Consideration' in respect of Non-designated
Historic Environment Assets
Section 47 of SPP23 clearly states that 'Government Policy is
to protect and preserve non-designated, other historic environmental
interest, in situ wherever feasible and as such, they are material
considerations in the planning process.'.
This statement is fundamental to the management and protection
of over 90% of our Nation's Heritage which is undesignated and
whose only statutory protection lies through the planning process.
Accordingly it is unacceptable that the new SPP fails to mention
this important phrasing in either paragraphs 88 or 89 when outlining
planning policy relating to non-designated archaeological sites
and monuments. Not only is this a weakening of the force of the
previous advice contained within SPP23 but will lead to the loss
of significant archaeological and historic assets.
Therefore if, as stated in the Introduction to the consultative
draft that the new SPP document is intended to be a consolidation
of earlier Historic Environment policies and not a change, then
this apparent substantive change of Scottish Planning Policy in
dealing with non-designated archaeological and other historic
environment assets is not considered to be acceptable. It is therefore
strongly recommended that the phrase 'material consideration'
is re-inserted within the final Consolidated SPP, both within
paragraphs 88 and 89.
- Omission
of references to Specialist Advice
Paragraph 21 of the current Scottish Government Planning Policy
on the Historic Environment (SPP23) clearly discusses and recognises
the importance of 'informed and sensitive management of change',
based on a clear understanding of any asset.
SPP23 paragraph 22 goes on to recognises that the key to the delivery
of this is that 'Planning authorities should also ensure that
they can call on sufficient specialist conservation and archaeological
advice to inform their plan and decision making and to advise
owners and managers of historic assets and other members of the
public.' Further, paragraph 23 goes on to state that in order
to support their development management function, planning authorities
'should ensure that they have access to a Sites and Monuments
Record (SMR) and/or a Historic Environment Record (HER)'. Professional
archaeological services are essential not only for maintenance,
updating and interpretation of the information contained within
HER/SMRs, as without professional advice HER/SMRs are merely an
archive of records, but are also essential to the efficient delivery
of and appropriate input to the planning and development management
process.
Given the importance given to the provision of Local Authority
specialist advice within SPP23, the absence of any mention of
it within the new consolidated SPP is regarded as a substantive
and also an unacceptable change to Government Planning Policy.
We feel strongly that the new SPP must recognise the essential
role that archaeological and conservation advisory services play
within and for Local Authorities, and should also encourage local
authorities to allocate appropriate, and sufficient, resources
and personnel for the provision of such advice.
We strongly recommend that the final consolidated SPP be amended
to reinstate this current government policy regarding the provision
of specialist archaeological and conservation advisory services
to Local Authorities.
- Paragraph
82
On the whole we support the positive statement that the historic
environment is a key part of Scotland's cultural heritage and
that it enhances national, regional and local distinctiveness,
contributing to sustainable economic growth and regeneration.
However we think this policy statement is too narrow compared
with that previously contained with in SPP23. It is recommended
that this paragraph should re-incorporate reference to the Historic
Environment's important role in promoting and providing educational,
training and employment opportunities.
Secondly the draft SPP also makes no mention of the possible roles
that community and non-statutory organisations can have in safeguarding
the historic environment. This is a significant omission, and
the SPP should encourage Local Authorities to seek partnerships
with other bodies, whenever feasible, to foster and secure better
protection for the historic environment. Community partnership
could have immense benefits for the sustainable development and
management of the historic environment, joint-working and outcomes.
- Paragraph
83
Although we welcome the statement that 'in some cases the importance
of the historic environment and its setting is such that change
may be difficult or inappropriate' the choice of the word inappropriate
would appear to be a weakening of the current planning policy
as stated in SPP23 paragraph 21; 'In some cases the importance
of the heritage asset is such that change may be difficult, indeed
it may not be possible
'.
It is important to recognise that archaeological and historic
environment assets are both a finite and a non-renewable resource,
vulnerable to change. Further the majority of these sites and
monuments may have no intrinsic economic or commercial value and
are therefore extremely vulnerable to change and need to be carefully
considered in the application of planning policy. Preservation
in situ is therefore an important and key underlying policy of
the current SPP23. It is vital that the new Consolidated SPP recognises
that, in certain circumstances, change may not indeed be possible
or desirable for the sustainable management of particular assets.
Accordingly we strongly recommend that the term 'may not be
possible in certain circumstances' be reinstated in place
of the word inappropriate, as it is both a clearer and
a more accurate statement. Furthermore, this phraseology better
reflects the important statement defined in paragraph 21 of the
current SPP23, concerning the management of the historic environment
namely it is about the 'informed and sensitive management of
change'.
- Paragraph
89
SPP23 paragraph states that 'the planning authority, before determining
the application, should be satisfied that the developer has
made appropriate provision for the excavation, recording,
analysis, publication and archiving of the remains' confirming
the important policy laid down in NPPG5 that it is the responsibility
of the developer to pay for the excavation, analysis and publication
of archaeological and historic environment assets affected by
development. Direct reference to this central planning policy
is absent from this paragraph and we therefore strongly recommended
that the highlighted phrase is re-inserted within the final Consolidated
SPP.
- Paragraph
91
The protection afforded to gardens and designed-landscapes appears
to have been weakened within this consultative draft SPP from
the current policy in SPP23, namely it states that they 'can be
a material consideration' rather than 'are a material consideration'.
We therefore recommend that this wording is changed accordingly.
Q15. Do
you agree with the principle of limiting local non-statutory designations
to two types?
No Comment.
Q16. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to landscape
and natural heritage been included and are they clearly explained?
It is widely recognised that Scotland's current landscape is the
result of the action of man with virtually no area unaffected. Accordingly,
when discussing policies relating to landscape and natural heritage
we feel that clearer mention and cross referencing to the historic
environment should be made throughout. This could lead to a more
holistic approach to the conservation of our historic landscapes
and avoid potential unnecessary conflict and aid better understanding
between the natural and historic environmental interests.
Q17. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to open space
been included and are they clearly explained?
No comment.
Q18. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to green
belts been included and are they clearly explained?
No comment.
Q19. Do
you support the retention of the policy on the use of maximum parking
standards and the relocation of national maximum parking standards
into advice?
No comment.
Q20. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to transport
been included and are they clearly explained?
No comment.
Q21. Do
you agree with the integration of policy on spatial frameworks for
wind farms over 20 megawatts generating capacity with general planning
policy on wind farm development?
No comment.
Q22. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to renewable
energy been included and are they clearly explained?
On the whole we agree that the main elements of national planning
policy have been included. However we recommend the following changes/amendments:
- Paragraph
141; for clarity the term 'built heritage' in the second criteria
bullet point should be changed to 'the historic environment' to
provide clarity and easier cross-referencing of terms throughout
the SPP.
- Paragraph
143; the first spatial framework bullet should include reference
to the historic environment in terms of archaeology, Conservation
areas and World Heritage Sites and that their physical and visual
protection are material within the planning system.
- Paragraph
147; the last sentence should include the term 'and the historic
environment.'
Q23. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to flooding
and drainage been included and are they clearly explained?
On the whole we agree that the main elements of national planning
policy have been included. However we recommend the following changes/amendments:
- Paragraph
159; for clarity the wording 'historic and natural' should be
added before environmental implications in the second last sentence.
Q24. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to waste
management been included and are they clearly explained?
No comment.
Q25. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to mineral
extraction been included and are they clearly explained?
On the whole we agree that the main elements of national planning
policy have been included. However we recommend the following changes/amendments:
- Paragraph
168; We recommend in line with the principles of SHEP, which recognise
that archaeological remains are an important and finite resource,
that Development plans in this context must considered all historic
assets and not just the designated sites.
- Paragraph
173; for clarity the term 'built heritage' in the fourth bullet
point should be changed to 'the historic environment' to provide
clarity and easier cross-referencing of terms throughout the SPP.
Q26. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to opencast
coal extraction been included and are they clearly explained?
On the whole we agree that the main elements of national planning
policy have been included. However we recommend the following changes/amendments:
- Paragraph
179; for clarity the term 'built heritage' in the fourth bullet
point should be changed to 'the historic environment' to provide
clarity and easier cross-referencing of terms throughout the SPP.
- Paragraph
181; for clarity the term 'built heritage' in the last bullet
point should be changed to 'archaeological and built heritage'
to provide clarity and easier cross-referencing of terms throughout
the SPP
Q27. Have
the main elements of national planning policy relating to telecommunications
been included and are they clearly explained?
The erection of telecommunication infrastructure can have a major
impact upon the historic built environment not only physically but
also upon there setting. Accordingly it is essential that this impact
is considered when selecting sites and designing base stations.
Accordingly to provide better clarity and easier cross-referencing
a separate bullet point should be added to both paragraph 185 &
187 requiring that the impact of these works upon the historic environment
is assessed.
Q28. How
might the consolidated SPP impact positively or negatively on equalities
groups?
No comment.
Q29. Will
any groups not identified already in the partial EqIA be affected
by the consolidated SPP?
No comment.
We hope that
our comments and recommendations are incorporated within the final
document. ALGAO:Scotland would also be pleased to be involved at
an early stage in the formulating of any revised version of PAN
42 or any other subsidiary guidance or advice that may be forthcoming.
Yours faithfully,
John A Lawson
Chair ALGAO:Scotland
Consultations
index
ALGAO:Scotland
|
