Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 12 June 2013

12 Jun 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

National Planning Framework 3 and Scottish Planning Policy

MacKenzie, Mike SNP Highlands and Islands Watch on SPTV

I am delighted that we have received many briefings for the debate from many interested organisations. After all, one of the problems that the planning system suffers from is public apathy, especially during the earlier consultation phases of planning policy. That is why I am glad that the Scottish Government is leading the way with the main issues report for NPF3 and the SPP consultation, especially as the associated documents are in plain and clear English, are uncluttered and are free from planning jargon.

There is a lesson for local planning authorities in that, because early public engagement and meaningful consultation depend on such documents being accessible to the wider public. Too often, reading local planning policy documents is an exercise in forcing our way through a dense lexicon of tortured and ambiguous terms; it is an exercise that is reminiscent of attempting to read some of our more esoteric post-modernist literature, which is meaningless to absolutely everyone—except, perhaps, the author.

I am glad, too, that the Scottish Government is forging ahead in a journey of continuous improvement for our planning system, because that system has too often in the past let us all down—applicants and the public—and has not delivered the outcomes that any of us would wish for in efficiency or fairness. Most important, it has not delivered on quality of development.

I am particularly glad about the emphasis in the draft SPP on design-led development, with its attendant themes of place making, designing better streets, the architecture and place policy statement and high-quality development. I welcome the new planning performance framework, but I am sorry that the first planning performance annual report suggests that less than a third of local planning authorities have stated that design improvements are negotiated during the application process. That is a disappointment.

Too much of the focus has been on answering the question whether to build rather than asking questions about the quality of design. That part of the planning system needs to improve, because nimbyism is often an expression of a lack of public confidence in the planning system as a vehicle for delivering well-designed and high-quality development.

I am glad, too, about the renewed focus on sustainable economic growth. Not thinking about that in our hierarchy of considerations is not to live in the real world; it is not to recognise the profound economic difficulties that many people face in communities throughout Scotland and not to recognise that we have one of two possible futures—one in which we face continuing poverty, or a better, well-designed one, in which we can all share the prosperity that sustainable economic growth will deliver.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 12 June 2013

In the same item of business