Hansard

In 2012, when I was appointed to my local council’s planning committee, I was given a publication entitled “Placemaking and design” which, I was informed, contained the good policy that would guide my decision making. The maxim that beauty is in the eye of the beholder often came to mind when I was a planning committee member. I certainly learned to look at things differently, and was supported by the information in that book and the wider information that I was given.

I also received sage advice from Robert Maguire—one of the 20th century’s leading architects—who settled in the Scottish Borders after his retirement. Over good food and wine, Bob talked to me about how detail and beauty in architecture need not be lost in the process of creating practical and cost-effective spaces. He was famous for his designs for churches and student accommodation, which were all about inspiring communities and bringing them together.

Human beings have always seen design as important, Bob would tell me. For centuries, architects claimed that their designs would reshape society through the power of their art, which is a lovely—if unsubstantiated—notion. In the 1400s, Italian Renaissance era architect Leon Battista Alberti claimed that balanced classical forms were so influential that they would compel aggressive invaders to down their arms and become civilians.

US architect Frank Lloyd Wright believed that, when done properly, architecture would save his country from corruption and turn people back to “wholesome endeavours”. The Swiss-born French architect Le Corbusier claimed that the power of his designs for Villa Savoye would actually heal the sick—a claim that was so inaccurate that he avoided court only due to the commencement of world war two.

However, we know that boring buildings and large grey landscapes have been found to cause higher levels of stress. Without variety and stimulation, the human mind becomes confused and is reminded just how far out of its natural habitat it is. So, although there is no definitive answer to the question how architecture can impact society, it is widely understood and accepted that it will always serve more than a functional purpose.

The broad strokes of the place principle have a good pedigree, and they point to a considered and locally empowering approach to planning and public services. However, there are some aspects of the Scottish Government’s interpretation of the principle on which I would appreciate clarification of how the approach will work in practice.

The Scottish Government has defined “place” as being where

“people, location and resources combine to create a sense of identity and purpose”.

Places can be streets, villages, cities, regions or even whole countries. I have questions about how well such a definition will hold when placed under the weight of reality. When scarce public resources are distributed, planning will involve different places at different levels: streets, parts of towns, or whole towns. If the principle is to be of practical worth, it will have to outline how different places will interact in terms of planning and distribution of resources. It will have to determine how the needs and desires of some streets are weighed against those of others, and how those interact with the needs and desires of the whole town.

The Scottish Government states that the place principle will not be prescriptive and should be viewed as an approach to planning and resource distribution, rather than as a set of rules that should be followed to the letter.

The Improvement Service has already created a checklist for councils to consult on place-based working: I hope that it will not, in time, become just a rubric for councils to adopt as an official part of planning policy.

I support decision-making being taken at the local level, and am an ardent believer in the idea that communities themselves know what is in their best interests. In many ways, that makes me a supporter of the theory behind the place principle. I hope that we will see more clarity on how the principle will help councils to distribute resources when places have opposing or contradictory desires and needs.

Linked to that, I would like to know how the principle will support the representation of different places when council decisions are being made. I would like to avoid overreliance on the new place standard tool, and instead see a face-to-face and holistic approach to place representation that is in keeping with the values of localism and subsidiarity.

I also hope that the minister will outline how application of the place principle by councils will be monitored. Without some form of monitoring, it will be all too easy for the reasonable principles of local representation and a joined-up approach to planning to be neglected.

I am in favour of many of the values that underpin the place principle, but I want to ensure that the Scottish Government can put theory into practice and deliver a strong policy that empowers communities to choose what is right for them.