Development planning: here's the evidence, but what does it mean for the local development plan?

During May and June four planning authorities, Fife, Moray, Glasgow City, and Midlothian, each submitted their evidence reports to the Scottish Ministers for gate-check assessment. These evidence reports are the first to be prepared in line with the new approach to development planning legislated for in the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. The premise behind the reforms is that the plan preparation process will be front-loaded, allowing planning authorities to adopt a 10-year local development plan (LDP) and dedicate more time to delivery and monitoring rather than development planning.

Gathering Evidence

The purpose of the evidence report is to inform the plan making process, and to provide a baseline from which planning authorities can assess where development should take place in their areas. You can read our blog on evidence reports and the gate check process here.

The Scottish Government's guidance was published in 2023 so as to support planning authorities in preparing a 'new style' LDP, and how they should gather appropriate evidence to inform a place-based, people-centred, and delivery-focussed plan for their areas. You can read our blog on this guidance here.

A legislative juxtaposition?

There is no minimum standard of evidence for planning authorities to achieve and a level of flexibility has been built into the evidence gathering process to reflect the differing needs of planning authority areas.  However, equally, significant discretion has also been afforded to appointed persons on assessing evidence reports during the gate check process.  The role of the appointed person is to assess whether the evidence report is sufficient so as to enable the planning authority to prepare a proposed plan.  The procedure by which they arrive at that judgement is generally open to them to determine.

This legislative juxtaposition has become apparent in the assessment of the Fife evidence report and the recommendations made by the appointed person to the planning authority in their assessment report.  Despite a wealth of evidence being submitted, they ultimately concluded that the evidence report was insufficient and returned it to the Council for revision and re-submission.

Why was Fife's evidence report returned?

When an appointed person is assessing an evidence report they must determine whether there is sufficient information to enable the LDP to be prepared.  Where they find that there is insufficient information, they must prepare an assessment report setting out their reasons for not being satisfied and they must make recommendations to the planning authority as to how the evidence report should be improved.  They have no statutory authority to amend the evidence report.

In Fife's case, the appointed person found the evidence submitted was not sufficiently explained, it did not link to the requirements of NPF4, the record of stakeholder engagement was not transparent, and gaps in evidence were not established.  Importantly, the report, in the view of the appointed person, did not make it clear what the evidence meant for the plan in a number of key areas: housing, infrastructure, flooding, and climate change.  Several recommendations were made to the planning authority.

Comment

What is interesting, on review of the evidence report and the assessment report, is that the appointed person did not request any further information.  This would have been a procedural option available to them and it may have addressed some of the issues that were identified in the assessment report.  Equally, the planning authority did not adopt the suggested template provided for in the guidance (although it was not required to).  It is unclear whether a change in approach by the appointed person and/or the planning authority would have altered the outcome here.

In general terms the appointed person found the Fife evidence report to be lacking in clarity and focus, falling short of the expectations of NPF4, and that the evidence needed an explanation.  No doubt, given the work involved by the planning authority in getting to this stage, this made for disappointing reading.  But, as the first evidence report to be prepared and submitted for gate check, the assessment report provides a useful benchmark for other planning authorities who are in the process of gathering evidence, consulting with stakeholders and preparing their own reports.  It is also helpful for those who are being engaged and consulted on evidence topics and issues across the country.  This is particularly important where there is a dispute as to the evidence or approach being adopted by the planning authority, which will require scrutiny by the appointed person before they can reach a conclusion on the sufficiency of evidence.

What can be learned from Fife?

• baseline data sets, established evidence, and methodologies which are being relied upon should be identified and summarised; they should be up-to-date, robust, and credible.
• information should be set out in a clear and concise manner, using plain English, linking to statutory requirements and planning policy context relevant to the issue.
• the views of consultees and stakeholders are vital, it should be clear how information has been gathered and recorded, and how it has informed the planning authority's views on the issue.
• the opportunities, constraints and barriers to delivery should be understood, as should the need for new and improved infrastructure and how that should be funded, and an awareness how the LDP interacts with other local authority or national strategies.

What's next?

At the time of writing, Moray Council has just received notification that it may proceed to prepare its proposed plan, marking another first in the 'new plan world'. The appointed person found, on the whole, that its evidence report was sufficient, although they made a number of observations and gate check advisory notes. Of note, is that the appointed person sought further information through formal information requests, and despite recognising there were areas where the evidence report could have been improved or required clarity, they nonetheless concluded that the evidence was sufficient. The observations by the appointed person again highlight the need for greater analysis and explanation of the evidence by the planning authority, and clarity in the manner in which stakeholders have been engaged in the evidence gathering process.

We await the outcome of the assessment of the Glasgow City and Midlothian evidence reports with interest.