Shaping and designing model policies for land use planning

Land Use Policy 24(2007)154–164

Shaping and designing model policies for land use planning

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel ?

The Geddes Institute,School of Town and Regional Planning,University of Dundee,Dundee,DD14HN,UK

Received 4July 2005;received in revised form 17October 2005;accepted 29October 2005

Abstract

This paper discusses how development planning in Scotland is being reformed and modernised.It examines the interest in the potential of model development plan policies as a device to enhance the ef?ciency of the land use planning system,and explores the role of the various communities of interest who assert a stake in policy design.This paper considers the land use policy subjects that are perceived as having potential for expression in model policy form,and distinguishes between environmental,developmental and procedural.It considers the implications for the policy making process,and,particularly,for those involved in policy design.r 2005Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.

Keywords:Land use policy;Land use planning;Modernisation;Model policies

Introduction

Land use planning in the UK is essentially a statutory function and a public sector activity.In broad terms,it provides the context to land use and development through a set of regulatory controls that span permitted develop-ment rights and full planning controls (Rydin,2003).Contemporary land use planning decision-making takes place within what has been described as a ‘plan-led’system (Gatenby and Williams,1996).This effectively af?rms the primacy of the development plan as the primary material consideration in land use planning decision-making.It also con?rms the role of the development plan in nurturing and sustaining local political and public support,together with investor con?dence.Yet,an important distinctive char-acteristic of the UK development planning system is its discretionary nature.In practice,then,there is provision for wide administrative discretion by local planning authorities in balancing the public and private interests in the use and development of land.Effectively,local land use development plans serve to provide an indication of policy intention and objective,rather than presenting a binding framework on land and property development (Booth,

2002).Moreover,the judicial process has relatively limited powers of intervention or redress in such matters (Culling-worth and Nadin,1994).

This con?guration of state controls is held to set the UK arrangements apart from the relatively less ?exible,and more prescriptive,zoning plans which are in force else-where in the European arena (Commission of the European Communities,1997).Yet,the primacy of the development plan in land use and development planning contexts has prompted a search for greater consistency and transparency in the planning process.This has stimulated a particular interest in policy formulation in Scotland that has wider relevance for land use policy theorists and practitioners elsewhere.This paper is directly concerned with the practicalities of formulating local land use policies that work in practice.This has implications for the reform of planning systems more widely (Dixon,2003;Campbell,2003),and speci?cally addresses those concerns with enhancing the ef?ciency and effectiveness of the develop-ment plan system.

The following discussion draws on secondary data derived from the Scottish Executive’s research programme which has been undertaken in order to inform and mobilise support for the modernisation of land use planning practice in Scotland.In order to address the policy concerns associated with the ef?ciency and effectiveness of the development planning system,and the appropriate

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/624579696.html,/locate/landusepol

0264-8377/$-see front matter r 2005Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/https://www.wendangku.net/doc/624579696.html,ndusepol.2005.10.001

?Corresponding author.Tel.:+4401382345323;

fax:+4401382204234.

E-mail address:d.peel@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/624579696.html, (D.Peel).

arrangements for civic engagement,the Scottish Executive has undertaken several lines of enquiry.These have included the publication of consultation papers,a scoping review of the potential remit of planning legislation,studies of speci?c aspects of land use planning practice,pan-Scotland seminars,and dialogue with speci?c constituen-cies of interest(Scottish Executive,2005).This multi-faceted process is explicitly intended to transform the culture of planning by demonstrating a commitment to reform,openness,transparency,and change.As a con-sequence,the evidence has been systematically collated and published in the form of digests of responses,reports, analyses of consultations,and white papers.This provides a valuable secondary data resource for critical research into the emerging recon?guration of land use planning,and forms the basis of this paper.Some contextual points are necessary.

Development planning in Scotland

In response to changing socio-economic and demo-graphic circumstances and conditions,and experience on the ground,the development planning system in the UK has evolved over time(Poxon,2000;Tewdwr-Jones,1994). Recurrent concerns have dogged the system,ranging from procedural to participatory agendas in planning practice. In the1960s,the Planning Advisory Group(1965)asserted that the land use planning system was inadequate in a number of ways.In particular,it was held to be insensitive to differential development pressures,including those stemming from economic and demographic change. Effectively,the planning system was considered to be out of touch with emerging planning problems.Moreover,the land use planning system was deemed to be insuf?ciently forward-looking(Planning Advisory Group,1965).Such criticisms became more acute and marked in the1980s during which period there was a political emphasis on meeting the needs of the private property development markets.

More recently,in its Review of Strategic Planning Consultation Paper,the Scottish Executive(2001a)catalo-gued a set of identical issues with respect to delays in development plan preparation and approval.Further, development plans were held to be not suf?ciently up to date and responsive to changing circumstances.There was also a concern with the cumbersome procedures in plan preparation and management,and the perceived reluctance of the planning system to make adequate provision for development in the longer term.Thus,it was held that development plans demonstrated a lack of clarity and certainty about where development would be allowed,and where it would be restrained.Moreover,in terms of delivery,there was perceived to be a relatively tenuous relationship between plans and implementation.This catalogue of procedural,substantive,and outcome?aws within the development planning system has thus persisted over time.This is notwithstanding the deliberate attempt in the1990s to create a more robust‘plan-led’system in order to provide greater certainty for the property development sector.In effect,the aspiration for a new form and spirit of development planning which was held to be more appro-priate to societal needs and expectations has not been achieved in the face of a failure(or inability)to change the established procedures and value systems in planning practice.

From a Scottish perspective,this has led,in more recent times,to a number of attempts to address directly the perceived weaknesses of the development planning system. This has been articulated through two important threads of action.First,there has been a critical concern with improving the ef?ciency of development plan preparation, and the effectiveness of its associated processes and outcomes(Scottish Executive,2004a).Second,there has been a sustained attempt to enhance the participatory arrangements in policy development and implementation (Scottish Executive,2001b,2003).This was intended to secure wider civic engagement and involvement in the land use planning system.The importance of these two issues was highlighted as critical by the Planning Minister in the launch of the White Paper on modernising the planning system(Scottish Executive,2005).Importantly,this focus on planning reform is symptomatic of the broader modernisation agenda of the public sector at large,and the concern with civil renewal.This is the context to the devising of model development plan policies. Modernising development planning in Scotland

In Scotland,land use planning is a devolved matter from the UK Parliament.The responsibility falls,then,to the Scottish Executive,whose principal functions are to ‘maintain and develop the existing legislative framework, provide policy guidance and advice,to take decisions on structure plans,some major planning applications and appeals,and to oversee the operation of the system’(Scottish Executive,2002,p.1).These particular arrange-ments provide the development plan context for policies which address land use,development,conservation,and environmental matters.This is achieved through a layered policy framework,based on a hierarchical approach which enables international,European,national,regional,and local policies to be translated into development plans which operate at the level of the individual locality.These policies form the statutory decision-making frameworks for deci-sions relating to the allocation of land,and the assessment of individual planning applications for development.

At the national level,and in addition to the underlying legislative framework,Scottish Planning Policies(formerly National Planning Policy Guidance—NPPG)provide statements of Scottish Executive policy on de?ned nation-ally important land use and other planning matters,and which,furthermore,assert key strategic priorities.These are supplemented with more descriptive Planning Advice Notes which provide relevant supporting information,

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164155

additional advice,and examples of good practice.Criti-cally,however,the general principle under which the land use planning system operates in Scotland is that decisions should be taken at the most appropriate local adminis-trative level(Scottish Executive,2002).This re?ects a commitment to the subsidiarity and decentralisation of decision-making(Lee,1999).Importantly,this framework af?rms the importance of local ownership and community governance within the national strategic context.

A second and related principle of the land use planning system in Scotland is that decision-making processes should be open and transparent,and actively seek to engage the local community and relevant stakeholders. This thinking is increasingly embedded in the re-concep-tualisation of public engagement in governance more widely,and is re?ected in attempts to?nd innovative ways to enhance public involvement(Stoker,2004;Lowndes et al.,2001).Traditionally,land use planning in the UK has sought to promote public participation in the preparation of development plans,and,in its regulation and develop-ment quality decision-making(Bishop,2002).There is now an important emphasis on the early involvement of communities in the decision-making processes of the land use planning system(Scottish Executive,2003,2005).This represents a very speci?c approach to securing desired political objectives for the land use planning system.

In this context,attention has turned to further enhance the openness and transparency of decision-making.More-over,there is a concern with reducing the adversarial nature of the decision-making process in order to secure greater consensus through the use of mediation techniques (Hague and Higgins,2004).More than a matter of fostering civic engagement,however,such thinking is shaped by a strong commitment for diverting confronta-tional pressure away from the land use development planning system in order to allow this public sector activity to realise greater ef?ciency in administration,and ef?cient economic development on the ground.

A particular perspective with respect to the ef?ciency and effectiveness of the land use planning system tends to be associated with those communities of interest promoting liberal market values,public choice,and pricing solutions (Pennington,2002;Corkindale,1998).Yet,concerns about the mediocrity and de?ciencies of the land use planning system extend well beyond this perspective and encompass a re-assessment of its legislative basis,management competence,and resourcing arrangements,including the training and skills base of its professional cadre(U’ren, 2003).This reality helps explain the inability of the planning system to transform its practice and culture in order to deliver the intentions of the plan-led approach. The scope of the contemporary reform agenda,then,is clearly very ambitious.This paper con?nes its discussion to exploring the potential around a speci?c idea,that of model land use planning policies.Whilst representing a relatively minor proposal within a broader context,it serves to illustrate the realities of devising and executing appropriate land use policy at the front-line,and in the context of a particular set of state-market relations. Making and shaping model land use policies

The starting point for the interest in model planning policies is important.Discussions around land use planning reform initiated by the Scottish Executive have served to de?ne the agenda for modernisation.This suggested that basic and commonplace land use policies were being separately crafted by individual local planning authorities. It was held that such duplication in effort led to administrative inef?ciencies,and,further,resulted in minor differences in policy wording in individual development plans.This contributed to the delays in development plan preparation and hampered the consistent interpretation of policy across Scotland(Scottish Executive,2001a).This awareness led to a proposal to scope the potential for drafting‘a set of model policies on which councils can draw where there is a strong policy steer from the[Scottish] Executive,or which deal with issues common across most or all Scottish authorities’(Lloyd and Peel,2004).Model planning policies are thus associated at one level with a more consistent articulation of national planning priorities and guidance.At another level,model planning policies would seek to facilitate the sharing of common-place routine policies that have wider applicability.This initia-tive,then,clearly sought to address the ef?ciency and effectiveness agenda,and to foster the sharing of best practice.

The relevant strategic policy guidance(Scottish Execu-tive,2002)asserts that to be effective development plan policies have to be up to date and provide clear guidance to developers and the wider public.In essence,this means that land use policies must be clearly justi?ed and explain their intention simply and unambiguously.Further,develop-ment plan policies must be able to be easily monitored and reviewed(Scottish Executive,2002).The recent arguments for planning reform in Scotland turn speci?cally on the enhancement of public sector performance.This re?ects wider concerns with the modernisation of public services, and priorities regarding the speci?c recon?guration of the public and private sectors.As Sullivan and Skelcher(2002), for example,argue,the contemporary Third Way political economy paradigm has sought to address the recon?gura-tion of state-market relations by reworking the regulatory framework for public service delivery and revising the associated rights and responsibilities for making public services work in practice.This explains the emphasis both on enhancing public sector performance,and also the implicit culture changes required.

Following Sullivan and Skelcher’s(2002)characterisa-tion of the processes informing evolving public sector practice,the‘overcrowded’nature of land use planning policy activity during the social democratic era was followed by a process of rationalisation which re?ected neo-liberal market in?uences.The current Third Way

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164 156

emphasis on reform and modernisation may be understood as an attempt to address the subsequent fragmentation and congestion in the public policy realm.This rationalisation process,then,is taking a number of forms.Here,the developments in ICT are perceived to offer a potential to secure improvements in government at large and in e-planning practice(Scottish Executive,2004b,2005).This reform agenda also helps to explain the emphasis on research studies of an internationally comparative nature (for instance,Jenkins et al.,2002).In parallel,there is a revival in asserting greater rationalism in public policy making.This interest is not con?ned to Scotland,and serves to highlight global debates around what constitutes a critically re?ective and robust public policy discipline (Everett,2003;Bridgman and Davis,2003;Ministry for the Environment,2003;Of?ce of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2002).This illustrates the broader context in which the current attempts to modernise the land use planning system must be understood.

It is,therefore,important to be clear about the speci?c remit of land use planning policy.The making and shaping of land use policies that are concerned with the allocation, designation,use,development,and regulation of land clearly represent a number of challenges.Signi?cantly,the complexity of this particular policy environment is complicated by the requirement for the spatial and strategic integration of land use policies,and adopting a future-oriented focus(Allmendinger et al.,2005).More-over,increasing prioritisation is being given to delivery.As a consequence,there is a particular concern with monitor-ing and auditing,and securing a robust policy discipline (Ministry for the Environment,2003;Of?ce of the Deputy Prime Minister,2002).This asserts a particular perfor-mance and measurement agenda associated with procedur-al issues.

Re-drawing public policy making

There is also an expanding number of policy interests actively involved in promoting particular land use policy agendas.In part,this more congested policy landscape may be traced to the fragmentation of the state apparatus in policy design and delivery.In terms of the post war land use planning system in the UK,there has been a political consensus which has acknowledged the legitimacy of public sector controls over the private development of land and property(Healey,1988).A critical question,however,has been the extent to which the state and the land use planning system are immune from the in?uence of the key development interests involved.In this context,it has been argued that the scope and content of the planning system is an evolving one,and is a direct‘product of the political and administrative processes surrounding the law and practice of the system’(Healey et al.,1988,p.2).It is not surprising, then,that the land use planning system has come increasingly under pressure from evolving and expanding constituencies of interest.For the purposes of this paper,we can identify three broad groupings to illustrate the point.

First,evidence suggests the extent to which land use planning is increasingly exposed to the in?uence of protectionist property-based interests.The‘Not in My Back Yard’(NIMBY)syndrome is an example of this tendency(Dear,1992;Gleeson and Memon,1994).Second, attention has been drawn to the in?uence of environmental interests seeking to in?uence policy and decision-making outcomes(Pennington,2002).Here,speci?c concern has been expressed about the‘‘shouting loudest’’syndrome in determining and in?uencing land use planning decisions (MacKay,2004;Corkindale,1998).Third,developmental interests are also asserted over the land use planning system,particularly with respect to the formulation of land use policies,and the articulation of its priorities.This in?uence is asserted by umbrella groups(for instance,the Confederation of British Industry),and speci?c develop-ment sectors,such as those associated with the roll-out of mobile telephony infrastructure(Lloyd and Peel,2005). These examples highlight the shifting power relations and strategies that exist and which can be used by the various policy actors within speci?c political contexts in order to gain in?uence over planning outcomes.Such perspectives clearly raise a number of issues,such as‘agency capture’of public policy(Raymond,2002).Critically,then,the contemporary land use development planning system is exposed to different developmental and environmental (protectionist)interests.

The movers and shapers of land use policy

It is clear,then,that the changing public policy landscape and the plurality of policy actors involved is critical for understanding the contemporary transforma-tions of the land use development planning system.In presenting an alternative portrayal of policy-making, Weible and Sabatier(2005)elaborate the concept of policy subsystems.These are‘de?ned by a geographic scope,a substantive issue,and a population of hundreds of active stakeholders from all levels of government,multiple interest groups,the media and research institutions y[and]y compete over whose policy objectives are translated into government policy’(p.181).Such a conceptualisation highlights the complexity of achieving common policy objectives and,further,helps to frame a critical understanding of the debates around the elabora-tion and implementation of land use policies in a competitive and contested context.This,then,provides an appropriate theoretical framework for considering the potential of model development plan policies.

In this context,Colebatch(1997)has asserted that policy legitimacy may depend on particular authority and expertise.With respect to land use planning,for example, expertise may be applicable to de?ned functional land use policy areas,such as those with a responsibility for transport or conservation policy.Indeed,evidence suggests

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164157

that particular experts in complex policy areas have tended to emerge and,as a consequence,policy making has become associated with specialist problem-solving skills, with the result that authority and expertise have tended to become the bases for those who are then perceived legitimately as being able to participate in the public policy-making process(Kane and Del Mistro,2003).Such arguments have been further contested,however,by a re-evaluation of‘lay’knowledge and enhanced public participation in land use planning processes at large (Sandercock,1998).Nonetheless,there remains a tendency to consider the in?uences on land use policy in terms of the speci?c‘insiders’and‘outsiders’involved at the various stages of policy activity,and to distinguish between the vertical and horizontal transmission of policies,with their associated arguments about the relative weighting of authority(Colebatch,2002).Given the complexity of interests,and the cumulative interplay of competing policies in the land use planning context,different interests will seek to assert the weight of a speci?c argument.The authority,legitimacy,and robustness of policies in such circumstances are thus critical.

Such attempts to understand the changing policy environment stem,in part,from the recon?guration of the shift in context from government to governance agendas(Dawkins and Colebatch,2005).This has led to a position where non-governmental organisations,arms-length public sector agencies,private sector consultancies, developmental coalitions,communities,and think-tanks, are increasingly able and encouraged to become involved in land use planning policy formulation.This re?ects a critical interest in new policy networks and advocacy coalitions (Stone,2000)as ways to assert particular policy outcomes. This intricate web of policy actors,motivations,and opportunities,sets the context for the contemporary social reconstruction of land use planning policy practice in the UK.In the next section,we present contrasting interpreta-tions and perceptions of the concept of model land use planning policies in Scotland in order to illustrate how the various communities of interest respond,engage,defend, assert,and negotiate their particular land use policy agenda in light of this speci?c proposed policy innovation. Model planning policies in practice

The idea of introducing model land use policies in local development plans in Scotland stemmed from a concern with inconsistencies in policy wording,inef?ciencies in the planning system arising from individual local planning authorities each drafting similar land use policies,and the lack of a suitable mechanism for sharing experience.An implicit concern of the idea was thus to provide support to individual local planning authorities and planning of?cers in drafting appropriate and effective land use policies. Frustration by users of the land use planning system had arisen because of minor differences in wording between policies on the same subject on adjoining local plan areas,even within the same local authority jurisdiction,and even where there was no perceived material difference in the circumstances justifying those policies(Scottish Executive, 2001a).An important motive for introducing model planning policies had also come about due to what was perceived as excessive involvement by planning lawyers in the interpretation of policy.A particularly strong case was made for a model text to translate strategic policy or international legislation or European Directives into local land use policies in a consistent and robust way.Clearly, however,the idea of model planning policies was made on the assumption that an isotropic policy landscape prevailed across Scotland,with similar conditions across different localities.In reality,of course,the importance of commu-nity views and the in?uence of local interests mediate policy formulation and practice.

It was therefore mooted that for land use policy topics covered by national legislation,such as the protection of listed buildings,or in cases where there was an interna-tional designation,such as covered by the Ramsar Convention,policy wording should not differ between local authorities.This raises wider questions for how such international policies are articulated in different nation states and different land economy contexts.In terms of formulating such model wording,it was suggested that the Scottish Executive,in partnership with local planning authorities,jointly draft model policies which might then be made generally applicable and available across Scot-land.This mirrored the earlier experience of drawing up model planning conditions for the purposes of develop-ment control(Scottish Executive,1998).There is also parallel work being undertaken with respect to the drafting of spatial planning policies(Planning Of?cers’Society, 2004)and in the context of environmental policy(David Tyldesley and Associates,2003).Nonetheless,at the same time,it was asserted that model planning policies were not intended to be prescriptive.Nor should they be adopted on an indiscriminate basis by local planning authorities in an insensitive,in?exible,and uncritical way.

The intention of providing a bank of model planning policies that were held to have worked on the ground (through experience,such as being tested at public inquiry, for example),was therefore presented as a way of disseminating good practice.Opportunity would be avail-able to vary policies to re?ect and suit their particular local circumstances.Of necessity,this would be the case,for example,with respect to those land use policies addressing development in the countryside,the appropriate density of development,and any local design concerns.Given the inherent?exibility of the proposal,a critical question,then, must turn on the extent to which model planning policies differ from the established modus operandi which seeks to translate national policy to locally sensitive circumstances. Since devolution,the Scottish Executive has deployed a number of strategies for gauging and building support for its programme for modernisation.The proposal for model planning policies was included in a consultation paper that

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164 158

covered a wide range of land use planning arrangements (Scottish Executive,2001a).Signi?cantly,then,views were sought on a range of issues associated with strategic planning practice in Scotland.Within this broad context, the idea of model planning policies was mooted.The individual consultation responses were subsequently col-lected into digest form,and then analysed in order to determine the receptivity to the proposal and to identify common themes.This process was undertaken by a private sector consultancy(Geoff Peart Consulting,2002a,b). There were113responses to the speci?c question‘Should model development plan policies be drawn up?’.These were classi?ed in the analysis as attributable to?ve broad stakeholder groups(Geoff Peart Consulting,2002a).These were local planning authorities(30%of responses),public bodies(11%),businesses(15%),professional and academic bodies(20%),and the public and voluntary sector(24%).

A second question invited proposed topics for expression as model policies.The report setting out the analysis of the detailed responses noted that only30%of the consultees nominated policy topics,and these were classi?ed into a list of30topics(Geoff Peart Consulting,2002a).The accompanying Digest of Responses(Geoff Peart Consult-ing,2002b)classi?ed the raw data into nine stakeholder groups.This more complete secondary data set provides a rich insight into the views of the potential for model planning policies,and informs the following discussion. The analysis of the evidence suggested‘widespread agreement that model policies could potentially confer a range of bene?ts’which include‘greater policy consistency across the country,reduced duplication between national and strategic policies set out in plans,time savings in plan preparation and approval as well as in public inquiries, where there is often much debate about the detailed wording of policies’(Geoff Peart Consulting,2002a,p.22). The support for the idea of model policies appeared to extend across all groups.Indeed,the evidence suggested that support for the use of model policies in development plans was strongest amongst businesses(88%)and the public/voluntary sector(78%).It was relatively weakest amongst professional and academic respondents,although this group,nonetheless,was also interpreted as favouring the proposal(65%).Yet,the enthusiasm for model planning policies was nuanced and tempered with‘heavily quali?ed acceptance’(Geoff Peart Consulting,2002a,p.

22).These views are recorded in the Digest of Responses (Geoff Peart Consulting,2002b)and analysed below. Support for model planning policies?

Following Weible and Sabatier(2005),we now present a relatively more?ne-grained analysis of the policy sub-systems represented in the consultation responses.This allows us to identify the range of constructions of model planning policies,and the breadth of the different aspirations for improving the performance of the land use planning system.This qualitative interpretation de-monstrates the tensions inherent in the idea of a model policy to which different constituencies of interest sub-scribe,based on their view of a model outcome.

It is evident from the majority of the local planning authorities’responses that this group asserted cautious support for the idea of model planning policies.A particular concern turned on how such an idea would be put into effect and by whom,and how such policies would be monitored and reviewed,and be kept responsive to change.In the rolling programme of development plan reviews local planning authorities are effectively at different stages,and there was a concern that model planning policies would not come into effect in a consistent way.The local planning authority group nonetheless identi?ed a range of perceived bene?ts.These included greater clari?cation,consistency,and certainty of policy content.Further,the potential of model planning policies to streamline the system would reduce the length of time spent on development plan preparation and thereby enable a more ef?cient use of scarce staff resources,which could also be diverted to other planning activities.Model planning policies were also acknowledged as having the potential of reducing legal argument.Finally,through the use of pan-Scotland policies,the measure would also afford assistance to national developers and organisations work-ing with a range of development plans.Nevertheless,the local planning authorities articulated a number of concerns with respect to ensuring model planning policies respected a sensitivity of local circumstances,and the need for local planning authorities to retain the power to depart from speci?c model policies.Critically,then,the interpretation and implementation of any model land use policy would still of necessity fall to those with a responsibility for decision-making at the local level.

Non-departmental Public Bodies which comprise arms-length national agencies such as Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Natural Heritage,and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency similarly welcomed the idea of model land use policies.The arguments made asserted that model planning policies had the potential to provide a consistent and proactive approach to planning,to speed up the process of plan preparation,and to reduce duplication of effort.Model planning policies were seen as offering the potential to improve the transparency of policy.Signi?-cantly,this group demonstrated a particular interpretation of model policies,based on the sharing of best practice, thus,questions were raised as to how model planning policies might be disseminated across the constituencies of interest.Nevertheless,it was also asserted that there was a need for such policies to be kept open to modi?cation. Signi?cantly,this group also argued that there was broader policy experience and expertise that should be used in the drafting of speci?c model planning policies(David Tyldesley and Associates,2003).The Other Public Bodies grouping(Central Scotland Countryside Trust and Strath-clyde Passenger Transport)was generally more sceptical of the potential bene?ts of model policies.

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164159

The development industry,mineral operators,and other businesses were generally in favour of model policies, whilst stressing the need for them to be deployed?exibly. Academic commentators highlighted the potential for model policies to be used in the context of contentious cross-cutting issues in the national interest,whilst raising concerns with respect to the transparency of such arrange-ments.The majority of the voluntary organisations and private individuals who responded expressed support for model policies,with some contrasting views that pointed to their impact in practice.This can be explained by their relatively peripheral position in the policy-making process. Those respondents classi?ed as Professional Organisa-tions expressed unquali?ed support to the proposal of model policies,although arguing that model policies might not necessarily be the solution to the problems being identi?ed.Here,there were particular concerns expressed around the‘ownership’of policies and their interpretation in practice.The respondents making up the Planning Consultants and Lawyers grouping drew distinctions between model policies that were crafted as guidance and those that might serve as more prescriptive models for particular issues,such as those concerned with national priorities and the environment.Importantly,then,there was less support for the extension of a blanket application of‘model policies’for all types of land use planning policy. Finally,the Community Councils who responded provided a spread of views that highlighted a concern with the wider role of land use planning within a changing context,and which demanded that the introduction of model planning policies had to be placed in the context of the reform process with respect to other forms of land use policy instrument.Helensburgh Community Council,for example,asserted:‘Model top-down local Development Plans would not address problems of implementation and could encourage Councils to substitute them for full local surveys and consultation with the public’(Response cited in Geoff Peart Consulting,2002b,p.40).This clearly illustrates the tension between ef?ciency and inclusivity in land use policy making.

Suitable model policy topics?

The second question posed in the consultation paper (Scottish Executive,2001)asked what subjects model development plan policies should cover.Here,the Digest of Responses(Geoff Peart Consulting,2002b)is important because the responses highlight a concern with a‘one-size-?ts-all’approach to land use planning policy making. Thus,for example,Scottish Borders Council observed that:‘Model policies lend themselves to particular strategic issues relevant throughout Scotland(Natura2000sites, archaeology,?ooding and minerals are four obvious examples)but may not be appropriate for all topics’(Response cited in Geoff Peart Consulting,2002b,p.41). The Council for the Western Isles(Comhairle Nan Eilean Sair)asserted that model planning policies‘should cover all subjects which are required by national or international legislation or directive as well as those in the current NPPG.Examples include policies on Natura2000sites, listed buildings,and scheduled monuments’(Response cited in Geoff Peart Consulting,2002b,p.41).From the perspective of business,however,Marks and Spencer commented that‘it will be dif?cult to draft very general and topic-based model policies that do not simply reiterate NPPG advice on major themes of land use planning. Therefore,model policies are only likely to be worthwhile for key but smaller scale development control issues’(Response cited in Geoff Peart Consulting,2002b,p.42). This clearly raises questions around the securing of ef?ciency gains in the planning process.It suggests that model planning policies are likely to be relevant at a lower layer of local policy making.

Moreover,a response by a housebuilder also highlights the case for retaining?exibility and discretion in the development planning system:‘Model development plan policies would be a useful tool in the preparation of new plans,providing that all users accept they have to be viewed?exibly and amended to?t local circumstances’(Lattice Property Holdings Ltd,response cited in Geoff Peart Consulting,2002b,p.38).Notwithstanding calls for consistency,then,it is clear from a breadth of constitu-encies of interest that providing a bank of model policies does not obviate the need for critically and carefully assessing the appropriateness of the wording to the speci?c circumstances.

Table1documents the land use policy proposals identi?ed by the nine broad stakeholder groupings.This shows that the greater number of suitable land use topics to be formulated as a model policy were put forward by the local planning authorities.This was the largest group of respondents(33%),but proportionately also contributed to the largest number of topics(38%).This is to be expected given the statutory responsibilities of local planning authorities to prepare development plans which encapsulate developmental and environmental prio-rities.Following Colebatch(1997)and Kane and Del Mistro(2003),this authority confers a particular legitimacy in the process.Yet,there is also an interest in identifying model planning policies for dif?cult and sensitive proce-dural issues,such as those associated with planning gain. This hints at the dif?culty of implementing policy in practice.

The second largest group was that of the non-depart-mental bodies(13%)which are principally associated with speci?c environmental and protectionist responsibilities. This group proposed18%of the topics.Here,particular specialist expertise and problem-solving skills are brought to the fore.Moreover,such groups also have statutory responsibilities with respect to securing particular policy objectives.A more?ne-grained analysis of the nominated policies suggests that the professional organisations, together with business,mineral operators,property devel-opers,and special interest groups put forward very speci?c

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164 160

topics for consideration in model form,largely dependent upon their role and expertise.

The evidence suggests that in aggregate terms the environmental agenda represents the relatively greater in?uence on the statutory planning system when measured in terms of the proposed land use model policies.Indeed, the nomination of topics by the environmental grouping exceeds those of the developmental interests by some50%. Details of the individual model planning policies nomi-nated by each of the individual constituencies are given in Table2.This shows the complex range of issues deemed appropriate for model planning policy expression, although an important observation is the relatively thin spread of nominated topics.Indeed,half of the60topics cited were nominated only once.This raises interesting questions about the arena of in?uence associated with different interest groups in land use planning and the weight of support in practice.It also strikes at the heart of the state-market relations associated with land use plan-ning and development.Thus,the existence of a legislative basis for state regulation and control was used to make the case for the clearer articulation of public policy,with reference to the public interest.Yet,underlying many of the responses was simply a desire for policies to be simply and concisely expressed,and consistently applied,or to resource mechanisms for sharing experiences of policies that work.This focuses attention on how to make the collation and maintenance of a bank of model planning policies work in practice,and highlights the necessary issues of skills and knowledge.

Importantly,the different communities of interest marshalled different arguments in making a particular case for a model policy.From an environmental perspec-tive,for example,this tended to derive from the particular weight and authority of European legislation.From a developmental perspective,however,the articulation of a strategic national policy objective for economic develop-ment,for example,could be deployed to make a case for a local land use development plan model policy.There were questions,however,as to the need to repeat national policy objectives in local planning documents.Here,the under-pinning motivations and policy objectives of those with an interest in the land resource suggest at some potential tensions.The inter-relations and competition between land use planning priorities cannot be resolved through the formulation of model planning policies alone.Moreover, differential authorship and assertions of policy legitimacy could potentially polarise developmental and environmen-tal policy priorities.Locally authored and owned develop-ment plans appear then to offer an important vehicle for promoting the land use planning policy decision making context.

Conclusions

This paper has addressed the nature of emerging land use planning practice in Scotland,and the speci?c proposal to introduce model planning policies in local land use development plans in order to modernise the planning system and ensure it is‘?t for purpose’(Scottish Executive, 2005).Model planning policies were advocated as a way of enabling ef?ciency gains in policy formulation,securing greater consistency in policy articulation across Scotland, and providing a mechanism for the sharing of best practice. The evidence of how this idea was received by the planning community at large demonstrates,however,that policy consistency may be considered to be important in different ways.This is particularly the case with respect to how policy is interpreted and implemented in practice.Thus,the debates reveal the need to retain sensitivity and?exibility both in the interpretation and application of model policies.This emphasises the importance of policy owner-ship and policy subsidiarity.A critical point here is the need for policy makers to be alert to the appropriateness of a particular land use planning policy,whether this is in a model form or not.This,then,raises important questions about the skills and capacities of those engaged in policy formulation and interpretation.There is a risk that the existence of model texts might result in their ritualistic use and application by policy makers.Moreover,the existence of a model planning policy might serve to block policy creativity and innovative thinking.Ultimately,however,

Table1

Model land use policy proposals by community of interest

Constituency of interest Developmental Environmental Planning process Total

Local planning authorities1023538

Non-departmental public bodies414220 Developers2114

Mineral operators639

Business549 Professional organisations56112

Planning consultants and lawyers527 Community councils358

Voluntary organisations57113

456510120

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164161

Table2

Developmental,environmental or procedural model land use policy topics

Constituency of interest Developmental Environmental Planning process

Local planning authorities Housing land Green belts Sequential tests

Transport Natural and cultural heritage designations Hazard consultation zones/Health

and safety Telecommunications Nature conservation

Employment and enterprise Listed buildings Infrastructure provision

Retail Environmental protection Mitigating transport impacts Affordable housing Flood risk Play standards

Disabled access Renewable energy

Sport,recreation and tourism Sustainable Urban

Tariffs Drainage Systems

Town centres and retailing Energy ef?ciency

Natura2000sites

Sustainable development

Urban design

Airport public safety zones

Coastline protection

Designed landscapes

Light pollution

Minerals

Non-scheduled archaeological remains

Open space

Protection of open space

Protection of residential amenity

Scheduled monuments

Non-departmental public bodies Affordable housing Green belts Master planning(of major

development proposals)Planning

gain

Windfall development Natural and cultural heritage designations

Pipelines Listed buildings

Siting of new hazardous

installation

Conservation areas

Flood risk

Historic buildings

Renewable energy Sustainable Urban

Drainage Systems

Landscape character

Natura2000sites

Sustainable development

Wild land

Biodiversity

Developers Affordable housing Green belts Planning gain Development

guidelines

Housing in the countryside

Mineral operators Housing land Nature conservation

Transport Energy ef?ciency

Construction materials Landscape character

Waste(disposal)

Business Housing land Environmental protection

Transport Landscape character

Retail Archaeology

Housing in the countryside Settlements

Industry

Rural diversi?cation

Professional organisations Housing land Green belts Sequential tests Transport Natural and cultural heritage designations

Telecommunications Listed buildings

Employment and enterprise Conservation areas

Retail Historic buildings

Urban design

Planning consultants and lawyers Housing land Nature conservation

Transport Archaeology

Retail

Industry

Specialist housing

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164

162

the relevance and application of policies in particular contexts and circumstances have to be balanced in the light of other material considerations.Here,professional and administrative discretion remain critical.

There are therefore fundamental concerns about whether model planning policies would necessarily secure adminis-trative ef?ciency in terms of associated workload and resource implications.Model planning policies would not obviate the need for appropriate public consultation exercises.Critically,the expansion of those deemed to be appropriate formulators of public policy raises important questions around legitimacy,accountability,and trust. Further,justi?cation for departing from a model policy would also be required in order to ensure transparency in the decision-making process.This would have its own resource implications and impacts on ef?ciency arrange-ments.

The introduction of model planning policies might serve to reduce a sense of local ownership in policy formulation, thereby resulting in a lack of commitment to the policies themselves.In extending policy authorship to other interests in order to draw on wider expertise,voluntary organisations might have a greater role to play in drafting land use policies.The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,for example,which has a remit which is broader than Scotland,might therefore have a positive role in promoting effective land use planning policy practice.In drawing on wider experience,it may enable the identi?cation of innovation and policy success from elsewhere.Such an approach to the elaboration of public policy,however, raises a number of questions about governance,transpar-ency,and policy expertise in an international context.It clearly demands particular policy making skills in order to assess policy transferability.It also requires that the policy skills of those with the ultimate authority for providing the land use policy framework in particular administrative jurisdictions match the potential diversity of the policy authors.In practice,certain policies may represent relatively narrow land use policy areas which are very speci?c in terms of locus,community of interest,and locality.In such circumstances,extending the drawing up of planning policy to include a plurality of stakeholders would require appropriate arrangements in order to minimise any possible policy bias,policy distortion,or policy capture.The wider airing and interrogation of policy is critical if public con?dence in the land use planning system is to be maintained.

This paper has demonstrated that what appears to be a simple concept is very much more complex and layered in practice.Model planning policies cannot be isolated from the broader discipline of problem identi?cation,policy authorship,policy implementation,and monitoring and evaluation processes.To be effective,policies must deal with a speci?c purpose to address particular land use policy concerns.The potential range of model planning policies exposes the vulnerability of the concept to capture by singularly oriented policy subsystems.It also raises a new set of questions around the appropriate skills,knowledge, and authority required for contemporary land use policy makers.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the critical feedback from the anonymous reviewers which informed the reworking of this paper.

References

Allmendinger,P.,Morphet,J.,Tewdwr-Jones,M.,2005.Devolution and the modernisation of local government:prospects for spatial planning.

European Planning Studies13(3),349–370.

Bishop,J.,2002.Working Paper2Public participation in development plan preparation.Position Paper prepared for the Of?ce of the Deputy Prime Minister,London.

Booth,P.,2002.A desperately slow system?The origins and nature of the current discourse on development control.Planning Perspectives17, 309–323.

Bridgman,P.,Davis,G.,2003.What use is a policy cycle?Plenty, if the aim is clear.Australian Journal of Public Administration 62(3),98.

Table2(continued)

Constituency of interest Developmental Environmental Planning process

Community councils Housing land Conservation areas

Employment and enterprise Environmental protection

Community facilities Energy ef?ciency

Brown?eld land development

Undeveloped coast

Voluntary organisations Housing land Green belts Infrastructure provision

Transport Natural and cultural heritage designations

Telecommunications Nature conservation

Employment and enterprise Renewable energy

Leisure and recreation Protection of designed landscapes

Protection of historic gardens

Public open space

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164163

Campbell,H.,2003.Reforming planning systems.Planning Theory and Practice4(3),347–348.

Colebatch,H.K.,1997.Policy.Open University Press,Buckingham. Colebatch,H.K.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/624579696.html,ernment and governmentality:using multiple approaches to the analysis of government.Australian Journal of Political Science37(4),417–435.

Commission of the European Communities,1997.Regional Development Studies:The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies.

Of?ce of Of?cial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Corkindale,J.,1998.Reforming land use planning.Institute of Economic Affairs,London.

Cullingworth,J.B.,Nadin,V.,1994.Town&Country Planning in Britain.

Routledge,London.

David Tyldesley and Associates,2003.Model Policies for the Natural Heritage.Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F02 AA501.

Dawkins,J.,Colebatch,H.K.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/624579696.html,erning through institutionalised networks:the governance of Sydney https://www.wendangku.net/doc/624579696.html,nd Use Policy,1–11. Dear,M.,1992.Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome.

American Planning Association Journal Summer,288–300.

Dixon,J.,2003.Planning in New Zealand:legacy of ambivalence and prospects for repositioning.Planning Theory and Practice4(3), 348–353.

Everett,S.,2003.The policy cycle:democratic process or rational paradigm revisited?Australian Journal of Public Administration62

(20),65–70.

Gatenby,I.,Williams,C.,1996.Interpreting planning law.In:Tewdwr-Jones,M.(Ed.),British Planning Policy in Transition.UCL Press, London,pp.137–154.

Geoff Peart Consulting,2002a.Review of Strategic Planning Consultation Paper:Analysis of Responses.Scottish Executive Central Research Unit,Edinburgh.

Geoff Peart Consulting,2002b.Review of Strategic Planning:Digest of responses to consultation.Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Edinburgh.

Gleeson,B.J.,Memon,P.A.,1994.The NIMBY syndrome and commu-nity care facilities:a research agenda for planning.Planning Practice and Research9(2),105–118.

Hague,C.,Higgins,M.,2004.International experience of mediation in development planning.Scottish Planning and Environmental Law101, 6–7.

Healey,P.,1988.The British town planning system and managing the urban environment.Town Planning Review59(4),397–417. Healey,P.,McNamara,P.,Elson,M.,Doak,A.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/624579696.html,nd use planning and the mediation of urban change.The British Planning System in Practice.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Jenkins,P.,Kirk,K.,Smith,H.,2002.Getting Involved in Planning: Perceptions of the Wider Public.Central Research Unit Findings115/ 2002,Edinburgh.

Kane,L.,Del Mistro,R.,2003.Changes in transport planning policy: changes in transport planning methodology?Transportation30(2), 113–131.

Lee,S.,1999.New labour,new centralism:the centralisation of policy and the devolution of administration in England and its regions.Public Policy and Administration15(2),96–109.

Lloyd,M.G.,Peel,D.,2004.Model Policies in Land Use Planning in Scotland:A Scoping Study.Scottish Executive Social Research, Edinburgh.Lloyd,M.G.,Peel,D.,2005.Planning controls over telecommunications development in Scotland.Planning Practice and Research19(3), 345–346.

Lowndes,V.,Pratchett,L.,Stoker,G.,2001.Trends in public participa-tion:part1—local government perspectives.Public Administration79

(1),205–222.

MacKay,D.,2004.The Planning Famine:Reforming Land Use Planning in Scotland.The Policy Institute,Series:Economy No.8,November, Edinburgh.

Ministry for the Environment,2003.Drafting Issues,Objectives,Policies and Methods in Regional Policy Statements and District Plans.Report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment by Gerard Willis, Enfocus Limited.

Of?ce of the Deputy Prime Minister,2002.Making plans—Good Practice in Plan Preparation and Management of the Development Plan Process.HMSO,London.

Pennington,M.,2002.Liberating the Land.The Case for Private Land Use Planning,May.Institute of Economic Affairs,London. Planning Advisory Group,1965.The Future of Development Plans.

HMSO,London.

Planning Of?cers’Society,2004.Policies for Spatial Plans:Consultation Draft.Planning Of?cers’Society,London.

Poxon,J.,2000.Solving the development plan puzzle in Britain:learning lessons from history.Planning Perspectives15,73–89.

Raymond,L.,2002.Localism in environmental policy:new insights from an old case.Policy Sciences35(2),179–201.

Rydin,Y.,2003.Urban and Environmental Planning in the UK.Palgrave Macmillan,Hampshire.

Sandercock,L.,1998.Towards Cosmopolis.Wiley,Chichester. Scottish Executive,1998.Model Planning Conditions.Circular4/1998.

Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive,2001a.Review of Strategic Planning.Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive,2001b.Getting Involved in Planning Consultation Paper.Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive,2002.Scottish Planning Policy—SPP1:The Planning System.Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive,2003.Your Place,Your Plan,A White Paper on Public Involvement in Planning.Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive,2004a.Making Development Plans Deliver:Consulta-tion Paper.Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive,2004b.The e-PAN—Planning Advice Note on Electronic Planning Service Delivery.Scottish Executive,Edinburgh. Scottish Executive,2005.Modernising the Planning System White Paper.

Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

Stoker,G.,2004.Transforming Local Governance:From Thatcherism to New Labour.Palgrave Macmillan,Basingstoke.

Stone, D.,2000.Non-governmental policy transfer:the strategies of independent policy https://www.wendangku.net/doc/624579696.html,ernance13(1),45–62.

Sullivan,H.,Skelcher,C.,2002.Working Across Boundaries:Collabora-tion in Public Services.Palgrave Macmillan,London.

Tewdwr-Jones,M.,1994.The development plan in policy implementation.

Environment and Planning C Government and Policy12(2),145–163. U’ren,G.,2003.Planning for Scotland’s Future:The Need for Legislation.

Paper presented by the Director of the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland to a conference in Edinburgh,March4.

Weible,C.M.,Sabatier,P.A.,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/624579696.html,paring policy networks:marine protected areas in California.The Policy Studies Journal33(2), 181–201.

M.G.Lloyd,D.Peel/Land Use Policy24(2007)154–164 164