Suchergebnisse

Michael Pacione's article published in this journal in 2014 correctly notes that the Planning (Scotland) etc. Act 2006 ('the 2006 Act') has, contrary to the Scottish Government's claimed intentions, enormously restricted the opportunities for communities to engage in the planning system, resulting in widespread disillusion and resentment. However, Pacione makes a number of notable factual errors and, to use a good Scots term, seems to get himself into a bit of a 'guddle' (a messy confusion) in failing to identify the fundamental distinction between the statutory procedures governing consultation on, and adoption of, local development plans and those governing the submission and determination of planning applications. The purpose of this commentary is to identify and correct the errors in the Pacione paper and, in so doing, shed some light on the operation of the Scottish land use planning system pre and post 2006. After that I revisit the examination of the East Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2 ('EDLP2') in 2011 (which provides the material for much of Pacione's case study on the Redmoss Farm site in Milton of Campsie near Glasgow) (East Dunbartonshire Council 2012). Finally, I bring the position up to date by examining the Reporters' examination into the subsequent 2015 East Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan ('EDLDP') (East Dunbartonshire Council 2015). In passing, I should add that I am not particularly familiar with the East Dunbartonshire area and I have never visited Redmoss Farm. My research into the scrutiny of the two local development plans ('LDPs') is based on published documents available through the internet.

The creation of new settlements as a response to the accommodation of household growth was regarded by the Scottish Government from the 1980s to around 2008 as an option of the last resort. This position changed due to significant legislative and policy changes to the Scottish planning system which diluted restrictions on greenfield housing development and removed the right for public hearings into development plan objections in the belief that these procedures hindered economic growth. This paper outlines the evolution of planning policy for new settlements from the 1990s to the present and examines its impact upon proposals for such projects in north-east Scotland. It contends that the removal of the right to hearings into major development proposals is symptomatic of the post-politics condition which seeks to promote neoliberal values by squeezing out dissenting voices. Finally it considers the implications of the current North Sea oil crisis for the development of three new settlements in the area.

In 2006 Donald Trump submitted a planning application to transform an area of protected dunes and open countryside along the coast of north east Scotland into a major golf and leisure resort. He claimed the golf course would be the greatest in the world and would transform the region's oil economy. Citing the economic benefits the Scottish Government approved the project in 2008. Trump has constructed the golf course but has failed to deliver the hotel and other elements of the project. Against the backdrop of planning deregulation, the paper examines why the officials failed to include appropriate planning conditions to ensure delivery of the project and prevent a great incomplete planning disaster. Recognising the limitations of current public law enforcement mechanisms it invokes concepts borrowed from contract law. Holding that Trump is in breach of contract and has benefitted from unjust enrichment, it examines the scope for applying damages, restitution and specific performance as alternative remedies.

The creation of new settlements as a response to the accommodation of household growth was regarded by the Scottish Government from the 1980s to around 2008 as an option of the last resort. This position changed due to significant legislative and policy changes to the Scottish planning system which diluted restrictions on greenfield housing development and removed the right for public hearings into development plan objections in the belief that these procedures hindered economic growth. This paper outlines the evolution of planning policy for new settlements from the 1990s to the present and examines its impact upon proposals for such projects in north-east Scotland. It contends that the removal of the right to hearings into major development proposals is symptomatic of both the post-politics condition which seeks to promote neoliberal values by squeezing out dissenting voices and green light administrative law theory which vests important decisions over citizens' rights in the hands of unaccountable state bureaucrats. Finally it considers the implications of the current North Sea oil crisis for the development of three new settlements in the area.

The current government has stated that at least 60 per cent of the projected 4.4 million new houses required between 1991 and 2016 should be built on 'brownfield' sites. Many of these sites will be 'windfall' sites—i.e. sites which unexpectedly become available for redevelopment during the plan period. Current government planning policy guidance in both England and Scotland places a significant restriction on the allowances that might be made by local authorities for windfall sites when preparing their strategic land-use development plans and their housing land audits. The effect of this policy restriction is to pressurise local authorities into releasing larger areas of open countryside for housing development than is mathematically necessary. This paper provides a detailed analysis of the allowances for windfall sites made over a 12-year period by the former Grampian Regional Council for the Aberdeen area of north-east Scotland and contrasts this against actual levels of windfall development. It concludes that far more open countryside has been allocated for development than has actually been required and recommends the adoption of a more incrementalist and cautious approach to land release.

The current government has significantly reduced the scale of the road-building programme. Instead of new roads, where practical it wishes to see alternative, more sustainable, transport strategies pursued in attempts to reduce problems of traffic congestion. These strategies are to be evaluated within a new form of transport-assessment framework known as a multimodal study (MMS). A pioneering version of an MMS, the Sustainable Transport Study for Aberdeen (STSA), was published in 1998. Significantly, it was prepared against the backcloth of a proposal for a major strategic new road, the Western Peripheral Route. The authors consider whether the STSA provides a rigorous and objective examination of the full range of practical transport strategies for the city of Aberdeen in northeast Scotland, and consider how far it conforms in its scope and methodology to that advised in (subsequently published) government guidance on MMSs.