The future of planning under a Scottish Parliament

Abstract

... [the consultation paper's] purpose is to open up debate, for the first time in a long time, about the relevance and shape of the key mechanisms of the planning system and whether they need to be adapted at the margin, or more fundamentally. (Calum MacDonald, Foreword to Land Use Planning under a Scottish Parliament, Scottish Office, 1999a)The future trajectory of land use planning in Scotland has been the subject of debate and raised expectations for a number of years (Goodstadt and U'ren, 1999; Tewdwr-Jones and Lloyd, 1997; Hayton, 1997; 1999). The overall view of the potential of devolution for planning is positive and there is broad agreement that the new Scottish Parliament will enable planning in Scotland to 'reflect the wishes of the Scottish, as opposed to British, electorate' (Hayton, 1997, 208). The publication of the consultation paper Land Use Planning under a Scottish Parliament (Scottish Office, 1999a) and the digest of responses received (Scottish Executive, 2000) raised expectations even further with the hint that devolution could involve a 'root and branch reform of the Scottish planning system' (Goodstadt and U'ren, 1999, 11) and the appointment of a planning academic as Environment Minister (now Transport Minister) did not diminish such thoughts. These views are consistent with those concerning devolution generally. Scotland Forward, an association of local business interests, argued for devolution because:It will bring Government closer to business. It will decentralise decisionmaking and encourage local initiative. The parliament will be in a position to adopt micro-economic policies to meet Scottish needs. (Hardie, 1998, 14)To what extent are these expectations driven by realism or by a complex mix of ingredients that constitute national identity? The question of national identity and the need to create a distinctive Scottish planning system that reflects the national psyche has been ignored in the rush to explore possibilities and alternatives to the status quo. Further, there is a serious lack of analysis concerning why Scotland needs a distinctively different planning system, particularly as both English and Scottish systems are converging around core principles agreed by supra-national concerns such as the European Union (EU) or derived from international treaty commitments such as Rio or the Global Agreement on Trades and Tariffs. At a practical level, this optimism and the expectations that accompany it face two serious obstacles. The first is the likely shape of planning under both the Labour Government in England and the Labour majority government in Scotland. The trajectory of change plotted by Labour points in a direction that overlaps only partly with the anticipation of change. Second, there are limits upon both action and sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament. Although policy areas including the environment, local government and planning have all been devolved, there are significant impediments to distinctive approaches regardless of the will of the Parliament.This is not to say that the Scottish Parliament will become a mere implementation arm of Westminster or that its existence will make little or no difference. There are areas that the Parliament could have an influence upon that create a distinctive approach to planning and environmental regulation. Ironically, it could be changes to the context of local government such as the proposed introduction of proportional representation in local elections and the introduction of the equivalent of a power of general competence that might have as significant an impact upon the practice of planning as changes to planning itself. Such more direct changes might include greater public involvement which is one area where the Parliament could make a major difference. But the limits and likely implications of change cannot be assessed in a vacuum. Expectations that the planning system can deliver greater integration of public and private investment as claimed, for example, ignore both the realities of parliamentary power, the disparate nature of sovereignty and the fragmented contemporary landscape of public/private agencies. …