As highlighted in our blog ‘Should planning be a friend of the earth?’, draft National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was published for consultation last month, with this to become part of the statutory development plan once adopted. NPF4 also incorporates Scottish Planning Policy and the NPF into a single document for the first time, bringing together the Scottish Government’s priorities and policies for the planning system to 2045, and setting out how these will help to achieve a net zero, sustainable Scotland by then. In doing that, the draft document highlights that climate change poses a very real threat to the planet, with radical change required to address that, and that every planning decision should contribute towards making Scotland a more sustainable place.

But do the provisions of the draft go far enough to achieve these aims? And, as with the portrayal of Sir Thomas More as being the ultimate man of conscience in ‘A man for all seasons’, does the draft remain true to its principles in these regards at all times?

So, how does the draft NPF4 propose we make Scotland more sustainable?

Firstly, Part 1 of the draft sets out a national spatial strategy based on six overarching principles, including limiting urban expansion, reducing the need to travel unsustainably, making productive use of existing assets, improving green infrastructure, and delivering a just transition to meet climate ambitions. Different parts of Scotland are then identified as having different roles to play in applying these principles, while also facing different challenges. For example, in our home-town area of the North-East of Scotland, the draft identifies the need for action to tackle industrial emissions and transition towards a greener future, with greener energy choices, including hydrogen and offshore renewables, being seen as having a natural home here. There is though considerable repetition across many of the actions identified for different areas and, in our view, it would be more helpful if many of these were more consistently stated as being applicable across Scotland as a whole.

In Part 2, the draft identifies 18 developments of national importance (referred to as ‘national developments’) that will help to deliver the spatial strategy, a number of which will play a significant role in reducing emissions. These include new or upgraded walking, cycling and wheeling routes; low-carbon mass/rapid transit projects; circular economy materials management facilities; projects that can facilitate net zero gains for the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney island groups; decarbonisation of nationally important industrial sites; pumped hydro storage; repurposing the Hunterston port, the adjacent former nuclear power station site, and the Chapelcross nuclear power station site; strategic renewable electricity generation and transmission infrastructure; and high speed rail.

There are though some potential tripwires here, with the draft NPF4’s support for low-carbon mass/rapid transport projects including support for new road infrastructure to deliver those, which will need to be applied strictly to ensure this is not interpreted to mean any new road infrastructure. And it’s not clear why net zero projects are national developments only if they are proposed in the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney Island groups, and not elsewhere.

Perhaps most significantly for most people though, the draft proposes the introduction of a number of Universal Policies that would apply to all planning decisions, with those of particular importance in terms of making Scotland more sustainable including:

 

  • Policy 2: Climate emergency, which requires significant weight to be given to the global climate emergency when considering development proposals, and for all developments to be designed to minimise emissions over their life cycle. In this regard, proposals which sensitively incorporate climate change adaptation and mitigation measures should be supported, while those that will generate significant emissions should not be, unless the applicant provides evidence that this level of emissions is the minimum that can be achieved for the development to be viable, and it can be demonstrated that the proposed development is in the long-term public interest. This means that, whereas the Supreme Court found last year that the Paris Agreement was not a statement of Government policy, and did not therefore require to be taken into account as such in planning decisions (on which, see our December 2020Spotlights), NPF4’s status as part of the statutory development plan means the Scottish Government’s emissions commitments would need to be taken into account in such circumstances. However, the caveats which apply to significant emission generating developments mean that NPF4 does not necessarily preclude all such developments going ahead, with the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 also allowing for this if there are other material considerations which are considered to outweigh these provisions of NPF4. That being the case, we’re not convinced that these requirements in their current format will have the impact hoped for by the Scottish Government.

 

  • Policy 6: Design, quality and place, which reiterates the Scottish Government’s commitment to high quality design, including the need for development proposals to demonstrate that they are:

– sustainable, supporting net zero, nature-positive, and climate resilient places; and

– adaptable, for example by reusing and repurposing existing buildings and assets to support net zero ambitions.

 

This is of course an existing requirement of Scottish Planning Policy which is reflected in many local development plans, but its inclusion in NPF4 would give it further statutory weight and is therefore something that we welcome.

 

  • Policy 7: Local living, which requires local development plans to support the principle of 20-minute neighbourhoods, where housing is planned together with infrastructure and services such that these are easily accessible on foot or by bicycle, thus reducing the need to travel. At the same time, development proposals consistent with the principles of 20-minute neighbourhoods should be supported. Whilst it is difficult to argue with the intentions of this policy, it is important to recognise that most people live within existing communities, with it being harder to apply these principles retrospectively than to new developments. And, whilst the policy does acknowledge that the approach to 20-minute neighbourhoods should take account of the local context, there are large parts of rural Scotland where these will never be a reality.

 

  • Policy 19: Green energy and Policy 22: Mineralswhich, combined, provide support for development proposals for all forms of renewable energy and low-carbon fuels, together with enabling works such as transmission and distribution infrastructure, and energy storage such as battery storage whilst also making it clear that planning applications that seek to explore, develop and produce fossil fuels will not be supported other than in exceptional circumstances, with unconventional oil and gas not supported in any circumstances. It is though not clear what might constitute exceptional circumstances in which the exploration, development or production of fossil fuels might be permitted, with it therefore again being difficult to comment on how successful this approach might be.

 

Of course, for development to be genuinely sustainable, it must be so economically and socially as well as environmentally, with NPF4 required to contribute to improving health and wellbeing; increasing the population of rural areas; meeting housing needs; improving equality and eliminating discrimination; and securing positive effects for biodiversity, as well as contributing to the meeting of emissions targets. And it was always going to be a challenge for the draft NPF4 to remain true to its principles in respect of climate change whilst also playing its part in delivering on other, sometimes potentially competing, aspirations. In purely environmental terms, the draft NPF4 is certainly ambitious, although this comes with a number of caveats and questions about what the proposed requirements might mean in practice, as a result of which some commentators have suggested that NPF4 lacks the ‘teeth’ to deliver for nature, climate and communities.

As such, it remains to be seen if this truly will be a plan for all seasons in terms of remaining true to the principle of changing the way we live, learn, work and play in the future to be consistent with achieving net zero emissions throughout. And, given the need for urgent action to address the risks that climate changes poses, it is crucial that it doesn’t ultimately meet the same end as Sir Thomas More!

We would therefore encourage everyone to respond to the  consultation on the draft NPF4, which is ongoing until 31 March 2022, with full details of the proposals and information on how to get involved in the consultation (including through a series of informal facilitated on-line events) available here.

Thanks for reading!

Pippa and Maggie

Back to blog and bulletins