Masterplan Consent Areas
Extract from NRCC/NW&SCC Joint meeting minutes.
Late in April 2024 The Highland Council (THC) wrote a paper to be submitted to the Scottish Government consultation on ‘Masterplan Consent Areas’. While other Councils chose to present their submission paper to their Planning Committee THC decided to present theirs to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, a committee not known to deal with planning matters. The paper was to answer twenty questions set by the MCA consultation.
In essence THC proposed that the MCA be set to over-rule Communities; Community Councils; Scottish Examining Reporters, NPF4, the Community Empowerment Act and the Councils own Planning department. THC would then be in a position to build whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted. This would include areas currently excluded from development by the Examining Reporters and removed from the just adopted LDP. Four such sites were included in their submission, Tain, Invergordon, Evanton and Nairn.
Once alerted to this position NRCC, NW&SCC and NICE organised a group, at very short notice, to discuss the situation with the Nairn Ward Councillors. NRCC contacted many Community Councils, THC Members, MSPs and MPs. NRCC received a lot of supporting feedback from different CCs and others. A briefing and position paper was written and provided to the vice chair of the E&I Committee. It is believed that as a result of the extra pressure from CCs and other sources a meeting was held between Councillors and Officers, prior to the E&I Committee meeting, where THCs submission was very slightly amended. All four of Nairn Ward Councillors spoke at the E&I Committee clearly stating that Nairn did not support the position being taken by THC. Please below the questions set by the consultation and the responses and statements submitted by NRCC.
1 :A) To what extent do you agree with the principle that regulations be kept to the minimum necessary and that more advice be offered in guidance and kept updated?
Disagree
Regulations for all aspects must be maintained at a level where Community input is maintained and respected. Unscrupulous planners could use lack of regulations to push developments, unwanted by the Community, proven through the Local Place Plan process, into being. Definition of requirements within regulations offer certainty for the Community and clear understanding on what can be challenged.
2 :A) We are not proposing to regulate to exclude any form of development from having potential to be within a MCA. To what extent do you agree with this approach?
Disagree
Any site proposed for development that has been identified by a Local Place Plan to be unsuitable, unnecessary, inappropriate or unwanted by the Community, or on the findings of a Scottish Reporter, either temporary or permanently restricted, should be exempted from MCAs until that position is lifted by the Community or the Scottish Reporter. ‘Local Place Plans’ and the ‘Community Empowerment Act’ must be seen as equal to or supersede any regulations or guidance on MCAs.
3 :A) We are not proposing any changes to the designations listed in schedule 5A (paragraph 3(4)). To what extent do you agree with this approach?
Neutral
The list of designations should be limited to important national and international features. MCAs should also be used to support town centre regeneration particularly where Conservation areas may be impacted. It is important that planners use MCAs to improve Towns and Town centres rather than Green field sites just because it is easier and cheaper for developers.
4 :A) To what extent do you agree that the matters above in relation to the statement be set out in guidance rather than regulations?
Disagree Regulation on the timing of these proposed MCAs must be in place, The Highland Council has a tendency to publish planning documentation during Christmas Holiday periods or Summer Holiday periods when Communities are less likely to become involved in the processes. Community Councils are often sent documents after their ‘monthly’ meeting that have to be responded to before their next meeting. Community Councils have to make all their decisions in Public therefore either an extra meeting has to be called or no response is provided. Communty Councils are poorly funded and run by unpaid volunteers so cannot always afford either the time nor the money to hold extra single-item meetings
5 :A. Draft Regulation 3(4) specifies that planning authorities must consult with community councils before determining the content of any MCA proposals which may be publicised. To what extent do you agree with this?
Strongly Agree Community Councils should be involved as soon as the any decision is made to initiate an MCA process in the area covered by the Community Council. This should be as early as possible in the process so as to enable the Community Council to consult with their Community before any meetings are arranged. Timing of Consultation meetings should be regulated to be set as appropriate for Community Councillors to avoid excluding those who work during the day to attend meetings
6 :A) Draft Regulation 3 provides how consultation for possible proposals for a MCA scheme is to be undertaken, including notification and the requirement to undertake two public events, with opportunity to make comments to the planning authority. To what extent do you agree with this approach?
Agree
It is important that the regulations cover the times that these public events can be held. Holding these events during day-time working hours excludes many people. Timing must be set to include those only available during the day and also those only available during the evenings
7: A) To what extent do you agree that the regulations should require reasons for conditions to be set out in the MCA scheme?
Strongly Agree
In the interests of transparency this would seem fair.
8:A) Are there any further aspects you consider should be required to be included in an MCA scheme? Please specify and explain why.
The MCAs need to be assessed on a case by case basis. The Local Planning Authority needs to consider each aspect within its local context and MUST HAVE REGARD TO the comments/objections of the Community, Community Councils or have regard to the aspirations set out in Local Place Plans. Once an MCA Scheme is approved, adherence and interpretation of it rests with the Planning Authority – In our case Highland Council, therefore,
(a) what assurances will communities/public have that this adherence and interpretation will be strictly enforced?
(b) where there is deviation or a difference in interpretation, what mechanism will be put in place to invite comments from the relevant Community Councils/residents so they may have the opportunity to request the Planning Authority to adhere more rigidly to the agreed MCA scheme BEFORE any consents are given by the Planning Authority?
Consistency in interpretation of MCA Schemes is a must otherwise this exposes Highland Council to legal challenge
(c) will Planning Authorities be required to undertake more visible site and build enforcement to avoid Housing Developers from changing site plans, e.g. drainage layout, roads, landscaping, type/size/number of units etc? We don’t want another sewage disaster as happened at Lochloy Meadowlea Phase 3.
(d) where a community through its Local Place Plan considers the MCA scheme to be being abused, overdevelopment, or without parallel infrastructure improvements, what mechanism will be put in place to suspend the MCA scheme until a full review is undertaken with the Community in question?
(e) another aspect which is not covered specifically in the guidance is the right of Communities through their Local Place Plan to request an MCA scheme e.g. for “Nairn” Town Centre or protection of a conservation area, e.g. Fishertown in Nairn.
If the intent of MCA guidance and regulations is openness and transparency and not to replace proper development/planning management and process, it seems only prudent to express concern that the local Planning Authority Highland Council seem to currently be applying a singular use to MCA schemes i.e. ONLY for housing on greenfield sites already examined/removed by the SG Reporter from the LDP. This is viewed by Communities and the public as a back door mechanism to get round the wishes of Communities as contained in their LPPs, and the findings of the Examination Reporters and is directly in conflict with openness and transparency.
9: A) Draft Regulation 4(3) and Schedule 1 of the draft MCA Regulations specify those who a planning authority must consult with before determining the content of any MCA proposals which may be publicised. To what extent do you agree with these groups?
Neutral
Consultation must include those groups and individuals listed but should go further to include the Local Place Plan Group, adjoining Community Councils. Public consultation events must take place regardless of the size of the proposed MCA. Planning authorities must undertake effective community engagement in relation to the local MCA plan
10: A) Draft Regulation 4(2) provides how consultation in relation to an MCA scheme is to be undertaken. To what extent do you agree with this approach?
Disagree
Planning Authority must include consultation with Community Councils as a matter of course and must take regard of their comments. Planning authorities must undertake effective community engagement in relation to any local MCA plan, respect the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015) and to respect any Local Place Plan in place.
11: A) Draft Regulation 4(5) sets a 30 day period for representations if they are to be treated as valid representations. To what extent do you agree with this period?
Disagree Community Councils are often sent documents after their ‘monthly’ meeting that have to be responded to before their next ,monthly’ meeting. In the interests of transparency and overworked volunteer Community Councils it would better serve the Communities if the period for representation was 45 days to at least give the CCs a chance to provide well informed representations
12: A) To what extent do you agree with the required circumstances, i.e. that where the scheme would authorise a national development, that there be a requirement for a hearing, as set out within Draft Regulation 5(1)?
Agree
This appears to be in line with NPF4 in relation to National Developments.
13: A) To what extent do you agree with the proposals for those who must be given an opportunity to appear before and be heard by a committee of the planning authority at a hearing as set out within Draft Regulations 5(2) and (3)?
Agree in principle and these hearing opportunities must be open to Community Councils and Community Representatives.
14: A) To what extent do you agree that a Notification Direction be issued requiring that in the above circumstances such MCA schemes be notified to the Scottish Ministers?
Agree
The proposals seem consistent with the current Regulations but we would like this widened to include notification to the Scottish Reporters in the event that any proposed MCAs that are being planned for areas that the Scottish Reporters have deemed unsuitable, unnecessary or unwanted by the Community either temporary or permanently restricted.
15: A) To what extent do you agree with the proposed requirements in relation to the publication of MCA schemes and the decision notice as set out in Draft Regulation 7?
Disagree
The provision does not go far enough, there is no mention of Community Councils in the arrangements nor of areas that do not have a “Local Newspaper” therefore many people will be left uninformed by restricting the notice to “just publishing in a local newspaper circulating in the area and on the internet”.
16: A) To what extent do you agree with the proposed requirements in relation to the planning register as set out in Draft Regulation 9?
Disagree The register must be Publicly Available and without a requirement for an FOI. It must be freely available and transparent
17: A) To what extent do you agree with the proposals for the procedures for altering a MCA scheme, as set out in Draft Regulation 8?
Disagree
Where a development for which authorisation is granted by a scheme has begun and is subsequently altered then the authorisation for the scheme should be reconsidered. A notice of alteration must be circulated around all the relevant groups or individuals who have shown an interest in the Scheme. Where the alteration is deemed to be substantial by any of those groups a re-authorisation process, including Public Consultation, must be initiated.
18: A) To what extent do you agree with the approach not to prescribe forms of notices within the Draft Regulations?
Disagree
Consistent wording of notices may be beneficial for Community Councils, Community Representatives and Members of the Public in order to make it clear what is being applied for. Being consistent will help prevent ambiguous or obscure wording being used in notices to prevent full understanding while declaring transparency but is in fact very opaque. This would be best dealt with by providing prescribed forms to avoid manipulation of the process to the benefit of the Local Authority.
19: A) To what extent do you agree with the proposed process set out in the Draft Masterplan Consent Area Scheme (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 contained within Annex B?
Disagree
From experience developers and investors will try to avoid EIAs as much as possible as will the planning authorities. Many of them see EIAs as tying their hands and a negative cost.
Where an EIA is recognised, to ensure, prior to consent for a qualifying project being taken, that it is done so in the full knowledge of any likely significant effects on the environment all steps to avoid or minimise adverse effects have been considered and if these adverse effects cannot be overcome the project will be restricted to what is possible.
Mitigations will have to be borne by the developers and investors.
20: A) To what extent do you agree with our approach to the impact assessments?
Agree
No Comment
Nairn River Community Council 