Planning policy - section 3F: research

3. The Scottish Development and Consent Process

3.1 Overview

All European countries operate building regulatory systems which legislate for planning demands and building technical standards which may be carried out in separate or combined procedures. Scotland operates a two-stage building consent process:

i. Planning which is governed by the National Planning Framework (NPF) and enforced through local planning policies set out by individual local authorities is concerned mainly with design, appropriateness, use and location of development.

ii. Building Warrant ensures that all developments meet Scottish Technical Standards in terms of Structure, Fire, Environment, Safety, Noise, Energy and Sustainability. These technical standards are defined in separate Technical Handbooks for Domestic and Non-Domestic Construction.

Both Planning and Building Warrant play an active role in supporting GHG emission reduction policies.

In relation to Planning; the Scottish Government is currently undertaking a review of National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3) and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and is exploring the option of bringing both documents together to form a single National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). Under the 2019 Planning (Scotland) Act, the National Planning Framework will become part of the Development Plan with the idea that it will contain policies which could be applied across Scotland for day to day decision making. It is anticipated that NPF4 would be in place for 10 years once adopted.

3.2 Scottish Building Standards

3.2.1 Section 6: Energy

Section 6: Energy of the Scottish Building Standards aims to ensure that effective measures are taken to limit energy demand by addressing the performance of the building fabric and fixed building services and stipulates the CO₂ emissions reductions that must be achieved by new buildings. Building Standards have taken a staged approach to reducing emissions, the current CO₂ emissions reduction targets for new buildings are:

Domestic Buildings: 45% CO₂ emission reduction relative to 2007 Standard
(Scottish Government, 2019a)

Non-Domestic Buildings: 60% CO₂ emission reduction relative to 2007 Standard
(Scottish Government, 2019b)

The primary intent of Section 6 is to ensure that buildings incorporate effective measures for the conservation of fuel and power, and define the minimum standards deemed acceptable in this respect. The Building Standards clearly promote the belief that this aim is best achieved through a balanced and holistic approach to building design, in which energy demand is limited by addressing both the performance of the building fabric and fixed building services. Compliance is primarily determined by meeting the CO₂ emission reduction target calculated for the proposed building (Standard 6.1) and complying with the robust performance backstops set in relation to the performance of the building fabric (Standard 6.2) and building services (Standards 6.3 – 6.7). Whilst reducing CO₂ emissions is the primary focus and metric in determining compliance with Section 6; the measures defined are designed to reduce the energy demand of new buildings, minimising energy use and associated fuel cost over the lifetime of the building.

Whilst Section 6 promotes the use of energy from renewable sources, it does not stipulate that LZCGT must be used to meet these standards. This offers a degree of flexibility for architects and developers in determining the appropriate balance between design, fabric efficiency and LZCGT in any given context. However it is expected that with the continued improvement in standards, the need to use low carbon equipment to satisfy the energy demand remaining after savings have been made through fabric energy efficiency will increase.

3.2.2 SAP and SBEM

The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) used for domestic buildings, and the Simplified Building Energy Model (SBEM) used for non-domestic buildings, are the UK's National Calculation Methodologies and standard tools for assessing the energy performance of buildings. These tools predict the energy use in buildings and provide a quantifiable mechanism to show compliance with the CO₂ emissions reductions targets defined in Section 6 and legislated for in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019.

Calculation Methodologies: Domestic Buildings

There are two potential methods for domestic buildings to show compliance with Standard 6.1:

1 Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP)

The benefit of this methodology is that designers are not constrained in their design response; and subject to meeting the benchmarks and backstops set out in Standards 6.2 – 6.6, are free to develop their own cost-effective solutions to meeting the TER.

i. Establish Target Emission Rate (TER)

The Target Emission Rate (TER) is established for the 'notional dwelling' (a dwelling of the same size, shape and living area fraction as the proposed dwelling) by inputting into BRE approved SAP software the package of measures detailed in Tables 6.1 & 6.2 of Clause 6.1.2 for the fuel chosen for the main space heating (Gas, LPG, Oil, Electricity, Biomass). These measures are designed to achieve the required CO₂ emissions reduction standard and represent a 'whole dwelling approach'. Each includes some level of LZCGT in achieving this. These tables give designers a clear concept of the type of measures and standards that need to be adopted to achieve the required emission reductions.

ii. Establish Dwelling Emission Rate (DER)

A second calculation is then carried out using the actual design values for the proposed dwelling.

iii. Compare DER to TER

If the DER is less than or equal to the TER the proposed dwelling is in compliance to Standard 6.1

2 A Simplified Approach

The alternative to using SAP is to simply design to one of the five packages of measures used to determine the Target Emission Rate (TER) set out in Table 6.1 & 6.2 of Clause 6.1.2. This method can still be used even when there are minor deviations from the measures outlined as long as these deviations achieve the same or better emissions reductions. It cannot be used if deviations produce higher CO₂ emissions. Clause 6.1.6 sets out example deviations and when this approach cannot be used.

Calculation Methodologies: Non-Domestic Buildings

The equivalent non-domestic calculation methodology typically uses the Simplified Building Energy Model (SBEM). Other tools may be used, such as dynamic simulation modelling, particularly where the building is considered to be a complex design. The methodology for calculating the CO₂ emissions reduction is similar to that outlined above for the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP). To comply with Standard 6.1, the calculated CO₂ emissions rate for the 'actual' building (Building Emissions Rate or BER) must be less than or equal to that calculated for a 'notional' building (Target Emissions Rate or TER).

3.2.3 Section 7: Sustainability

Section 7: Sustainability of the Scottish Building Standards was introduced in 2011 to both recognise the level of sustainability already embedded within Sections 1 to 6 (Bronze Level), and encourage architects and developers to achieve higher standards (Silver, Gold and Platinum Levels) through a sustainability labelling system. All new buildings must display a Sustainability Label detailing the buildings performance in relation to these sustainability targets.

Domestic Buildings

Standard 7.1 defines the optional higher levels of sustainability that new domestic buildings can aspire to. The four general levels of attainment are set: Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum. Within each level, target measures relating to different aspects of sustainability are defined. For domestic buildings these aspects are:

Aspect 1: CO₂ Emissions

Aspect 2: Energy for Space Heating

Aspect 3: Energy for Water Heating

Aspect 4: Water Use Efficiency

Aspect 5: Optimising Performance

Aspect 6: Flexibility and Adaptability

Aspect 7: Well-Being and Security

Aspect 8: Material Use and Waste

Whilst the sustainability label recognises the level of achievement in all aspects; for a building to achieve a higher overall award all aspects within that level must be achieved. All new domestic buildings currently automatically meet Silver Level Aspect 1 in respect of CO₂ emissions, because of improvements in Standard 6.1. In addition to these 8 aspects; Bronze Active and Silver Active delineations are included to recognise the use of LZCGT in achieving these targets. These are primarily included to assist local authorities in meeting their obligations under Section 3F of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 by identifying the use of LZCGT. In this respect, the definition of LZCGT include: wind turbines, water turbines, heat pumps (all varieties), solar thermal panels, photovoltaic panels, combined heat and power units (fired by low emission sources), fuel cells, biomass boilers/stoves and biogas. The contribution of the LZCGT is not quantified.

Non-Domestic Buildings

For all non-domestic building (except schools containing classrooms), Standard 7.1 only defines sustainability targets relative to Aspect 1: CO₂ emissions. All new non-domestic buildings currently automatically meet Silver Level Aspect 1 in respect of CO₂ emissions, because of improvements in Standard 6.1. The non-domestic standards also include the Bronze Active and Silver Active delineations to help local authorities identify the use of LZCGT.

3.3 Section 3F Policy

Section 3F of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended through Section 72 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 requires planning authorities to make the following policy provision in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

'A planning authority, in any local development plan prepared by them, must include policies requiring all developments in the local development plan area to be designed so as to ensure that all new buildings avoid a specified and rising proportion of the projected greenhouse gas emissions from their use, calculated on the basis of the approved design and plans for the specific development, through the installation and operation of low and zero-carbon generating technologies.' (Scottish Parliament, 2019b).

As part of the Scottish Planning Review undertaken between 2015 and 2019, a public consultation invited views on the removal of Section 3F policy (Scottish Government, 2019c). Of all comments received on the subject, 60% thought Section 3F policy should be removed. Amongst those in 'Policy and Planning' and 'Development Industry' respondent sub-categories this rose to 86% in favour of removal. However the 'Civil Society' sub-category was slightly in favour of retaining the policy, with only 45% favouring removal (Kevin Murray Associates/University of Dundee, 2017).

It should be noted that those who called for policy removal did not seek to undermine the objectives of the Climate Change Act. Rather it was based on the view that Section 3F Policy was not really progressing CO₂ emission reduction since this was being led by Building Standards; and there were other more effective ways that planning could contribute to the delivery of low carbon development, especially on a macro-scale. Respondents also argued that the policy created additional burdens, duplicated effort and added a layer of complexity to the planning system for no additional benefit (Kevin Murray Associates/University of Dundee, 2017). However, on deliberation, the Scottish Government decided to retain Section 3F policy, as it was felt that removing it would be inconsistent with the emerging Climate Change Plan (Scottish Government, 2019c).

To better understand the issues surrounding Section 3F policy, we sought the views of planning authorities across Scotland to learn from their experiences administrating current Section 3F policies. The aim of this survey was to benchmark current policy and procedures; identify practical issues or concerns; and gain an insight into how these might be practically addressed. The survey was conducted using an online questionnaire. The opinions expressed by respondents are summarised below. For a full analysis of responses see Appendix A.

3.3.1 Existing LZCGT Target Contribution

As Section 3F does not stipulate the contribution LZCGT should make to the emission reductions of new buildings, planning authorities across Scotland have had relative autonomy in determining the minimum LZCGT target contribution to include in their LDP (Figure 4). In determining an appropriate LZCGT target, the survey data suggests that many planning authorities felt they had not received enough guidance from the Scottish Government on this matter, and lacked the resources, expertise and understanding of the issues in-house to assess what would be an appropriate level. Other respondents reported that they had simply adopted the Section 3F policy wording that Scottish Ministers had suggested that they or other planning authorities include in their LDP.

Approximately a third of survey respondents indicated that they had deliberately taken a balanced and restrained approach to setting their minimum LZCGT target contribution; deciding to keep the percentage low so as not to be overly onerous, deter development or interfere with a fabric first approach. In their guidance, they had tried to be clear with applicants that they were seeking to reduce CO₂ emissions through the provision of highly efficient buildings and the better the insulation and fabric of the building the lower the amount of LZCGT would be required.

Of those planning authorities that have set a specified minimum LZCGT target contribution, most have defined it in terms of a percentage of the percentage CO₂ emissions reductions sought through Scottish Building Standard 6.1: carbon dioxide emissions and the most frequent LZCGT target is 15% of this value (Figure 4). Typically Section 3F policy is applied to all new development with certain exceptions, and in general these mirror the exceptions made to Scottish Building Standard 6.1. Meeting the LZCGT target does not appear to be a major issue for applicants (Appendix A: Question 4; Figure A.2); the difficulty arises in demonstrating compliance at the planning application stage. This is an issue of timing and the lack of availability of accurate SAP/SBEM data this early in the design process.

3.3.2 Evidence and Procedures

The majority of survey respondents reported that their planning authority did not have defined standard assessment procedures and calculation methodologies for determining whether applications comply with Section 3F Policy (Appendix A: Question 7; Figure A.3).

Compliance is most commonly evidenced through a process of self-certification; typically through the submission of a statement containing detailed information about the proposed LZCGT. The type of information requested typically includes: the type of LZCGTs proposed; the scale, location and visual impact of the installation; ongoing operation and maintenance issues; SAP/SBEM calculations; and a calculation to show compliance with the minimum LZCGT target contribution. Survey respondents reported that the standard of compliance evidence received by planning authorities is very variable in terms of format and content, even where planning guidance has been given and compliance procedures and calculations have been defined.

Where calculation methodologies have been defined these usually require two separate SAP/SBEM calculations; one for the building as designed with the proposed LZCGT and another with the proposed LZCGT removed and replaced with pre-defined conventional systems. This second SAP/SBEM calculation is not currently required for Building Standards purposes. The CO₂ emission rates generated by these two SAP/SBEM calculations are then substituted into a formula to calculate the LZCGT contribution. Of the formula defined by survey respondents; none accurately defined the LZCGT target in terms of a percentage of the percentage reduction in CO₂ emissions sought by Scottish Building Standard 6.1.

Although many planning authorities have not defined standard assessment procedures in relation to Section 3F, a general work pattern did emerge from the survey responses. Initially planning officers use the opportunities afforded by pre-application meetings and the application determination process to highlight to applicants the general importance attached to sustainable design and CO₂ emission reduction, and the specific requirements of Section 3F policy.

Approximately half of survey respondents aim for evidence of compliance to be submitted at the planning stage; however the majority of respondents accept that this is not practically feasible in many circumstances. This is because the detailed SAP/SBEM information needed to quantify the amount LZCGT contributes to overall CO₂ emissions reduction is usually not available at the planning stage. Normally building design and technical details are refined and finalised in the period between obtaining planning and building warrant consent. Compliance with Building Standard 6.1 is determined during this period through the submission of finalised SAP/SBEM calculations to Building Standards and it is information contained within these calculations that is used to quantify LZCGT contribution to CO₂ emission reduction and determining compliance with Section 3F policy.

Accepting that this level of information is not typically available at the planning stage at the present time, the most common response of planning authorities is to apply a suspensive condition to the planning consent decision notice requiring that compliance documentation be submitted to planning prior to commencement on site. Many applicants prefer to take this route and submit Section 3F compliance documents at this later stage because it fits better with their workflow practices. It also reduces duplication of effort and the confusion of having to resubmit revised documents should further design development take a different path.

3.3.3 Implementation Issues

Virtually all survey respondents reported that they had experienced some difficulties in applying their current Section 3F policy and procedures.

Over half of survey respondents reported they had struggled to implement their Section 3F policy in a consistent and systematic way. Some reported they were currently working with development management teams to raise awareness and provide guidance on how to apply the policy in practice. The development of a Scotland-wide Section 3F policy, guidance and procedures would ameliorate this situation.

The inherent contradiction with Scottish Building Standards over the mandatory use of LZCGT and the lack of a homogenous Scotland-wide Section 3F policy with a single clearly defined minimum LZCGT target contribution, has caused confusion and resulted in a lack of developer cooperation with Section 3F policy. Further, the lack of clearly defined compliance requirements, standard evidencing procedures and calculation methodologies, has resulted in the submitted compliance evidence varying widely and being of a general poor quality.

Survey respondents reported that with the current standard of evidence it was often difficult for planning officers to ascertain if a development had actually met the minimum LZCGT target contribution. Almost half of survey respondents considered that in the absence of clear guidance they simply did not have sufficient knowledge and experience to make informed judgements on these issues. Further, they were unfamiliar with the type of technical information and SAP data submitted as proof of compliance, and felt ill equipped to interpret this information or use it calculate the LZCGT target themselves. Officer training and up-to-date Scotland-wide guidance with clearly defined LZCGT target, evidencing procedures and calculation methodologies would improve this situation.

Two thirds of survey respondents reported that the main issue for them was attempting to implement a policy at the planning stage, when the information that was required to confirm compliance was typically not available until later in the design process. Receiving good quality data at the planning stage places planning officers in a strong position; because if sufficient information is available to conclude that an application will not comply, they have the power to withhold planning consent and leverage a better solution from the applicant. This can have a significant positive impact on the built outcome.

The use of suspensive conditions to circumvent this issue has engendered its own complications. Whilst considered a reasonable practical workaround, it has resulted in planning officers having to monitor the progress of developments in an attempt to obtain evidence of compliance when it becomes available. This has time and resource implications. It also leaves Planning in a weaker position with little or no means to force applicants to improve proposals. Almost half of survey respondents had concerns about the strength of suspensive conditions and the subsequent ability to enforce compliance.

The underlying issue here is the disconnection between Planning and Building Standards over the issue of LZCGT. Scottish Building Standards do not include a mandatory minimum LZCGT contribution to CO₂ emission reduction, so it is beyond their remit to play an active role in enforcing a minimum LZCGT target. Further Building Standards will not delay granting building warrant consent or issuing a completion certificate on the basis that an application does not comply with a planning condition (Scottish Government, 2019e). Half of survey respondents concluded they would like to see improved inter-departmental working between Planning and Building Standards on this issue.

3.3.4 Going Forward - LZCGT Trends

According to survey respondents, the most commonly encountered LZCGT were Photovoltaics, Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP), Ground Source Heat Pumps (GSHP), Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery (MVHR), Biomass and Solar Thermal. Photovoltaics were the most frequently specified LZCGT; however ASHPs had seen the greatest increase in uptake over the past 5 years (Appendix A: Questions 15 & 16; Figures A.5 & A.6). One respondent reported that ASHP had really begun to take off over the last year in the non-domestic sector, particularly in hotel and large-scale office developments. The same planning authority has become aware of cases where the benefits from PV had accrued to the landlord and not the tenant. The same respondent also considered Waste Water Heat Recovery (WWHR) an as yet untapped resource with great potential.

The majority of survey respondents felt it was important that planning authorities should be able to promote their preferred regional, local or site specific solutions to CO₂ emissions reductions (Appendix A: Question 18; Figure A.7). Approximately three quarters of survey respondents also felt that planning authorities should be able to compel new developments to link to existing local large scale LZCGT initiatives or heat networks, where appropriate, in order to support such schemes (Appendix A: Questions 19; Figure A.8) However this was not without serious reservations about how these energy infrastructures would work in practice.

The local context was identified as a potential barrier to the development of large scale LZCGT and heat networks and it was felt that planning authorities needed a degree of autonomy to develop schemes that are appropriate to their unique context. It was also recognised by survey respondents that large scale LZCGT and heat networks would need to be delivered upfront so that developers can be confident they will be in place from the first day of occupation. This raised questions about who would be responsible for the planning, financing, delivery and ongoing maintenance of these energy infrastructures.

Liberalisation of the energy market means that the choice of energy provider is up to the developer or occupant, and there is no legal means for planning authorities to compel connection to or delivery of specific energy services. Monitoring and enforcement would require additional capacity and resources. There was also concern that this type of policy would restrict developers and future occupants to one energy provider with no choice to change to a cheaper supplier or a less carbon intensive system in the future. This called into question the whole premise that it would be reasonable to insist that new developments link to local large scale LZCGT and heat networks; especially if developers could provide their customers with cheaper building scale alternatives.

One respondent noted that the Danish schemes which are often cited as exemplars for Scotland to follow are all municipally owned and run on a not for profit basis. This raises the question of how the government would ensure the best value for money for citizens locked into such schemes, if they were not in public ownership. Further, if there was a proliferation of small private sector energy companies, how would the government ensure the integrity of these energy networks, and who would become the owner of last resort if these companies were to fail.

Over a third of survey respondents felt that planning professionals currently lacked the technical knowledge, skillset and expertise to make sensible joined-up decisions about large scale LZCGT and heat networks. This would require building technical knowledge and expertise within planning departments which would have a resource implication.

3.3.5 Going Forward - LZCGT Target Contribution

One respondent emphasised that their interpretation of Section 3F policy was that it does not seek to increase CO₂ emission reductions overall, it just seeks to define the proportion of those CO₂ emission reductions that are achieved through the deployment of LZCGT. Whilst not rejecting the important role LZCGT can play in reducing CO₂ emissions; several respondents also advocated strongly for prioritising fabric energy efficiency as a means of reducing CO₂ emissions. They emphasised the need for any future LZCGT target to be a minimum standard rather than an aspirational one, so that it would not interfere with a fabric first approach.

There was a fairly even split between those survey respondents who thought it was important to quantify a target LZCGT contribution at Planning and those who did not (Appendix A: Question 21; Figure A.9). Reflecting on the respective roles and skillsets of planning and building standards officers, approximately half of survey respondents questioned the positioning of Section 3F policy within the remit of Planning. Further, in light of the practical difficulties planning authorities have experienced in implementing Section 3F policy, and considering that the calculation needed to quantify the contribution of LZCGT relies on information submitted to Building Standards; several respondents concluded the LZCGT target would be better suited for inclusion within Building Standards than Planning.

It was suggested by one respondent that the easy way out of this difficult situation would be to simply include a new mandatory standard within the Scottish Building Standards that meets the requirements of Section 3F policy. Planning could then simply highlight and reference this standard as a requirement, only one calculation would be necessary and it would be effectively enforced by Building Standards.

A majority of survey respondents also concluded there was no case to be made for planning policies that attempt to accelerate the reduction in CO₂ emissions beyond the current Scottish Building Standards, because it would be unhelpful to have Planning and Building Standards set different targets in this respect (Appendix A: Question 22; Figure A.10). Although respondents felt there was a need to accelerate CO₂ emission reduction, they considered that the most logical and straightforward way to do so is to simply increase the CO₂ emission reduction required by Scottish Building Standard 6.1. It was considered essential for successful and productive engagement with stakeholders that Planning and Building Standards have a clear and consistent message to avoid contradiction and confusion.

A clearly defined minimum LZCGT contribution target, evidencing procedures and calculation methodology, together with quality supplementary guidance to raise awareness of the policy aims and compliance procedures, was therefore considered essential to provide clarity for architects and developers and improve the quality of submitted information. In this respect, a Scotland-wide policy, whether set through Planning or Building Standards, was considered preferable to the current situation where different planning authorities have different expectations.

3.3.6 Going Forward – Roles of Planning and Building Standards

The need for better collaboration between Planning and Building Standards on policies relating to CO₂ emission reduction was highlighted by several respondents, recognising that Planning and Building Standards are complementary to each other in their approach, skillsets and outlook. Several respondents expressed the view that Planning was more aligned to delivering CO₂ emission reduction through strategic large scale planning, place-making and appropriate design; and this approach complemented Building Standards with its more technical regulations that ensure buildings meet minimum acceptable standards including those for fabric energy efficiency, equipment efficiency and CO₂ emissions reduction.

When asked to consider where Planning should concentrate their efforts in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change, most survey respondents considered their focus should be on: Landscape Scale Planning; Sustainable Planning; Large Scale LZCGT; Architectural Design; Architectural Design Details; Building Scale LZCGT; and Assessing Sustainability (Appendix A: Question 24; Figure A.11).

When asked the same question in relation to Building Standards, the majority of survey respondents thought that they should concentrate their main efforts on Architectural Design Details; Fabric Energy Efficiency; Building Scale LZCGT; Assessing Energy Consumption; Assessing CO₂ Emission Reductions; Assessing the Contribution of LZCGT; and Assessing Sustainability (Appendix A: Question 24; Figure A.11). Survey responses suggest a joint responsibility for Assessing Sustainability and a less evenly divided joint responsibility for Large Scale LZCGT; Building Scale LZCGT; Architectural Design; and Architectural Design Detailing.

Approximately a third of survey respondents highlighted that Planning could influence CO₂ emission reduction through supporting practical passive architectural design responses that utilise the topographical, micro-climatic, and environmental features of a site to minimise energy consumption. Many planning authorities already provide basic supplementary guidance relating to this approach (location, site, landscape, shelter, shade, solar orientation, built form, scale, design details, material choice etc.) alongside existing section 3F policy in an attempt to promote better design decisions. This is a sphere of influence that has been largely ignored in the discussion of CO₂ emission reduction, but with the right guidance could be expanded and is ideally suited to inclusion within the skillset of Planning.

In general Planning was seen as well-placed to prioritise action on climate change and the reduction of CO₂ emissions at an early stage in the design process. Early engagement with applicants, either through pre-application advice or during the process of determining planning applications, can be used to advise applicants of their responsibilities in relation reducing energy consumption and CO₂ emissions at a stage where it could positively influence design responses. Effective engagement with applicants or developers and obtaining their commitment to these aspirations is fundamental to achieving success in this.

During this engagement process planners can facilitate discussions that promote practical means of achieving reductions in energy consumption and CO₂ emissions from either a design or technical perspective; address the feasibility of adopting alternative energy solutions; and influence the choice developers make with respect to different types of LZCGT and other carbon mitigation measures. Survey respondents considered it important that the planning implications of LZCGT are captured during the planning permission process and not applied retrospectively. Planning officers could potentially flag any building standard requirements for specified LZCGT during the engagement process as a way of front-loading the system and avoiding retrospective changes.

3.3.7 Going Forward – Scottish Government Support

If Planning and Building Standards officers are to play an active role in shaping responses to climate change they need proper training with regards to these issues to enable them to offer better informed advice to applicants and developers. Virtually all respondents thought the development of Scotland-wide sustainable design guidelines and simple assessment procedures would be useful for both planning officers and applicants to clarify expectations (Appendix A: Question 26; Figure A.12). Scotland-wide Design Guidelines were welcomed by the majority of survey respondents in all subject categories suggested. These included Sustainable Urban Planning; Sustainable Rural Planning; Sustainable Building Design; Large Scale LZCGT; Energy Efficient Architectural Design; Sustainable Construction, Materials and Embodied Energy; Fabric Energy Efficiency; and Small Scale LZCGT (Appendix A: Question 27; Figure A.13).

3.4 Interactions between Consent Process, Design & Construction Workflows

Scotland's two-stage consent process broadly reflects the timeline and workflow of most developments. Applicants seek planning consent once the major design decisions have been made, but before many of the technical decisions are taken. Once the technical design has been finalised building consent is sought and if awarded construction can commence. At the end of the construction phase compliance with any suspensive planning conditions must be verified and a completion certificate sought from Building Standards before the building can be occupied. This process is reflected in the RIBA Plan of Work (Table 5) (RIBA, 2020).

Table 5: The relationship between the RIBA Plan of Work and key Consent Stages.

	RIBA Plan of Work Stage	Consent Stage
Stage 0	Strategic Definition
Stage 1	Preparation and Briefing
Stage 2	Concept Design
Stage 3	Spatial Coordination	Planning Consent
Stage 4	Technical Design	Building Consent
Stage 5	Manufacturing and Construction
Stage 6	Handover	Completion Certificate
Stage 7	Use

The fundamental paradox and unfortunate commercial reality is that this two-stage consent process and the design and development timeline are not conducive to encouraging architects and developers to expend energy and expense in defining and calculating the technical and performance outcomes of a project during the early design stages. On one hand, applicants want certainty that a development will gain planning consent before they are willing to invest further in a projects development. On the other hand, leaving the quantifiable assessment of the sustainable performance of a building until later in the design process negates the major savings in resources and efficiencies that can be gained at early stages.

A key change in emphasis in the updated RIBA Plan of Work 2020 is to challenge architects and design teams to design with a focus on sustainable outcomes from the outset of the project (RIBA, 2020). The approach requires sustainability outcomes and associated targets to be defined and agreed at the start of the project, reality-checked throughout the design and construction process and verified through post occupancy evaluation (Sinclaire, 2019). This objective is supported by the RIBA's Sustainable Outcomes Guide which provides guidance on targeting, designing and evaluating sustainable outcomes for buildings of all scales and includes measures among others for designing to net-zero operational carbon, net-zero embodied carbon and sustainable lifecycle cost (RIBA, 2019b). This outcomes-based design approach addresses the acknowledged gaps between design intent and in-use performance across a range of metrics by reinforcing the feedback loop between briefing and realisation.

This new approach could also provide a vehicle to reinforce section 3F Policy and engage clients, professionals and planners in early discussions. It may also help alleviate current issues with the standard of compliance information provided in relation to Section 3F policy.