Development plan amendment regulations: consultation response summary

Question 3

Question 3A)

In preparing an amendment to the NPF, to what extent do you agree that the Scottish Ministers should have the same considerations as they would for a full review of the NPF, where that is relevant to the proposed amendment?

There were 46 responses to Question 3A, which have been set out by respondent type in Table 3 below.

Most (a combined 82.6%) of those who answered Question 3A support the proposal that Scottish Ministers should have the same considerations for an amendment as for a full review of the NPF, whereas five were neutral and a few opposed this. All professional representative bodies that responded were supportive of this proposal.

Question 3B)

Where applicable, please give reasons for your answer.

34 respondents provided further comment at Question 3B.

Summary /Themes

The themes of proportionality and clarity were identified in some responses to Question 3B, with some responses stressing that the process of scrutiny should be proportionate to the amendment.

There was general consensus of support across planning authorities, with the exception of one response which was neutral.

Some supportive responses commented that the proposed approach would be sensible and proportionate. Most of the supportive responses agreed that it was important for any amendments to the NPF to be given the same considerations as a full review, in order to ensure consistency.

One neutral response from a professional representative body submitted that specific housing-related matters should trigger either a review of, or an amendment to, NPF policy, which should include the failure to meet national housing delivery targets, while one planning authority also raised a potential concern with the term 'public at large' should this be included in the regulations.