locallandscapes 29092005asfinal

The Macaulay Institute Aberdeen

Final Report:

A Critical Review of Local Landscape Designations in Scotland

Dr Alister Scott and Peter Shannon

Socio-Economic Research Programme

Macaulay Institute

Craigiebuckler

Aberdeen

1

Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Aims 7

3. Local Landscape Designations: Policy Background 7

4. Local Landscape Designations: The English and Welsh 11 Experience

5. Local Landscape Designations: The Scottish Experience 13 6. Methodology 17 7. Results 21 8. Discussion 51 9. Conclusions and Further Research 58 10. References 63

2

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of this independent research from the

Macaulay Development Fund.

Special acknowledgement is made to Scottish Natural Heritage and their staff who

allowed access to internal material and offered valuable advice throughout the

project.

Finally thanks are due to those local authority staff who participated in the project.

3

1 Introduction

1.1 Landscapes play an important part in our lives, shaping our national, regional and

local identities, affecting our quality of life and providing the context within which social and

economic development takes place.

1.2 Within a UK context it is the uplands and coasts that have been particularly favoured

by policy makers within National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Gold and

Burgess (1982) criticise this bias and argue that more local and accessible rural

environments, although experienced by a majority, have been neglected. At the local level it

is the distinctive identities of landscapes with particular associations and interactions

between people and place which are of significant value and which are increasingly

contested in the face of competing pressures for change. The strength of attachment to

these ‘ordinary’ places and landscapes frequently only emerges when they are threatened by

change. Familiarity and experience with landscape have long been recognised as important

factors in perception studies by Burgess et al (1988) and Penning-Rowsell (1982). As

Tapsell (1995) acknowledges, the most valued open areas are often the familiar ones which

play a part in people's daily lives and experiences.

1.3 The town and country planning system is the principal institution used to resolve

competing interests in the landscape. This is achieved primarily through a system of

designation and associated policy development recommending restraint through which

elected planning committees ultimately adjudicate. However, today designations are

increasingly questioned as to whether they represent the best and most equitable means of

deciding the kind of landscapes stakeholders really want and value (Scott and Bullen, 2004;

Welsh Assembly Government, 2004).

4

1.4 This research responds to local authorities and other stakeholders’ concerns

regarding the status of local landscapes and the current mechanisms in place for their

conservation and enhancement. Whilst there is a general policy presumption against

development in the open countryside there are Local Landscape Designations (LLDs) which

provide the main focus of the research. Widely used by local authorities since the 1960s as

planning tools for landscape management in the UK, they remain significantly under-

researched and misunderstood by public, planners and policy makers alike (Scott and

Bullen,2004; Scott, 2001). Yet, in theory, they offer an avenue within which local landscape

priorities can be identified and realised in policy terms.

1.5 As landscape management tools, LLDs sit beneath the national tier of designations

(National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Belts and National Scenic

Areas (Scotland)) and arguably provide complementarity as local and flexible frameworks for

landscape protection and enhancement (Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland,

2005).

1.6 Local designations, in comparison to their national counterparts1, have largely

operated on a top-down presumption of perceived value with little research or evaluation into

their efficacy and additionality in planning practice, especially given the strong general

planning policies of constraint currently operating in the wider countryside.

1.7 This neglect is curious given the significant reservations from government and

national agencies in their published guidance on LLDs for their future use and development

(ODPM, 2003; 2005; Rural Development Commission 1998; Scott and Bullen, 2004).

Furthermore, the fact that LLDs sit within what some people consider to be an increasingly

complex suite of designations impacting upon the UK raises wider issues about the need for

rationalisation of designations more generally (Bowen Rees, 1995; O’Riordan, 1983).

1 For a detailed review see Scott and Bullen (2004)

5

1.8 Previous research from Wales raised questions about the role, consistency and

appropriateness of LLDs, given their impacts on the wider countryside and reported upon a

perception of ineffectiveness of such designations in planning and landscape enhancement.

Crucially, the lack of public awareness and involvement in LLD designation and management

was identified as a major inconsistency given their alleged local imperatives (Scott and

Bullen, 2004).

1.9 This report considers the Scottish experience where, for the first time in the UK,

comprehensive guidance for local landscape designations has been published by Scottish

Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland (2005). This research, funded by the Macaulay

Institute can be seen as a useful adjunct to this guidance by providing the opportunity for an

in-depth assessment of LLD theory and practice across a range of rural and urban local

authorities.

1.10 The report begins with a general policy review of local landscape designations with

particular analysis of the Scottish experience and legislative background. The core of the

report focuses on the results of primary and secondary data obtained from all 32 local

authorities in Scotland, together with an assessment of the recently published SNH/HS

guidance (2005).

6

2 Aims

2.1 Four key aims lie behind this work

• to identify and explain current approaches to LLD use and designation;

• to critically assess LLDs as planning and landscape management tools;

• to provide a preliminary assessment of the efficacy of current guidance for LLDs;

and

• to assess what role, if any, LLDs might play for the future.

3 Local Landscape Designations: Policy Background

3.1 Scott and Bullen (2004) provide a critical review of the wider context of landscape

designations in the planning system and the development of local landscape designations

from English and Welsh perspectives.2 Their narrative reveals how landscape protection

initially focussed on protecting upland landscapes, reflecting key personal biases inherent

within the Dower and Hobhouse reports and enshrined in subsequent legislation for national

parks in 1949 (Shoard et al, 1982a). Here the approach to landscape protection, widely

practised for the rest of the century, was one firmly rooted in “drawing lines on maps”.

3.2 Designation provided the security and tool for planners around which policies of

constraint could be developed, positioned and strengthened, albeit with questionable

success as agriculture and forestry lay outside formal planning control and were able to

effect significant and detrimental landscape change (Shoard, 1982b).

2 The paper uses the term ‘non-statutory designations’ which has been changed to ‘local landscape designations’ as by default all policies and designations in the development plan are seen as statutory. The term ‘local landscape designations’ is therefore less ambiguous.

7

3.3 The guiding principle behind designation was that particular landscapes were

deemed more ‘special’ than elsewhere based on key criteria of importance and sensitivity.

Such ‘landscape elitism’ was widely contested by key stakeholders and land managers,

particularly given the perceived negative implications of designation on rural development

activity. However, there is emerging evidence that this wholly negative view might be

changing. For example, the clamour for inclusion by communities in the Scottish national

parks and the low level of protest in the roll out of NATURA 2000 flows from the increasing

recognition that designation can bring benefits to the area from different funding regimes at

European, national and regional levels.

3.4 However, towards the end of the twentieth century designation was slowly being

challenged through the development of a new conceptual approach to landscape that

focussed on ‘landscape character’. Landscape was seen “as an area, as perceived by

people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human

factors” (Council of Europe, 2000: Article 1). This placed the emphasis on management

prescriptions that tried to protect or enhance the character of any particular landscape

thereby shaping a broader, and arguably more inclusive approach to landscape planning and

management.

3.5 The European Landscape Convention recognises the importance of “protecting,

managing and enhancing landscapes” with signatories to the Convention agreeing to include

development and management issues relating to landscape in public decision making

processes. Unfortunately, the UK government has not signed up to this yet.

8

3.6 The main focus of UK work has been the national programme of Landscape

Character Assessment (LCA) which has been undertaken in different ways across Wales

(LANDMAP) (Countryside Council for Wales 2001) and Scotland/England (LCA)

(Countryside Agency/Scottish Natural Heritage 2002). This programme has enabled all

landscapes to be surveyed and described in terms of their key characteristics, though at

present there is a risk that this will remain as a domesday style record. Further work has

ensued looking at landscape capacity, tolerance to change and landscape quality, albeit with

variable results (Scott and Falzon, 2004; Nottingham Consultants, 2004; Swanwick, 2003).

3.7 The different approaches inherent with landscape designation versus landscape

character approaches are summarised in Box 1. The fundamental difference is that

landscape character assessments are more inclusive across all landscapes with a degree of

dynamism and integration that is absent from traditional designations of landscape

importance that tend by their very nature to be hierarchical.

3.8 Boundary issues are also fuzzier where character is concerned. The impact of a line

in a designation has much more significance than a character boundary. This brings sharply

into focus the methods and tools involved in the boundary process as well as recognition that

such decisions can be politically motivated, as evidenced in the recent designation of the

Cairngorm National Park (Illsley and Richardson, 2004). However, as Jones (2002) has

stated, “landscape character does not preclude the development of designations thereafter”.

For example several local authorities in Wales have used LANDMAP LCA as a basis for

subsequent LLD designation citing the method as a means of providing greater rigour to

designation (Scott and Bullen, 2004).

9

Characterisation Designation Purpose Describes all landscape character

types in the local authority area. Identifies special landscapes in the local authority area.

Scope Provides a basis for distinguishing different landscape character types and identifying landscape sensitivity.

Identifies more discrete areas of landscape considered to be of higher merit and which may comprise a combination of landscape character types.

Approach Based on an assessment of defined landscape features.

Based on an assessment of landscape importance.

Outcomes Informs development of general landscape policies and guidelines for all landscape character types.

Informs development of specific planning policies geared towards enhanced protection and management of particular areas.

Treatment of boundaries

Boundaries are based on landscape character areas and are more transitional in nature.

More precisely drawn boundaries are defined by a range of criteria, including landscape character, visual envelopes and topographic features.

Box 1: Landscape Characterisation and Landscape Designation Compared (Source SNH/HS (2005)

10

4 Local Landscape Designations3: The English and Welsh

experience

4.1 The development of LLD policy in England and Wales began in 1973 when the

Countryside Commission issued guidance to local authorities when preparing Areas of Great

Landscape Value (Cobham Resource Consultants, 1993). Thereafter, there was an advisory

vacuum with little guidance until the Policy Planning Guidance notes of the late 1980s (PPG

7 the Countryside and the Rural Economy). More recently, Planning Policy Statements (PPS)

emerged, where PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) explicitly addressed LLDs

(ODPM, 2005 par24-25).

4.2 This planning guidance was rooted in caution-

24 “The Government recognises and accepts that there are areas of landscape outside nationally designated areas that are particularly highly valued locally. The Government believes that carefully drafted, criteria-based policies in LDDs, utilising tools such as landscape character assessment, should provide sufficient protection for these areas, without the need for rigid local designations that may unduly restrict acceptable, sustainable development and the economic activity that underpins the vitality of rural areas. 25 Local landscape designations should only be maintained or, exceptionally, extended where it can be clearly shown that criteria-based planning policies cannot provide the necessary protection. LDDs should state what it is that requires extra protection, and why. When reviewing their local area-wide development plans and LDDs, planning authorities should rigorously consider the justification for retaining existing local landscape designations. They should ensure that such designations are based on a formal and robust assessment of the qualities of the landscape concerned.”

4.3 Scott and Bullen (2004) in their research in Wales found that such caution was not in

evidence with an ad-hoc approach to LLDs which raised various questions as to their overall

effectiveness, signalling a need for more research and policy debate given their potential

impacts in landscape management and planning. Of primary concern was the mechanisms

by which LLD boundaries were drawn, the rigour of methodologies used, the lack of archival

information on the initial development of the designation, the different roles LLDs performed,

11

the lack of public awareness and involvement, the lack of consistency towards planning

applications in LLD and the wider countryside, the lack of formal evaluations of their

effectiveness, the lack of joint working across unitary authority boundaries and the lack of

boundary reviews.

4.4 On the positive side, however, the development of LCAs through the LANDMAP

exercise was seen to provide the necessary rigour for designation which some local

authorities had pursued. Scott and Bullen (2004) suggest there was a strong case for

tailoring LLDs towards a more community-led role in keeping with the locally based nature of

the designation, where additionality and clarity could be better identified. Here, the Local

Nature Reserve concept was seen as useful model to emulate.

4.5 Their key conclusion, however, was over the emerging tension between planners and

others over using the more radical landscape character assessments as the prime decision

making tool versus using such assessments to improve existing local landscape

designations. This had led to a mixed and inconsistent picture across Wales with some

authorities abandoning LLDs whilst others had re-invented them.

3 For a full review please refer to Scott and Bullen, (2004)

12

5 Local Landscape Designations : The Scottish Experience 5.1 In Scotland there is a different history and legislative background to LLDs. This is

discussed in some detail below as it provides vital context to the current research reported

here.

5.2 The first piece of Scottish guidance lay with Circular 2/1962 which set out actions that

local planning authorities should take where outstanding scenic areas required special

consideration under the Planning Acts. All local authorities were to survey their areas to

identify “areas of great landscape value (AGLV) which can be described as vulnerable in the

sense that there are or may be pressures for development that may affect them in one way

or other”.

5.3 For each area identified, local planning authorities were to prepare a written

statement of the general character and quality of the area, definition of the boundaries and

policy for control and phasing of development. Significantly, there was no further guidance

until 1999 when National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 14 indicated that planning

authorities should avoid the unnecessary proliferation of local designations. Nevertheless, it

confirmed the continuing relevance of AGLVs and other local landscape designations

alongside new methodological developments of landscape character assessment. It stated

that boundaries should be clearly defined and justified in development plans. The guidance

made it clear that AGLVs were at a level in a hierarchy below national designations with clear

implications for the level and nature of protection.

5.4 More recently, Planning Advice Note 60 addresses local designations including

AGLVs. It suggested that local designations were “of most value where they form part of a

wider landscape and habitat framework and contribute to the realisation of Natural Heritage

Strategy, LBAP or Local Agenda 21 objectives to enhance the quality of urban living and help

13

make an area more attractive as a location of economic activity” (par. 39). This more

positive and strategic role represented an interesting shift in view from the more cautionary

statements elsewhere in the UK.

5.5 With specific reference to AGLVs, PAN 60 suggested that a single tier of sub-national

designations should be sufficient for practical planning purposes, with areas selected

because of their importance beyond their ‘immediate locale’. It also recommended the

preparation of specific development guidelines to safeguard their landscape character.

5.6 Guidance published by SNH and HS (2005) builds from this national policy

framework. At the outset the report states that “local landscape designations are a well-

established and valued approach to protecting and guiding change in areas of particular

landscape importance” (1.1). Here there is explicit recognition of the value of LLDs and the

guidance sees no tension between an all landscapes approach via the landscape character

assessment process and the revitalisation of LLDs through three interrelated roles: as

accolades, through policy development and as management tools.

5.7 The interesting observation from this viewpoint is that designations are seen as

providing something extra that an all-landscapes approach cannot, a theme observed in the

Welsh study where some planners were reluctant to relinquish the traditional security of lines

on maps in favour of a more integrated approach for fear of increased development pressure

and loss of countryside. Scott and Bullen (2004) speculated that it was the economic

determinism of planning committees with respect to interpretation of planning policies that

was instrumental in driving this response.

14

5.8 This 2005 guidance is highly significant as it represents the only substantive

document on LLDs in the UK and it therefore demands closer inspection. Its remit is to:

• promote greater understanding and support for local landscape designations among local authorities, the public and other key stakeholders;

• reaffirm the role of local landscape designations as part of an ‘all landscapes’ approach and define the circumstances when they could be used;

• secure greater consistency in the selection and use of local landscape designations by local authorities; and

• clarify the relationship of local landscape designations to the wider family of Scotland’s landscape designations.

p6

5.9 The guidance provides a useful checklist for local authorities to consider LLD

designation based on a range of different criteria that includes:- landscape character

(typicality, rarity, condition); landscape qualities (scenic, enjoyment, cultural, naturalness);

landscape criteria (significance, representativeness and relative merit); and practical criteria

(need, integrity and support, including public support). These criteria bear more than a

passing resemblance to the Countryside Commission criteria for designating AGLVs

originally published in 1973 (Scott and Bullen, 2004).

5.10 However, the process and methodology by which particular landscapes are valued

and assessed for LLDs is seen as a matter for local authorities themselves to decide upon, in

partnership with experts and stakeholders. The guidance argues that a national framework

is inappropriate as these are essentially locally derived designations and the use of a “one

size fits all” approach would be problematic (3.9-3.10). Therefore a menu driven approach is

favoured which local authorities can adapt to local circumstances. The guidance does stress

the need for transparent and rigorous methods to be employed so they can be defended

under cross examination at public local inquiry and here there is specific mention of the role

of pilot capacity studies such as in Cupar (Fife Council, 2004). It also recommends the need

for improved strategic management of LLDs through better arrangements for cross authority

working and co-operation where LLDs are near or cross boundaries, the need for systematic

reviews of boundaries and improved community involvement and awareness in LLD

designation and management.

15

5.11 In terms of planning policies the guidance also makes some key recommendations

which reflect the focus of LLDs as positive landscape management tools rather than negative

”no development zones. Furthermore, there is a role for Supplementary Planning Guidance

covering issues such as design and capacity, which could steer quality applications in these

areas. Other tools such as management statements and complementary designations such

as regional parks are also seen as having a role to play in changing the traditional negative

outlook of LLDs.

5.5 In terms of best practice, development plan policies should recognise the positive contribution that appropriate development and other land use change can often make to the landscape character and qualities of the designated area. Nevertheless, some development and land use change will be inappropriate for such areas. Development should therefore generally only be permitted within a local landscape designation when

i) it will not have significant adverse impacts on the special character or qualities

of the landscape of the area; ii) the social and economic benefits of the development are considered to be

more than of just local significance in the context of the local authority area. For development that meets these tests, the location, scale, design, materials, and landscaping should be of a high standard and, where appropriate, should seek to enhance the special qualities and character of the landscape.

SNH/HS (2005):24

5.12 Certainly the national guidance provides a useful template upon which to base our

research method and deliberations.

16

6 Methodology

6.1 A letter was sent to all planning directors within the 32 unitary authorities in Scotland

(Figure 1) outlining the aims of the research and requesting interviews with key development

control and forward planning staff. A copy of the interview schedule (Box 2) was included so

as to allow officers adequate time to prepare and collate the necessary information and

documentation prior to the interview.

Special Landscape Interview list

1. Explain the purpose of the research

a. To examine the role and effectiveness of non statutory landscape designations as planning and landscape management tools

2. Any response made to the SNH study on role of NSD for guidance 2003/4

3. What designations affecting landscape exist within the county a. Include all designations (hierarchy) Conservation areas, NSA, Green Belts (Need maps) b. What designations do you have NOW that are non statutory (landscape) and others e.g. nature

conservation/community. (Define non statutory as designations confirmed and under the sole control of the local authority independent of any other agency )

c. What non stat designations have you had in the PAST 4. Extent (For each non stat designation (NSD))

a. Are there maps of these designations b. Area of land of these designations c. Predominant land use/type

5. Definition (For each NSD) a. How do you define it (compare) b. How is the designation defined (refer to stated policy if possible) c. How does it fit in with the other designations d. How does it fit in with neighbouring authorities (is there are strategic approach) e. Ensure we have all relevant extant development plan policy numbers that are relevant to NSD) If possible the whole

development plan and/or other strategies (the landscape strategy is a key documents ) f. Try to compile an up-to-date list of the relevant plans that are passed, prematurity, (take care to get SP and LP updates

6. Designation (For each NSD) a. How were they designated (and when) (give criteria if possible) b. Have the boundaries reviewed at any time c. Role of public/community involvement in the process.

7. Differences between (NSD) and policies in development plans for wider countryside a. Additionality in policy emphasis or planner perception between NSD and WC b. What happens when a planning application falls in a NSD are there special procedures invoked for development

control staff c. Do you have a process of informal negotiation with developers to advise about NSD (have you any figures to quantify

how many applications were prevented) d. Level of development pressure in NSD vs. WC e. Use of planning tools to achieve NSD objectives ; conditions vs. refusals

8. SWOT analyses PROMPTS a. Are all NSD viewed the same here or are some better than others b. Especially whether the designation is understood by the developers and local community and local members

9. Role of landscape character assessment a. Is LCA changing your perception about the role of NSD b. How are you using LCA to guide landscape management in your county (more NSD vs. Abolishment)

10. Future a. What are your strategic plans for NSD (are they being proposed in development plans b. How do you respond to landscape elitism vs. landscape character tension

Box 2 Interview questions sent to planning officers in advance of meetings.

17

6.2 Fifteen authorities agreed to an in-depth interview (Table 1). For most interviews two

members of the planning staff (development control and forward planning) were seen, but in

some authorities three officers were interviewed in order to include staff responsible for

landscape management. Semi-structured interviews lasting around two hours were carried

out between January and May 2005. They were taped, transcribed and subjected to

thematic content analysis. The interview schedule (Box 2) sought to capture both interview

and documentary evidence. The attitudes and perceptions of officers relating to the role,

efficacy and future status of LLDs as planning and landscape tools were elicited as proxies

for planning practice, while documentary policy analyses of development plans were

undertaken to indicate the theory.

Council Method of survey GIS data Available Aberdeen City Council Face to Face Interview Full Aberdeenshire Council Face to Face Interview Full Angus Council Face to Face Interview Full Argyll and Bute Council Questionnaire Full Clackmannanshire Council Questionnaire Full Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Video Conference Full Dumfries & Galloway Council Questionnaire Full Dundee City Council Questionnaire Full East Ayrshire Council Face to Face Interview Full East Dunbartonshire Council Questionnaire Full East Lothian Council Questionnaire Full East Renfrewshire Council Questionnaire Full Edinburgh City Council Face to Face Interview Full Falkirk Council Questionnaire Full Fife Council Face to Face Interview Full Glasgow City Council Face to Face Interview Full Highland Council Face to Face Interview Partial Inverclyde Council Face to Face Interview Full Midlothian Council Questionnaire Full Moray Council Questionnaire Full North Ayrshire Council Face to Face Interview Full North Lanarkshire Council Face to Face Interview Full Orkney Islands Council Video Conference Partial Perth & Kinross Council Questionnaire Partial Renfrewshire Council Face to Face Interview Full Scottish Borders Council Questionnaire Full Shetland Islands Council Telephone Interview Full South Ayrshire Council Questionnaire Full South Lanarkshire Council Questionnaire Full Stirling Council Questionnaire Full West Dunbartonshire Council Questionnaire Full West Lothian Council Unable to respond due to lack of time Partial

Table 1: Information approach for authorities participating in LLD research

18

6.3 The remaining 17 authorities were contacted by telephone to secure their

involvement in a follow up questionnaire prioritizing spatial data to build up a comprehensive

geographic information database about LLDs but with the opportunity for comments on LLDs.

One authority was unable to respond due to lack of staff time.

6.4 Complementing the data obtained, we were also able to analyse the written

comments of 27 local authorities received by Scottish Natural Heritage as part of their

consultation on LLDs which provided the basis for the 2005 guidance.

19

17

6

2

4

24

26

3

8

20

30

13

29

15

28

27

10

23

2221

32 199

1

514 1225

11

18 31

7

16

Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. All rights reserved.

MLURI Licence No. GD27237X 2005.0 50 10025

Kilometres

1 Aberdeen City2 Aberdeenshire3 Angus4 Argyll & Bute5 Clackmannanshire6 Dumfries & Galloway7 Dundee City8 East Ayrshire9 East Dunbartonshire10 East Lothian11 East Renfrewshire12 Edinburgh City13 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar14 Falkirk15 Fife16 Glasgow City17 Highland18 Inverclyde19 Midlothian20 Moray21 North Ayrshire22 North Lanarkshire23 Orkney Islands24 Perth & Kinross25 Renfrewshire26 Scottish Borders27 Shetland Islands28 South Ayrshire29 South Lanarkshire30 Stirling31 West Dunbartonshire32 West Lothian

Scottish Council Areas

Rural

Urban

Figure 1: Map of 32 Unitary Authorities in Scotland

20

7 Results

17

6

2

4

24

26

3

8

20

30

13

29

15

28

1022

21

32

1

27

23

19

9

5

14 122511

1831

7

16

Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. Scottish Natural HeritageLocal Authority copyright see Appendix 1

0 50 10025Kilometres

Partial Spatial Data

Council Areas

Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes

Local Landscape Designitions

Future Removal of Local Landscape Designations

1 Aberdeen City2 Aberdeenshire3 Angus4 Argyll & Bute5 Clackmannanshire6 Dumfries & Galloway7 Dundee City8 East Ayrshire9 East Dunbartonshire10 East Lothian11 East Renfrewshire12 Edinburgh City13 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar14 Falkirk15 Fife16 Glasgow City17 Highland18 Inverclyde19 Midlothian20 Moray21 North Ayrshire22 North Lanarkshire23 Orkney Islands24 Perth & Kinross25 Renfrewshire26 Scottish Borders27 Shetland Islands28 South Ayrshire29 South Lanarkshire30 Stirling31 West Dunbartonshire32 West Lothian

Scottish Council Areas

Figure 2: Map of LLDs across Scotland

21

Identity and extent

% of Area

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Aberde

en C

ity C

ounc

il

Aberde

ensh

ire C

ounc

il

Angus

Cou

ncil

Argyll a

nd B

ute C

ounc

il

Clackm

anna

nshir

e Cou

ncil

Dumfrie

s & G

allow

ay C

ounc

il

Dunde

e City

Cou

ncil

East A

yrshir

e Cou

ncil

East D

unba

rtons

hire C

ounc

il

East L

othian

Cou

ncil

East R

enfre

wshire

Cou

ncil

Edinbu

rgh C

ity C

ounc

il

Comha

irle na

n Eile

an Siar

Falkir

k Cou

ncil

Fife C

ounc

il

Glasgo

w City

Cou

ncil

Highlan

d Cou

ncil

Inverc

lyde C

ounc

il

Midloth

ian C

ounc

il

Moray C

ounc

il

North A

yrshir

e Cou

ncil

North L

anark

shire

Cou

ncil

Orkney

Islan

ds C

ounc

il

Perth &

Kinros

s Cou

ncil

Renfre

wshire

Cou

ncil

Scottis

h Bord

ers C

ounc

il

Shetla

nd Is

lands

Cou

ncil

South

Ayrshir

e Cou

ncil

South

Lana

rkshir

e Cou

ncil

Stirling

Cou

ncil

West D

unba

rtons

hire C

ounc

il

West L

othian

Cou

ncil

Figure 3: Area extent of LLDs 7.1 Figure 2 reveals the current extent of LLDs across Scotland including proposed

deletions in forthcoming development plans. They cover extensive areas of urban and rural

Scotland, representing some 29% of the total land area. Significantly, those authorities that

are abandoning or intend to abandon LLDs do involve considerable landholdings,

approximating 2,534 km2.

7.2 When the extent of LLDs is broken down by local authority, it is clear that most

authorities use LLDs to some extent but North and South Ayrshire, Fife, Midlothian and

Stirling all have over 50% of their land area under LLDs (Figure 3).

22

Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. Copyright Scottish Natural HeritageCrown copyright 1992

Local Authority copyright see Appendix 1 0 50 10025Kilometres

Land Cover Scotland 1988Arable

Broadleaved Woodland

Built-up and Developed Land

Dry Heather Moor

Heather Moor+Peatland

Improved Pasture

Links and Dunes

Missing Data

Mixed Woodland

Montane Vegetation

Montane and Other Vegetation

Other

Peatland

Peatland+Other Habitats

Plantation Woodland

Rock/Cliff

Rough Grassland

Rough Grassland+Peatland

Rush Dominated Grassland

Semi-Natural Coniferous Woodland

Smooth Grassland +/- Scrub or Bracken

Undifferentiated Heather Moor

Water

Wet Heather Moor

Wetland

Figure 4: Map of landscape types within Local Landscape Designations

23

Crown copyright Ordnance Survey. Copyright Scottish Natural Heritage

Local Authority copyright see Appendix 10 50 10025

Kilometres

Landscape Character AssessmentMain Types

Agricultural Heartlands

Cairngorm Straths

Craggy Upland

Foothills

Foothills With Forest

Forested Glen

High Tops

Inland Loch

Interlocking Sweeping Peaks

Lowland Hills

Moorland Plateau

Moorland Plateaux

Moorland Slopes and Hills

Open Upland Hills

Rounded Hills

Rugged Granite Uplands

Rugged Massif

Rugged Moorland Hills Valleys with Forestry

Rugged Mountain Massif

Smooth Stepped Moorland

Southern Uplands

Southern Uplands with Scattered Forest

Sweeping Moorland

Upland Forest-Moor Mosaic

Uplands

Uplands and Glens

All Other Categories

Figure 5: Map of Landscape Character areas within Local Landscape Designations

7.3 Figure 4 reveals a variety of landscape types present within LLDs, which given the

local and flexible nature of the designation is hardly surprising. What is surprising is the

dominance of agricultural type landscapes (improved pasture (13%), plantation woodland

24

(12%), undifferentiated heather moorland (12%) and arable land (7%)) within the overall

profile. The land cover types are further broken down by local authority in Figure 6 and the

profile shows particular biases with respect to arable and built and developed land in

particular local authority areas, further confirming the diversity of landscape type afforded

LLD status.

7.4 However, the map on Landscape Character Assessment (Figure 5) reveals a clear

bias towards more upland/hilly landscapes within LLDs. This is highly significant as it

reinforces concerns at the focus of designations more generally towards upland landscapes

with agricultural lowlands, valleys and greenspace surrounding urban areas less influential.

It is important to note that coasts appear underrepresented however it should be pointed out

that authorities commonly had developed/undeveloped coast areas within their development

plans but they were not seen as LLDs. Hence they were excluded.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Aberde

en C

ity C

ounc

il

Aberde

ensh

ire C

ounc

il

Angus

Cou

ncil

Argyll a

nd Bute

Cou

ncil

Clackm

anna

nshir

e Cou

ncil

Comha

irle na

n Eile

an S

iar

Dumfrie

s & G

allow

ay C

ounc

il

Dunde

e City

Cou

ncil

East A

yrshir

e Cou

ncil

East D

unba

rtons

hire C

ounc

il

East L

othian

Cou

ncil

East R

enfre

wshire

Cou

ncil

Edinbu

rgh C

ity C

ounc

il

Falkirk

Cou

ncil

Fife C

ounc

il

Glasgo

w City

Cou

ncil

Highlan

d Cou

ncil

Inverc

lyde C

ounc

il

Midloth

ian C

ounc

il

Moray C

ounc

il

North A

yrshir

e Cou

ncil

North L

anark

shire

Cou

ncil

Orkney

Islan

ds C

ounc

il

Perth &

Kinr

oss C

ounc

il

Renfre

wshire

Cou

ncil

Scottis

h Bord

ers C

ounc

il

Shetla

nd Is

lands

Cou

ncil

South

Ayrshir

e Cou

ncil

South

Lana

rkshir

e Cou

ncil

South

Lana

rkshir

e Cou

ncil

Stirling

Cou

ncil

Wes

t Dun

barto

nshir

e Cou

ncil

Wes

t Loth

ian C

ounc

il

Others

Wetland

Wet Heather Moor

Water

UndifferentiatedHeather MoorSmooth Grassland +/-Scrub or BrackenSemi-NaturalConiferous WoodlandRush DominatedGrasslandRoughGrassland+PeatlandRough Grassland

Rock/Cliff

Plantation Woodland

Peatland+OtherHabitatsPeatland

Other

Montane Vegetation

Montane and OtherVegetationMixed Woodland

Missing Data

Links and Dunes

Improved Pasture

HeatherMoor+PeatlandDry Heather Moor

Built-up andDeveloped LandBroadleavedWoodlandArable

Figure 6: Land types broken down by local authority

25

Planning background

7.5 The planning policy situation facing LLDs is extremely complex and confusing. Local

government re-organisation in Scotland in 1996 created 32 unitary authorities but these new

authorities inherited a whole series of structure (formerly county) and local plans (formerly

district councils) which together covered their respective areas. Subsequently, they have

embarked on a programme of structure and local plan reviews using these previous local

authority districts as the spatial templates. Consequently, within a given county there can be

up to 12 extant local plans that need to be studied, each over different timeframes, each with

possible different terms, policies and approaches towards LLDs. This greatly adds to issues

of consistency and transparency as we try to grasp how a particular council operates. The

situation, as we understand it, is presented in Table 2. Whilst the structure plan process is

more or less up to date with complete coverage, the local plan situation is extremely variable.

North Lanarkshire for example has extant plans dating back to the 1950s and 1960s which

remain the statutory land use planning documents.

26

Council Structure Plan SP Stage SP Year Local Plan LP Stage LP Year Aberdeen City Council NEST 2001-2016 Approved 2001 The Finalised Aberdeen Local

Plan Finalised 2004

Aberdeenshire Council NEST 2001-2016 Approved 2001 Finalised Aberdeenshire Local Plan

Finalised 2004

Angus Council Dundee and Angus Structure Plan

Approved 2002 Finalised Angus Local Plan Finalised 2005

Argyll and Bute Council Argyll and Bute Structure Plan Approved 2002 Argyll and Bute Finalised Draft Local Plan

Draft 2005

Clackmannanshire Council

Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan

Approved 2002 Clackmannanshire Local Plan Adopted 2004

Dumfries & Galloway Council

Dumfries and Galloway Structure Plan

Approved 1999 Finalised Annandale & Eskdale Local Plan

Public Inquiry 2005



Approved 1999 Finalised Nithsdale Local Plan Public Inquiry 2005



Approved 1999 Finalised Stewartry Local Plan Public Inquiry 2005



Approved 1999 Finalised Wigtown Local Plan Public Inquiry 2005

Dundee City Council Dundee and Angus Structure Plan

Approved 2002 Finalised Dundee Local Plan Review

Post Enquiry 2005

Dundee City Council Dundee and Angus Structure Plan

Approved 2002 Dundee Local Plan Adopted 1998

East Ayrshire Council Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Approved 2000 East Ayrshire Local Plan Adopted 2003East Dunbartonshire Council

Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan

Approved 2000 East Dunbartonshire Local Plan

Adopted 2005

East Lothian Council Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan

Approved 2004 Finalised East Lothian Local Public Inquiry 2005

East Lothian Council Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan

Approved 2004 East Lothian Local Adopted 2000

East Renfrewshire Council


Approved 2000 East Renfrewshire Local Plan Adopted 2003

Edinburgh City Council Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan

Approved 2004 Central Edinburgh Local Plan Issues Papers 2005

27


Approved 2004 West Edinburgh Local Plan(draft)

Draft 2001


Approved 2004 North East Edinburgh Local Plan

Adopted 1998


Approved 2004 South East Edinburgh Local Plan

Adopted 1992


Approved 2004 Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan

Finalised 2004

Falkirk Council Falkirk Council Structure Plan pre Approved

2005 Finalised Falkirk Council Local Plan

Finalised 2005

Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 Draft St Andrews and East Fife Local Plan

Draft 2005

Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 Cupar and Howe of Fife Local Plan

Adopted 2003

Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 Tay Coast Local Plan Adopted 1998Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 St Andrews Area Local Plan Adopted 1996Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 Largo and East Neuk Local

Plan Adopted 1995

Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 Levenmouth Area Local Plan Adopted 2004Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 Glenrothes Area Local Plan Adopted 2003Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 Kirkcaldy Area Local Plan Adopted 2003Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 Dunfermline and the Coast

Local Plan Adopted 2002

Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 Cowdenbeath Area Local Plan Adopted 2003Fife Council Fife Structure Plan Approved 2002 West Villages Local Plan Adopted 2002Glasgow City Council Glasgow & Clyde Valley

Structure Plan Approved 2000 Glasgow Adopted City Plan Adopted 2003

Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Caithness Adopted 2002Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Tongue & Farr Adopted 1995Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 North West Sutherland Adopted 1987Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 South & East Sutherland Adopted 2000Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Ullapool Adopted 1995Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Lochbroom Landward Adopted 1999Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Applecross, Gairloch &

Lochcarron Adopted 1996

28

Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Invergordon Inverbreakie Adopted 1994Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Easter Ross Adopted 1994Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Mid Ross Adopted 1990Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 The Black Isle Adopted 1990Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Skye & Lochalsh Adopted 1999Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Lochaber Adopted 1999Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Badenoch and Strathspey Adopted 1997Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Nairnshire Adopted 2000Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Inverness, Culloden &

Ardersier Adopted 1994

Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Beauly & District Adopted 1994Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Fort Augustus &

Drumnadrochit Adopted 1991

Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Strathdearn, S/Nairn & Loch Ness

Adopted 1997

Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Wester Ross Replacement Local Plan

Reporter's PLI Report

2005

Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Ross & Cromarty East Replacement Local Plan

Proposed Mods to Deposit Draft

2005

Highland Council The Highland Structure Plan Approved 2001 Inverness Replacement LocalPlan

Recommendations to Area & PDET Committees

2005

Inverclyde Council Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan

Approved 2000 Inverclyde Final Draft Local Plan

Draft 2002

Midlothian Council Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan

Approved 2003 Midlothian Local Plan Adopted 2003

Midlothian Council Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan

Approved 2004 Shawfair Local Plan Adopted 2003

Moray Council The Moray Structure Plan Approved 1999 Moray Local Plan Adopted 2000North Ayrshire Council Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Approved 2000 Finalised Local Plan - North

Ayrshire Adopted 2003

North Ayrshire Council Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Approved 2000 Isle of Arran Adopted Local Plan.

Adopted 2005

North Lanarkshire Council Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan

Approved 2000 Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan

Adopted 1953

29


Approved 2000 Lanark County CouncilIndustrial Area Part Development Plan

Adopted 1964


Approved 2000 Motherwell CentralComprehensive Development Area Plan

Adopted 1971


Approved 2000 Uddingston/Tannochside TownMap

Adopted 1973


Approved 2000 Shotts Local Plan Adopted 1983


Approved 2000 Strathkelvin Southern AreaLocal Plan

Adopted 1983


Approved 2000 Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan

Adopted 1983


Approved 2000 Northern Area Local Plan Adopted 1986


Approved 2000 Cumbernauld Local Plan Adopted 1993


Approved 2000 Monklands District Local Plan Adopted 1995


Approved 2000 Forth and Clyde Local Plan Adopted 1996


Approved 2000 Kilsyth Local Plan Adopted 1999


Approved 2000 Northern Corridor Local Plan Draft 2002


Approved 2000 Southern Area Local Plan Draft 2003


Approved 2000 North Lanarkshire Local Plan Draft 2005

Orkney Islands Council Orkney Structure Plan Approved 2001 Finalised Orkney Local Plan Adopted 2003Perth & Kinross Council Perth & Kinross Structure Plan Approved 2004 Eastern Local Plan Adopted 1998Perth & Kinross Council Perth & Kinross Structure Plan Approved 2004 Highland Local Plan Adopted 2000Perth & Kinross Council Perth & Kinross Structure Plan Approved 2004 Kinross Local Plan Adopted 2004Perth & Kinross Council Perth & Kinross Structure Plan Approved 2004 Perth Central Local Plan Adopted 1997Perth & Kinross Council Perth & Kinross Structure Plan Approved 2004 Perth Local Plan Adopted 2000

30

Perth & Kinross Council Perth & Kinross Structure Plan Approved 2004 Strathearn Area Local Plan Adopted 2001

Renfrewshire Council Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan

Approved 2000 Finalised Renfrewshire Local Plan

Finalised 2005

Scottish Borders Council Finalised Structure Plan - ‘ Scottish Borders – The New Way Forward’

Approved 2002 Scottish Borders Local Plan Draft 2004

Shetland Islands Council The Shetland Structure Plan Approved 2001 The Shetland Local Plan Adopted 2004South Ayrshire Council Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Approved 2000 South Ayrshire Local Plan Adopted 2002South Lanarkshire Council


Approved 2000 East Kilbride and District Local Plan

Adopted 2003

South Lanarkshire Council


Approved 2000 Hamilton District Local Plan Adopted 2000



Approved 2000 Cambuslang/ Rutherglen Local Plan

Adopted 2002



Approved 2000 Lower Clydesdale Local Plan Adopted 2004



Approved 2000 Upper Clydesdale Local Plan Adopted 1996

Stirling Council Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan

Approved 2002 Stirling Council Local Plan Adopted 1999

West Dunbartonshire Council


Approved 2000 Clydebank Local Plan Adopted 2004

West Lothian Council Edinburgh and The Lothians Structure Plan

Approved 2004 The Finalised West Lothian Adopted 2005

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Western Ilses structure plan Approved 2003 Barra and Vatersay Local Plan Adopted 1996Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Western Ilses structure plan Approved 2003 Broadbay Local Plan Adopted 2003Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Western Ilses structure plan Approved 2003 Harris Local Plan Adopted 2000Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Western Ilses structure plan Approved 2003 Uist and Benbecula Local Plan Adopted 2000

Table 2: Current Development Plan Status

31

Nomenclature of LLDs

7.6 Table 3 shows the wide range of names given to LLDs. In total some 19 different

terms have been used to describe them with only six of these being used across different

authorities. By far the most widespread of these are the Historic Gardens and Designed

Landscapes4 (29) and the AGLV designations (16). For the remainder it appears that

authorities have largely devised their own individual names to suit their local context but, in

so doing, have added greatly to potential confusion in public understanding. SNH/HS (2005)

guidance recognises this problem and suggests that the significant variation in the terms

used for LLDs is problematic. Consequently, they favour the use of one term namely the

Special Landscape Area (SLA), which is the LLD most commonly encountered in Wales.

7.7 When these designations are broken down by local authority, there are some

authorities that have several different LLDs operating within their areas. In some cases this

relates to historical issues associated with local government re-organisation with the

inheritance of several local plans reflecting different districts’ approaches. However, other

authorities have consciously tried to use LLDs in different ways to achieve development

control and landscape objectives. For example, Glasgow and Highland Councils have four

LLDs, while Moray, North Ayrshire and West Lothian each have three.

4 The Historic Garden and Designed Landscape is a designation which has much clearer identity than other LLDs.

32

Term No. Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes 29Area of Great Landscape Value 16Regional Scenic Area 4Greenspace 3Green Wedges 3Areas of Landscape Significance 2Area of Local Landscape Priority 1Area of Special Landscape Control 1Area of Panoramic Quality 1Scenic Area 1Local Protection Areas 1Sites of Local Landscape Character 1Sensitive Landscape Character Areas 1Remote Landscapes of Value for Recreation 1Sites of Special Landscape Importance 1Area of Landscape Quality 1Sensitive Landscape Area 1Areas of Special Agricultural Importance 1Areas of Special Landscape Control 1Rural Protection Area 1Countryside around towns 1

Table 3: Nomenclature of Local Landscape Designations

Role

7.8 In order to clarify the perceived role of LLDs, we used interview data based on

planners’ perceptions supported by documentary evidence contained with the recent SNH

consultation and development plan policies.

7.9 The planners’ perceptions were summarised and deconstructed using selective

quotes/extracts where relevant.

7.10 The planners’ interviews revealed that LLDs perform essentially six different roles

(Table 4). In some local authorities these overlapped, revealing a significant degree of multi-

functionality. Furthermore, within local authorities as already recognised, there were

sometimes several different LLDs present, potentially each with differing roles, at least in

theory.

33

Role No. Landscape protection 10Landscape enhancement 6Designation stacking 5Community involvement 3Negotiation 3Rural development 2

Table 4: Roles of Local Landscape Designations

7.11 Looking at the data from the interviews with planning officers the dominant role was

for landscape protection where the objective was to ensure that “development was not

allowed which could reduce existing rural character or visual quality of landscape”

(Inverclyde). However, our interviews did reveal that in some LLDs there was very little

pressure for development. This was specific to the LLD in a particular area. For example,

within North Lanarkshire the Regional Scenic Area does not suffer high levels of

development pressure when compared with the AGLV.

7.12 Second, there was recognition of their role as landscape enhancement and design

tools (6/17), where the approach was more about “accepting development through improved

design aspects rather than outright refusal” (Fife).

7.13 Third, a role was evident for what has been termed “designation stacking”. This is

where a given area has several designations (national and local) attached to it which

together send an important negative signal to potential developers. This phenomenon was

commonly found in urban authorities where pressures for residential development were at

their greatest and indicated perceived vulnerability, particularly affecting the green belt

designation. For example, Aberdeen City saw the LLDs as a response to a feeling that areas

of Green Belt were vulnerable as they were too large and because they failed to reflect the

ideas of landscape setting and prevent settlement coalescence. This is interesting in that

here LLDs were being used to strengthen a statutory designation set within a new agenda of

community priorities and sense of place. However, in Edinburgh, while they had several

34

designations affecting a particular landscape, they felt that “….each designation was made

for different reasons and therefore would be called upon for different issues in planning and

development control, so consequently there is no conflict or unnecessary duplication”. This

contrasted with the more rural areas such as that of North Ayrshire Council for which the

overlapping designations (both LLD and statutory) were considered to be stifling

development.

7.14 Fourth, LLDs were seen by a limited number of authorities as a vehicle for community

involvement in landscape management, which reflected the need for local people to be

actively involved in the designation process itself. Here the local authority acted as a

facilitator rather than imposer. The case of Shetland is particularly interesting; following

extensive public involvement exercises some 73 areas were identified by the local

community as worthy of protection: “….the justification is that these areas are not protected

by statutory designation but regarded by [the] local community as worthy of protection

(wildlife, wild flowers, open space, local historic interest)” (Shetland). Planning for Real type

workshops had to be used specifically for this purpose. It is noteworthy that only in

Aberdeen City as part of the Green Space network plan for Areas of Landscape Significance

had any such targeted consultation occurred.

7.15 Fifth, LLDs were seen as negotiation tools where local authorities saw their principal

use as a means to get developers to come to the table to modify or relocate proposals within

informal discussions. In this situation their key strength was the flexibility to get developers

to refine or modify proposals including withdrawal: “…it provides the council with a good base

for negotiations based on landscape studies that have been done by the structure plan” (East

Ayrshire). The examples we uncovered showed the importance of informal negotiations

which by their very nature lay outside the formal planning system. This is an area of

significant research potential.

35

7.16 The final role of LLDs was more aspirational in nature and confined to two authorities

who saw the potential for LLDs to act as positive tools for rural development. Here, the aim

was to reverse the more negative assumptions associated with designations by using them

in a more celebratory aspect, perhaps to secure funds for rural tourism initiatives and

projects and to maximise economic benefits.

7.17 When comparing the stated/recorded officer responses to roles of LLDs to the agreed

policies towards LLDs some interesting issues arise. Not surprisingly most roles were

explicit in policy albeit with the exception of the negotiation and rural development roles.

7.18 By far the greatest policy focus was on the more protective policies. Quite often LLDs

were mentioned in policies associated with other national landscape designations. For

example Aberdeenshire’s local plan policy (ENV5) draws heavily on maintaining sense of

place and identity where:

Development within or adjacent to a National Scenic Area or Area of Landscape Significance will not be permitted where its scale, location or design will detract from the quality or character of the landscape, either in part or as a whole….In all cases the highest standards of design, in terms of location, scale, siting, aesthetics and landscaping, will be required within National Scenic Areas and Areas of Landscape Significance.

7.19 Edinburgh South East local plan policy GE5 provides a more succinct definition

focusing on protecting the interest and qualities that led to the designation:

In the Area of Great Landscape Value as shown on the Proposals Map, permission will not be granted for development which would materially detract from the intrinsic scenic interest and qualities of the landscape.

7.20 This issue of protection is given some pragmatic context in the plan for Perth and

Kinross (Policy 12), where the concept of “operational need” is used to clarify when LLD

might be overridden. In such aspects here it is interesting to compare this with the Silkin test

for national parks (England and Wales only) where, surprisingly, there is little difference

apparent.

36

7.21 Fife Council (Coupar and Howe of Fife) local plan policy (COU 4) provides a good

example of the landscape enhancement function:

Within an AGLV, development which is supported under other policies in this Local Plan must maintain or enhance the character of the landscape through the highest standards of design and finish.

7.22 Glasgow’s local plan policy (ENV8) favours this approach too, but with added criteria

to guide acceptable development and aftercare aspects.

There will be a presumption against any development likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity or character of a SSLI. Notwithstanding the above, when proposals come forward within any SSLI they will only be considered favourably provided they meet all the following criteria: (i) development proposals should be consistent with the Plan’s other development policies and environmental policy designations; (ii) development proposals must be of a high quality design and include associated landscape works appropriate to the character of the surrounding area and in scale with the development; (iii) proposals must include details of methods to be adopted, including legal agreements etc., to guarantee future maintenance arrangements; and (iv) proposals must be shown in the context of the SSLI and demonstrate that they enhance established landscape character and visual amenity.

7.23 Other authorities, as in the case of East Ayrshire’s local plan policy (ENV 11), contain

elements of both protective and enhancement roles within the same policy.

Within the Sensitive Landscape Character Areas identified on the Local Plan maps, the Council will give priority and prime consideration to the protection and enhancement of the landscape in the consideration of rural development proposals. The Council will not be supportive of development which would create unacceptable visual intrusion or irreparable damage within these areas and will be supportive of development proposals only where these positively enhance or protect the natural landscape, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area or promote the social and economic well-being of communities.

7.24 The community involvement role is well illustrated in Shetland Council’s local plan

policy (NE11) which states:

Where an area has been identified (community led through planning for real exercises) on the Map as a Local Protection Area, only applications for the development of facilities, which benefit the community as a whole, will be considered.

37

7.25 Within the Western Isles policy (RM10) there is potential to create LLDs or any

designation that comes from the community themselves. Consequently, they will become

purely reactive designations driven by the local community for the local community. Here

then the policy could be described as prospective rather than an explicit policy that seeks to

promote LLDs in any substantive way as was the case in Shetland and Aberdeenshire.

7.26 These different roles as stated in policy terms are interesting when compared against

contemporary planning policies for the wider countryside which commonly have a range of

criteria to ensure appropriate types of development as well as endorsing the generally

accepted principle of restraint in the countryside. Inverclyde’s policy (DS9) is typical and

extremely protective in outlook.

Development within the countryside will be permitted only where it can be supported with reference to the following criteria: (a) it is required for the purpose of agriculture and forestry; (b) it is a recreation, leisure or tourism proposal which is appropriate for the countryside and contributes to the social and economic development of the area; (c) there is a specific locational requirement for the use and it cannot be accommodated on an alternative site; (d) it entails appropriate re-use of traditional and/or vacant buildings which it would be desirable to retain for their historic or architectural character; or (e) it forms part of an establishment or institution standing in extensive grounds; and (f) it does not adversely impact on the landscape character; (g) it does not adversely impact on the natural heritage resource; (h) there is a need for additional land for development purposes, provided it takes account of the requirements of the Structure Plan and; (i) it complies with other relevant Local Plan policies.

7.27 Such policies, at face value, raise important questions as to the validity and

additionality of LLDs, if these criteria are used consistently. This argument is particularly

valid in the case of Highland Council. Policy 2.1 of the Highland’s Council Wester Ross

Local Plan (Deposit draft with modifications) defines AGLV designations as of local/regional

importance and developments will therefore be allowed if there is no unacceptable impact.

In areas of low sensitivity we will assess developments for their effects on any relevant interests. We will allow them if we believe that they will not have an unreasonable effect, particularly where it can be shown that it will support communities in fragile areas who are having difficulties in keeping their population and services.

38

7.28 Midlothian Council (Shawfair) local plan policy (RP7) reflects some authorities’

changing positions on the value of LLDs where they have favoured a landscape character

route.

Development will not be permitted where it may adversely affect the quality of the local landscape. Where development is acceptable it shall respect the local landscape character and contribute towards its maintenance and enhancement. New developments shall incorporate proposals to: A. maintain the local diversity and distinctiveness of landscape character including natural and built heritage features of landscape value such as woodland, hedges, ponds, stone walls and historical sites; and B. enhance landscape characteristics where they have been weakened and need improvement.

Designation issues

7.29 Given the extent of LLDs across Scotland, issues to do with the process and rigour of

designation are important, as reflected in the initial guidance by the Scottish Office in the

1960s. However, the methods and approaches used to define LLDs, past, present and

future reveal clear differences with respect to transparency, policy guidance and rigour that

seriously challenge their credibility and utility at least within a historical perspective (Table 5).

Approach Original Present/Proposed Unknown 9 2 Internal method 5 5 External consultants 0 6 Landscape Character Assessment

0 8*

Use previous boundaries as defaults for new plans

- 5

No LLDs - 9

Table 5: Approaches to LLD designation

7.30 Looking at the original LLDs designated during the 1960s, it is clear that most were

previously designated on criteria that were unclear or unknown. Many officers merely

accepted these “inherited” designations which were carried forward into development plans,

without any review or modification, on the basis that they “seemed to be working”.

39

Undoubtedly, local government re-organisations in 1973 and 1996 had led to loss of records

and key staff, but the presumptions of value and success were quite surprising. Indeed,

many officers recognised this inheritance as a fundamental weakness when using LLDs in

planning casework or at public inquiry. In such instances officers preferred to use the

Landscape Character Assessment to defend an application. In Aberdeen City the

development of a Landscape Strategy has also helped justify the importance of areas under

planning threat.

7.31 For many local authorities they still have to use extant planning policies and

subsequent designations inherited from as far back as the 1950s and 60s without the

necessary resources to undertake any systematic review, apart from the most basic internal

assessment as part of the development plan process (Table 5).

7.32 Turning to the contemporary situation, there is considerable variety in the approaches

being adopted and the appearance of external consultants indicates that authorities are

increasingly trying out their own approaches and methodologies for LLD, although this is on

an ad hoc basis. Furthermore, the national coverage of landscape character assessment by

Scottish Natural Heritage has been used by local authorities and external consultants as a

baseline on which to append more sophisticated landscape assessments which could

support or replace LLDs.

7.33 Increasingly, capacity studies primarily for settlement expansion and wind farm

developments have been undertaken (Fife Council, 2004). These studies are proactive and

identify developments that are likely to contribute to the character and creative development

of the settlement whilst those characteristics of the existing landscape which contribute to the

setting, character and quality of the environment of the settlement are maintained (Box 3).

Landscape capacity assessment also helps identify where and why development would be

visually intrusive in the landscape, or detrimental to significant landscape characteristics, the

40

scenic quality or the distinctive attributes of the existing settlement. They are, however,

currently directed towards sectoral topics and conceptual work would be required to enable

the linkage of such studies for the same geographical area.

41

Impacts Table: Cupar East Small Fields Undulating Strath North Facing Slopes Landscape Character and Scenic Quality

Neutral Although development is likely to be limited by potential flood risk, these enclosed fields are well contained while still being close to the town centre. The intimate character lends itself to development within woodland which will further enhance the sense of enclosure.

Negative The rural character and scenic quality of this landscape would be compromised by development. In addition, this area is perceptually very detached from Cupar. The exception is Baless Hill which forms a self contained hill with well defined edges. Development here would require earthmoving, which would be intrusive, and would require planting to enhance setting.

Negative Development here would impact on enclosing and containing slopes which define the extent of Cupar to the south, although the area is not of a particularly high scenic quality. The exception is the contained filed in front of Tarvt Farm steading which could be developed if the design featured the farm as the dominant design feature and respected its prominence.

Settlement Form

Neutral Development would be within the compact form of the settlement, although the perception of seclusion means that this area feels detached from the settlement core despite the relative physical proximity.

Negative Development would elongate the settlement considerably and extend it away from the historic core: development over much of this area would be detached from Cupar. The exception would be Balass Hill, which offers the opportunity for development while maintaining the compact settlement form.

Negative Development extending significantly up these slopes would elongate the settlement form and significantly compromise the robust relationship between the settlement and low lying land. The exception is the field at Tarvit Farm steading which is related to low lying land.

Landscape Setting

Neutral Development here would relate to a low lying and contained area and would not impinge on the areas of higher scenic quality surrounding Cupar, or the hills which provide the backdrop.

Negative Development would impact on the scenic quality of the wider setting of Cupar: the sculptural undulations are particularly susceptible to development.

Negative These slopes are an extension of the enclosing slopes and highly visible rural backdrop along the southern edge of Cupar.

Sense of Arrival

Neutral The present existing sense of arrival is particularly robust, although there are other opportunities along the B940 to define an equally significant sense of arrival.

Neutral The existing sense of arrival is particularly robust, although there are other opportunities along the B940 to define an equally significant sense of arrival, notable Balass Den.

Negative The existing sense of arrival is particularly robust and would be compromised by extending development across these slopes adjacent to the approach roads. The field at Tarvit Farm does not impinge on arrival.

Settlement Edge

Neutral The existing settlement edge relates to the park and River Eden, but equally robust alternatives are available, including the railway and the road.

Neutral The robust settlement edge, reinforced by the high wall of Tarvit farm would be lost if development extended eastwards, but the road itself and Balass Den provided robust alternatives.

Negative Development would impact upon the enclosing slopes which contain he settlement and define its distinct relationship with the lying valley. The exception is the field at Tarvit Farm steading which is related to low lying land.

Views and Visual Features

Neutral Development here would be well related to lower land but highly visible along the roadside of the B940.

Neutral Much of the strath is highly visible from elevated viewpoints, but it is all low lying and therefore visually linked to existing settlement location. Balass Hill, although not high, is relatively prominent.

Negative Development along these slopes would be highly visible and reduce the visual evidence of a compact settlement focused on low lying ground, as well as visually intruding onto the backdrop of Cupar.

Box 3: Extract from Cupar Capacity study (Fife Council (204: 33) 7.34 Many planners see capacity studies as giving them greater confidence to defend their

designation/policies when called upon to do so. This was particularly evident with

contemporary pressures for wind farm developments.

42

7.35 Table 5 reveals six authorities who currently do not use LLDs (practical rather than

statutory given extant policies) and three further authorities who have decided not to use any

LLDs in the future. Instead, assessments of landscape character/capacity will be used to

protect and enhance landscape management with only statutory national landscape

designations in operation. In this context supplementary studies of landscape and settlement

capacity have become the new tools (Supplementary Planning Guidance) to guide future

development.

Assessment

7.36 The interviews and documentary evidence from SNH consultations revealed positive

and negative arguments advanced towards the current operation of LLDs. Significantly, no

clear consensus emerged across the authorities as to their overall value and future, which in

itself poses something of a problem. This was reinforced by the different policy shifts in

evidence with authorities maintaining the status quo, re-defining or abandoning LLDs.

However, all of this activity was based, for the most part, on inadequate presumptions of their

performance. The positive and negative points raised are summarised and explained in turn.

7.37 A summary of the strengths is presented in Table 6:

Strengths N % Extra defence vs. development 21 33% Flexible local tool 8 13% Improve decision making 7 11% Design tool 2 3% Clarity 4 6% Support national policy 1 2% Identify/protect 'best' landscapes

8 13%

Improve understanding/awareness

5 8%

Promote tourism 1 2% No strengths 6 9% Total references to 'strengths'

63 100%

Table 6: Strengths of LLDs (planning interviews (2005) and SNH consultation responses (2004))

43

7.38 Defence (i.e. of authority positions) and protective functions clearly dominated the

profile of responses (33%). Here, authorities valued LLDs as a particularly useful means of

protecting sensitive landscapes. As the following quote indicates, they were seen as an

additional ‘comfort factor’ where that extra protection was a valuable tool when developments

threatened.

“Provides another layer of protection. Enforcing the power to protect certain areas. Gives comfort; it is better to have them rather than to lose them”.

7.39 A similar theme is detectable in Aberdeenshire where there was an implicit

assumption that “it is a reasonable designation perceived to be accepted and respected by

developers”. In this case the protective function was seen to be successful in diverting

developments away from the areas concerned.

7.40 In several urban authorities there was concern that the maintenance and protection of

sense of place was not adequately provided for in any statutory designations. In particular,

the green belt was seen as a negative landscape management tool and LLDs had a valuable

and unique role to play in helping protect the sense of place in a more positive manner. An

example of an objection of AGLV designation in Edinburgh provides a useful case in point:

That leaves the effect on landscape setting. As was apparent from our site visit, the site makes a significant contribution to the green belt because of its location next to the Hermitage of Braid and the foot of Blackford Hill. We agree with CEC and many of those who support retention of the site in the green belt that the site has the effect of extending the countryside into the city, forming a transition between Blackford Hill and the residential areas of Midmar Drive and Hermitage Drive. The landscape and topography in this area are of considerable visual interest, consisting of the wooded Hermitage of Braid, linking, in a single unbroken vista, through the Midmar Drive paddock to the backdrop of Blackford Hill. The 2 copses of mature trees also materially help the character and landscape of the locality. Given these factors, we find that the site makes a significant contribution to the landscape setting of the city, and we have concerns that development for housing, or possibly as a caravan park, would have a significantly adverse effect” (South Edinburgh Local Plan Inquiry: 2003 5.5)

7.41 The value of LLDs as a flexible tool applicable locally (a point made by 13% of

planning respondents) is well demonstrated in the following excerpts which show subtle,

44

imaginative and individual variations in the way the LLD tool was used and perceived by key

authorities.

7.42 In Orkney the AGLVs and the Areas of Local Landscape Character were reported as

being effective “because of the way that they tended to build development around them, in

them, rather than object to it”. In Shetland, they “are locally agreed and not centrally

imposed”, while for Dumfries, “they play an important role in control of development in areas

of local distinctiveness that would not meet the definition of a statutory designation”. In Fife

the view was that LLDs provided the “linking from a planning tool to a wider context of

proactive input into countryside management approaches across a wider range of policy

sectors” whilst in Highland it was felt that the “National Scenic Areas were biased towards

certain types of landscapes so the AGLVs could be used to redress this imbalance”.

7.43 The table also reveals the importance of LLDs as a tool for protecting the most valued

landscapes (13%). Here, there was an implicit assumption underlying many responses that

the rest of the countryside was somehow vulnerable to economic development and whilst

there were general policies commanding restraint in the wider countryside they were rarely

able to compete with the economic and social imperatives.

7.44 Closely associated with this was this notion of security, where a line drawn round a

map made it easier for landscape arguments to be upheld in development control decision

making (11%). This is an important consideration given the widespread perception that local

authority committees were not particularly sensitive to landscape issues except for those

areas which were clearly delineated. So, a line drawn on a map actually meant something.

Within the wider countryside, however, the landscape argument would carry less weight

simply because there was no line. This then plcwes a crucial question over where and how

the line is drawn.

45

7.45 It is interesting to note how few responses drew attention to the accolade role for

LLDs as tools for rural development and social capacity building. This is seen as a key

aspect of the SNH/HS guidance (2005) but clearly has yet to be fully appreciated and

operationalised.

Weaknesses

7.46 This section of the report starts with a general discussion of several strategic

landscape concerns affecting Scotland which have significant implications for the effective

use and acceptability of LLDs as planning tools.

7.47 The first crucial point arising from the interviews was a widespread and general

concern regarding the lack of priority given to landscape matters in Council decision making,

particularly when faced with competing priorities such as economic development. For

example, in the Western Isles it was accepted that economic development priorities shaped

the pragmatic approach that had to be taken towards landscape matters which were more

about mitigation and enhancement rather than refusal. Similar views were encountered in

North Lanarkshire, Highland, Renfrewshire and Aberdeenshire.

7.48 Many authorities commented on the lack of resources for developing/reviewing a

landscape strategy or for progressing the Landscape Character Assessment approach,

which was felt to be too descriptive to aid their specific landscape evaluation requirements.

Renfrewshire provides a good illustration of this as currently they do not possess a

landscape strategy, yet they have a nature conservation strategy with widespread use of

local Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCS). Here it was believed that the

resulting designation methods and criteria gave a degree of confidence to their use and

acceptability as planning tools in a way that landscape considerations currently do not. This

gap between landscape and nature conservation is illuminating in that the “science” of nature

conservation appears much more developed and acceptable than that of landscape.

46

7.49 In several authorities a powerful critique was made over the way elected members

were less likely to take a strategic overview towards landscape considerations simply

because they tended to be too tied into their local situation.

7.50 There was also a strong theme emerging from the perceived urban discrimination

suffered by the current operation of landscape designations more generally. Both North

Lanarkshire and Aberdeen City presented strong arguments lamenting how landscape

designations protected large tracts of remote rural landscape and, by so doing, allowed

urban landscapes to be eroded, despite the fact that most people’s experience of landscape

on a daily basis was in those local landscapes. Their perceptions were that these

imbalances had not been adequately recognised in LLDs or planning policy to date. This

was further complicated by the widespread view that the Green Belt designation was not

seen as a landscape designation and therefore needed re-inventing quite often through the

use of LLDs, although recent progress on the greenspace initiative was seen as welcome.

7.51 Many of these arguments can be logically extended into wider criticism at the lack of

guidance from SNH about improved methods, tools and criteria for valuing landscapes. This

suggests that the landscape agenda in Scotland needs substantial re-invigoration at all levels

if it is to be given the prominence that it requires. The current failure of the UK government

to sign up to the European Landscape Convention is a clear symptom of this problem which

is not just confined to Scotland.

7.52 Turning to LLDs specifically, a summary of the weaknesses is presented in table 7:

47

Weakness No % Weak designation process 10 17% Inconsistencies between authorities 6 10% Devalue wider landscape 4 7% Too broad & widespread 7 12% Countryside policy is sufficient 2 3% Ineffective tools 19 31% Not understood, not known 8 13% Lack of resources, difficult to manage 4 7% Total references to 'weaknesses' 60 100%

Table 7: Weaknesses of the LLD (planning interviews (2005) and SNH consultation responses (2004))

7.53 The most commonly cited weakness was their perceived ineffectiveness (31%), in

part reflecting the more general concern reported above with the inadequate way landscape

matters were treated and the overall lack of impact of LLDs in development control matters.

In North Lanarkshire, for example, there was concern at the way, over time, piecemeal

housing development in the AGLV had eroded the very landscape qualities that had led to its

designation. Here the issue of precedence was seen as a problem in preventing further

encroachments.

7.54 In particular, issues surrounding the process of the original LLD designation attracted

a further 17% of responses which, as previously stated, led to perceived shortfalls in their

overall credibility and legitimacy as defendable planning tools. Lack of rigour in boundary

selection had also led to some nonsensical LLDs covering built development and housing

estates, as in the case of Aberdeenshire. Even with this knowledge there had been no

boundary amendments to expel these anomalies due to resource constraints.

7.55 The lack of awareness of LLDs amongst developers and the general public (13%)

was a significant concern of officers. Responses were encountered that acknowledged that

people did not know about LLDs in their area and that the public had rarely made any

comments or objections to them. We can even report that in some planning authorities the

planners themselves were unaware of the designations that were LLDs!

48

7.56 Boundary issues were also crucial in revealing the universal lack of co-operation with

neighbouring authorities on LLD designation and operationalisation. Undoubtedly this has

led to an ad hoc, inconsistent and fragmented approach where strategic landscape

management was conspicuous by its absence (10%). Here the “borrowed landscapes” issue

was seen as particularly significant as some developments in a neighbouring authority would

have an impact across the border. Our findings revealed that only on matters such as

regional parks and green belts were there any strategic partnerships and formal consultation

protocols. This is a point echoed in Shetland, where the benefits of local community action in

selecting the designations has a downside in that the 73 areas identified are very small with

all the resulting problems of dealing with wider landscape issues.

7.57 The issue of their extensive national coverage was also seen as a weakness (12%).

Some local authority planners make the point that if designation becomes a ubiquitous tool,

all designations ultimately become irrelevant and you lose the advantage of such planning

tools in the first place. Their ultimate survival actually depends on a form of elitism:

There is a danger of designating everything, and this would lead to a devaluation of designations.

7.58 This critique ties in with an interrelated idea that such designations have negative

impacts on the wider countryside itself, as those areas left undesignated were seen as

essentially “green lights” for development activity.

7.59 In Glasgow a more fundamental challenge was issued reflecting the emerging tension

of landscape character assessment versus the need for landscape designations: “Why do we

need LLDs when we have Landscape Character Assessment?” Conversely, other planners

were far more cautious and concerned about the loss of LLDs, even when their own authority

had actually decided to abandon them apparently without such information being

communicated.

49

7.60 The lack of consensus over the role and value of the local designation is interesting

and suggests that at present landscape policy is something of a political football: can we look

to the recent SNH/HS guidance and see a way of sharpening up the LLD tool, or has it now

outlived its usefulness?

50

8 Discussion 8.1 Current national planning policy guidance, as evidenced through PAN 60 alongside

other stakeholder agency views with respect to use of LLDs in Scotland, tries to engender a

more positive and strategic role for LLDs, mindful that they should not prevent and restrict

development (Scottish Executive, 2005). The research findings reported here reveal variable

efforts to achieve this in practice. The lack of positive or strategic considerations in

development plan policies was of concern given the near completion of the current round of

local plan preparation. The lack of consistency and overall justification with regard to LLD

designation, use and evaluation seriously questions any re-invention of the LLD in line with

PAN 60 statements. More worryingly, there was a pragmatic and localised agenda in

evidence which suggested that LLDs were being used as a check against unrestrained

pressures for development in sensitive areas of countryside as oppose to landscape

enhancement roles.

8.2 Within local authorities themselves, the amount of negative criticism directed at LLDs

gained from the interviews and documentary evidence does challenge any automatic

assumption for their continued existence in their present form. Consequently, it seems

somewhat surprising that the recent SNH/HS guidance (2005) does not discuss these

negative concerns in more detail, particularly given the significant resourcing and awareness

raising issues required to make LLDs work in line with their proposals. Furthermore, all this

has to be set against a landscape agenda in Scotland which has taken something of a back

seat in policy debates and deliberations over recent years.

8.3 Indeed, this research in Scotland uniquely picked up on the wider theme of neglect of

landscape matters with particular ramifications for the way LLDs have been operationalised,

and perhaps begins to explain their somewhat idiosyncratic presence in the armoury of

planning departments. At the heart of this lies the question of how much priority landscape

51

matters are currently given in the Scottish planning system? We encountered real concern

that the landscape agenda in Scotland has been derailed and is in urgent need of

revitalisation; its absence from the recent planning white paper fuels our concern. Notably in

Wales, LANDMAP has provided a new framework for landscape assessment and evaluation

that is currently absent in Scotland. A common theme in the interviews was the hope that

SNH would provide a more useful landscape tool that would address the vexed issue of

landscape value (Scott, 2003). Currently, landscape arguments tend to carry little weight in

development control casework as these analytical frameworks are missing. The recent

publications of capacity studies are an important exception here, but currently only two of

these are in the public domain and their overall utility remains untested.

8.4 The case of Renfrewshire illuminates this problem starkly. Their planning committee

have strong political support for SINCS, a local nature conservation designation abundant

throughout the authority area which have been designated based on site research with

robust criteria and principles for site inclusion. Indeed, these designations were seen as key

mechanisms for delivering landscape objectives indirectly through nature conservation

policy. Whilst this is a useful by-product of the SINC designation, the wider reluctance to

embrace and grasp landscape issues more directly is a serious concern. This is all the more

revealing when the number of local authorities with landscape architects is surprisingly low.

At this juncture it is important to note the differing historical and legislative contexts for nature

conservation which benefits from the Nature Conservation Act biodiversity duty and the

championing of nature conservation activities by NGOs. Landscape has yet to capture the

policy and public attention.

8.5 This context is important in helping to explain why most authorities saw these

designations as fulfilling an additional, protective, role. There was clear evidence that the

designation did serve a valuable purpose as an additional layer to protect countryside,

seemingly under continuous threat of further development. The power and simplicity of a line

52

on a map with its associated policy constraint was seen as a major factor which could help

resist development pressure and simplify decision making for planning committees in such

areas. Implicit within our discussions with planning officers was the perception that policies

for the wider countryside were not being successfully operated. Reasons for this were

complex, but it was clear that the methods and tools available for landscape assessment and

evaluation were not that widespread in local authorities and compared unfavourably with

those for nature conservation. Furthermore, the political dimension had a crucial bearing on

decisions affecting landscape matters. Elected officials had to balance competing priorities

when any development was proposed, and it was clear that economic and social priorities

could easily overwhelm objections on landscape grounds alone. Consequently, a line on a

map was seen as a strong symbol which everybody could understand. Assessing the LLDs

outside this institutional context is artificial and misleading, and it is clear that planners and

SNH staff supporting LLDs see the designation as a pragmatic response to the realities and

politics of contemporary town and country planning. Other studies have clearly highlighted a

political dimension but there is a wider question of whether it is the designation per se that

has any material effect on the types of decision taken or the planning committee (Scott and

Bullen, 2004).

8.6 However, this study also found evidence that LLDs were perceived as weak, which

challenged any simple validation of their role as landscape protectors. In such respects, the

often expressed view that the designation process itself was devaluing the very landscapes

they were seeking to protect was an important consideration. LLDs cover extensive areas of

Scotland (Figure 2) and this coverage tends to reduce the effectiveness of the term

“special”, although this figure is due to fall given the current round of local plan formulation.

8.7 What remains untested and critical is the extent to which such designations are

effective and actually divert developers away from submitting proposals in particular areas.

This effect is unclear and under-researched, and our current evidence is purely anecdotal,

53

but some authorities certainly believed that there was a disincentive effect. The next phase

of LLD research (subject to funding) will interview developers to uncover the extent of this

disincentive effect, as well as the extent to which informal discussions, at the inception of

planning ideas, play a role in mediating or deflecting unsuitable developments elsewhere.

8.8 The other roles identified for LLD: landscape enhancement, negotiation, social and

economic development, were more in keeping with the spirit of national guidance but were

less in evidence in planning practice. Certainly there was evidence of them being used to

impose planning conditions on a whole suite of applications but this was quite often

contextualised within the theme of mitigation rather than landscape enhancement. This is

problematic as enhancement by its very nature could impose extra costs on a developer who

would then likely appeal, with a good chance of success. North Lanarkshire provides an

example of an application for a medieval park attraction through which landscaping

conditions played a key role in securing landscape mitigation. However, the extent to which

wider countryside policies could achieve identical goals is applicable here.

8.9 All this suggests that national guidance needs to be more forthcoming about how the

more positive roles can be achieved as opposed to the observed negative roles. Re-

conceptualising them as potential tools for economic and social development does, on the

face of it, represent an excellent idea which has only really captured the imagination of three

authorities to date, and significantly all have had problems with their operationalisation.

Clearly, suiting and adapting this to local circumstances is a key consideration.

8.10 Indeed, it is the issue of flexibility which was seen by planners as a key strength of

the designation. Planners in Edinburgh made a strong argument that as long as

designations had a well defined purpose at a local level, there could be a range developed to

suit local circumstances, each having their own unique and collective contribution to make in

development control matters.

54

SNH/HS guidance

8.11 It is clear from our discussions that the current round of SNH consultations on

landscape led to raised expectations within local authorities. There was a clear groundswell

of opinion from planners and landscape officers for improved tools for landscape evaluation

and assessment that could be applied to the planning process to improve issues of

consistency, transparency and strategic planning as well as raise the profile of landscape

more generally. The SNH/HS (2005) guidance, in our view, never set out to deliver this,

focussing as it does on LLD processes but there is a clear conceptual gap in landscape

matters that does need addressing urgently. However, the guidance for LLDs does impose a

significant burden on local authorities as they have to develop their own evaluation

frameworks with variable skills and available resources in landscape analysis and evaluation

across Scottish local authorities.

8.12 In its defence, the guidance does make clear reference to the kind of criteria that

could be used in LLD designation and that it must stand up to close inspection under cross

examination. It also lays out guidelines for regular boundary reviews and community

consultation. Our findings showed that such processes were largely absent and suggest that

there is considerable work to do, especially with regard to the more strategic considerations

of cross boundary working.

8.13 Perhaps most interesting, in the context of the SNH/HS (2005) guidance was the

focus on the protective and enhancement role of LLDs through their interrelated components

as accolades, policy and management tools. At present it is clear that authorities operate

this in an ad hoc and inconsistent way, adopting all or part of these components according to

their situation, although the accolade element was rarely encountered. However, if all LLDs

had to address all these roles explicitly there might be a more “joined-up” and positive

55

approach to their use, and management which in itself would help distinguish them from

other designations and meet PAN 60 guidelines. In particular, the more positive aspects of

the designation as an economic and social development tool could appeal to the economic

and community development departments, thereby improving intra-authority working and

synergies. If this approach were then directly linked to policies in development plans and

resulting management practices through conditions and/or management plans/agreements,

some elements of additionality would begin to emerge.

8.14 However, this reveals the classic dilemma which is well exposed in the case of

Aberdeen City. Here they have proposed Areas of Landscape Significance an LLD

encapsulating this more joined-up approach to the designation as well as innovative

approaches towards its positive management. In theory, these areas are to be defined by

the local community based on attachment and sense of place within the existing Green

Space network designation and then, by using Section 75 agreements resulting from nearby

developments, provide a fund for positive landscape enhancement schemes. Unfortunately

the scheme has not yet been implemented due to delays in local plan delivery and lack of

resources (physical and human). It is this lack of resources that has stifled the translation of

innovative thinking into planning practice and frozen some authorities into merely carrying

over existing designations and policy in previous plans as a quick, cheap and efficient fix.

This is a pragmatic and understandable response but it fails to address the changing nature

and significant resource implications of a new landscape agenda. It does point out the need

to fund such projects, particularly if they can be used as models of good practice.

8.15 However, the absence of evaluation mechanisms makes it somewhat problematic to

presume that all these roles can only be met, and indeed are best met, through the

designation label. For example, wider countryside policy based on a range of criteria, as

evidenced in Inverclyde’s planning policy, might achieve the same outcome as any

designation, a hypothesis which again is to be subjected to further research. Issues to do

56

with community development implying a wider economic and social development role were

poorly represented in contemporary planning practice, yet seen as important in the SNH/HS

(2005) guidance. Only by taking a more innovative approach, backed up with the necessary

resources, can these goals be realised. In the few authorities where this had occurred,

problems of resources (Aberdeenshire) and lack of strategic management (73 separate

areas designated in Shetland) showed the need for wider support and advice.

8.16 In the guidance, LLDs are seen to have a useful role to play in landscape protection

and enhancement and their continued existence is supported without question. In the

authors’ view this is where the guidance fails to acknowledge the current lack of credibility

regarding landscape matters more generally across Scotland. Whilst there is clear steer on

the kinds of criteria and processes that can be used, there is little on the mechanisms to do

this or recognition of the considerable resource implications and education necessary to

allow more informed landscape considerations to occur. The transaction costs of revitalising

the landscape agenda in Scotland are seen as high and do need to be acknowledged.

8.17 The findings from Scotland reported here mirror those by Scott and Bullen (2004) in

their work in Wales. Together they present a compelling case for a thorough review of LLDs

based on evidence of policy (presented in this report) and practice (only addressed through

planning officer perceptions and not development control analyses). This is where further

research is planned that looks at development control casework, past and present, to gauge

how far the tool delivers what its protagonists claim.

57

9 Conclusions and Further Research

9.1 The primary conclusions emerging from this report are listed below in bullet point form

so as to provide a concise summary. They have been broken down into general, strategic

landscape and LLD considerations.

General

9.2 In general the findings in Scotland replicate those encountered in Wales, confirming

that LLDs are somewhat schizophrenic characters in the planning system. The research

neither refutes nor confirms their value as planning tools and indeed raises more questions

than answers both at strategic and local levels.

9.3 In many ways their different nomenclature, combined with lack of priority, overall

understanding and resources devoted towards them, means that they are not receiving

sufficient attention to maximise their potential.

Strategic Landscape considerations

9.4 Landscape issues in Scotland are in need of urgent re-energisation. Currently

development control decisions lack suitable landscape evaluation tools to raise the profile of

landscape matters and consequently they tend to be outweighed by economic, social and

nature conservation arguments.

9.5 National guidance is urgently needed to provide a consistent framework for landscape

considerations in planning matters. Whilst the policies might be well conceived, their

implementation is currently problematic.

9.6 Such a landscape agenda demands increased resources and training. In particular the

current LCA guidance needs updating.

58

Local Landscape Considerations

9.7 There is no clear consensus over the value and efficacy of LLDs. Currently there is an

ad hoc approach within authorities which reflects contrasting attitudes: maintaining the status

quo, reviewing boundaries, developing new LLDs, or abandoning them.

9.8 LLDs are a flexible tool with a wide range of potential and actual uses across both

urban and rural contexts. However, the extent to which any additionality, over and above the

wider countryside policies, might be provided is debatable and needs further research.

9.9 LLDs are subject to significant local authority insularity with a clear reluctance to

consider their boundaries across authorities and to engage in partnership working to improve

landscape coherence and planning at more strategic levels.

9.10 LLDs are primarily seen as control mechanisms rather than positive mechanisms within

the planning process. A possible re-focus on more positive aspects might be one way to

ensure additionality.

9.11 LLDs are seen as one way to address the problems inherent in par 9.2. Here their role

as protective blankets implicitly acknowledges that the current policies of restraint for the

wider countryside are not working.

9.12 There is extremely limited evidence that LLDs have any specific community

involvement or consultation other than normal statutory development plan considerations.

Given their local imperative this does seem a missed opportunity and the Local Nature

Reserve concept offers a useful model.

59

9.13 Many LLDs boundaries and existence are rooted in historical uncertainty which limits

their current credibility and accountability. It is therefore important that the boundaries are

reviewed using effective landscape methodologies and associated tools.

Next Steps

9.14 The immediate priority is to hold a dissemination conference with relevant stakeholders

to discuss the findings of this research. This is planned for September 28thth 2005 at the

Macaulay Institute.

9.15 This report has identified the need for further research on the effectiveness of LLDs, in

particular:

LLDs as diversionary tools

9.16 The extent to which LLDs actually divert development pressure in the first place has

not been researched. It is clear that developers should be interviewed to elicit the extent to

which the LLD label acts as a disincentive towards making planning applications in the first

place or whether it modifies their behaviour or decision making in any other substantive way.

9.17 Additionally there is a need to consider the impact of informal planning negotiations

and the extent to which such discussions affect planning applications in LLDs and the wider

countryside.

Analysis of development control data for LLDs and wider countryside using similar

planning applications

9.18 The research questioned the extent to which LLD objectives can be, or are being, met

through the operation of wider countryside policies. The perception we observed was that

policies for the wider countryside were relatively unsuccessful in preventing development

pressures. We hope to gain the cooperation of three urban and rural authorities to test these

60

findings using development control data. Here similar types of planning application for the

wider countryside and LLDs will be subjected to analysis to test for differences using a

similar approach to Scott’s (2001) study in Ceredigion. The use of several authorities will

allow inter-authority variation to be critically examined.

Recommendations for SNH and its partners

9.19 To use the guidance documents as a mechanism for achieving the positive aspects of

LLDs and re-defining additionality criteria that can be used across all planning authorities.

9.20 To re-energise the landscape agenda in Scotland through a new landscape strategy

exercise in Scotland covering all designations and the wider countryside (in conjunction with

the Scottish Executive)

9.21 To provide accessible guidance for the science, tools and techniques that local

authorities can use for landscape evaluation purposes.

9.22 To form a LLD working group to progress the matters in the guidance and further

developments in a strategic manner.

Recommendations for Local Authorities

9.23 To undertake a comprehensive review of LLDs following the issuing of SNH/HS

guidance. There should be a presumption against continuing with existing LLD boundaries if

there has been no up-to-date work to support them.

9.24 To re-evaluate LLDs with both positive and more control orientated functions.

9.25 To have dedicated public consultation on LLDs where they are envisaged in

development plan updates.

61

9.26 To instigate close working arrangements with neighbouring local authorities,

particularly where LLDs are in close proximity to such boundaries.

9.27 LLDs should be accompanied by concise citations which set out the qualities that led to

their identification, the characteristics which should be safeguarded or enhanced, and any

particular development factors

9.28 LLDs should also demonstrate community involvement and support and should be

more explicitly linked to economic and social development aspects of development plans.

62

10 References Anderson, M. A. (1981), ‘Planning policies and development control in the Sussex Downs AONB’, Town Planning Review, 52, 5–25. Bowen-Rees, I. (1995), Beyond National Parks, Consuming the Landscape of a Democratic Wales, Llandyssul, Gomer Press. Brotherton, i. (1982), ‘Development pressures and control in the National Parks 1966–81’, Town Planning Review, 53, 439–59. Burgess, J., Harrison, C. and Lumb, M. (1988) Exploring environmental values through medium of small groups. Environment and Planning A. (20) 309-326 Cobham Resource Consultants (1993), Review of Special Landscape Areas in Kent (Report for Kent County Council), Oxford, Cobham Resource Consultants. Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm Article 1 : Brussels EU Countryside Agency/Rural Development Commission (1998), Rural Development and Land Use Planning Policies (Research Notes RDR 38/S), Salisbury, Countryside Agency. Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002), Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland, Cheltenham/Edinburgh, Countryside Agency/Scottish Natural Heritage. Countryside Council for Wales (1996), The Welsh Landscape: A Policy Document, Bangor, CCW. Countryside Council for Wales) (1998), LANDMAP: The Landscape Assessment and Decision Making Process, Bangor, CCW. Countryside Council for Wales (2001), The LANDMAP Information System, Bangor, CCW. Department of the Environment (1992), The Countryside and Rural Economy (Planning Policy Guidance Note 7), London, HMSO. Department of the Environment (1997), The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (Planning Policy Guidance Note 7), London, HMSO. Fife County Council (2004) Landscape Capacity Assessment Cupar, Report to Fife Council. Gold, J.R. and Burgess, J. (eds) (1982), Valued Environments, London, George Allen & Unwin. Jones, L. (2002), ‘Special Landscape Areas in Wales’ (unpublished paper given to the Welsh Landscape Group), Cardiff, TACP Consultants. Nottingham University Consultants (2004) Haines-Young et al (2004) Countryside Quality Counts: Tracking Change in the English Countryside: Final Report http://www.countryside-quality-counts.org.uk/docs/CQC_Final_Report_Vol1.pdfaccessed 7th June2004 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (2003), The Countryside: Environmental Quality and

63

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm

Economic and Social Development (PPG 7 [1997], revised), http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/ppg/ppg7/04.htm Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Statement 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas London: ODPM O’Riordan, T. (1983), ‘Development and control of rural resources’ in B. Johnson (ed.), The Conservation and Development Programme for the UK: A Response to the World Conservation Strategy, London, Kogan Page, 191. Penning-Rowsell, E.C. (1982) A public preference evaluation of landscape quality. Regional Studies 16 (2), 97-112 Scott, A.J. (2001), ‘Special Landscape Areas: Their operation and effectiveness in Ceredigion, Wales’, Town Planning Review, 72, 469–80. Scott, A.J. (2002), ‘Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience’, Landscape Research, 27, 271–95. Scott, A.J. and Bullen, A. (2004)Special Landscape Areas: Landscape conservation or confusion in the town and country planning system, Town Planning Review 75 (2) 205-230 Scott, A.J and Falzon C (2005) Sustainable Landscape: Criteria and Indicators for Measuring and Characterizing the Landscape of Wales, report to the Countryside Council for Wales, Bangor, CCW.: Scottish Office (1962) 2/1962 Development Plans: Areas of Great Landscape Value and Tourist Development Proposals, Edinburgh: the Scottish Office Scottish Office (1998), National Planning Policy Guidelines 14: Natural Heritage’, Edinburgh, The Scottish Office. Scottish Executive (2000) Planning for Natural Heritage: Planning Advice Note 60 (PAN 60), Edinburgh, The Scottish Office Scottish Executive (2001) Natural Heritage http://www.scotland.gov.uk/about/Planning/nppg_14_naturalherit.aspx, Edinburgh, The Scottish Executive Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland (2005) Guidance on Local Landscape Designations, Final Report Battleby: Scottish Natural Heritage. Shoard, M. (1982a), ‘The lure of the moors’ in Gold and Burgess (eds), Valued Environments, London, George Allen & Unwin. 55–73. Shoard, M. (1982b), The Theft of the Countryside, London, Temple Smith. Swanwick C (2003) Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity. Landscape Character Assessment Guidance. Topic Paper 6. Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage Tapsell, S.M.(1995) River restoration: what are we restoring to? A case study of the Ravensbourne River London. Landscape Research 20 (3) 98-111

64

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/about/Planning/nppg_14_naturalherit.aspx

Welsh Assembly Government (2002), Planning Policy Wales, Cardiff, Welsh Assembly Government. Welsh Assembly Government (2004) What Kind of Countryside do You Want, report to Welsh Assembly Government Planning Division, Cardiff, Welsh Assembly Government.

65

11 Appendix 1 Local Authority spatial data © Copyright © Aberdeen City Council © Aberdeenshire Council © Argyll and Bute Council © Clackmannanshire Council © Dumfries & Galloway Council © East Ayrshire Council © East Dunbartonshire Council © East Lothian Council © Edinburgh City Council © Falkirk Council © Fife Environmental Recording Network 2004 © Glasgow City Council 2005 © Highland Council © Inverclyde Council © Midlothian Council © Moray Council © North Ayrshire Council © North Lanarkshire Council © Perth & Kinross Council © Scottish Borders Council © Shetland Islands Council © South Ayrshire Council © South Lanarkshire Council © Stirling Council

66

locallandscapes 29092005asfinal

Documents

local designations

local authorities

local landscapepriorities

status of local landscapes

landscape enhancement

local authority staff

local level itis

value scott